When A Cowboy Goes To War
The military goes to pot. Krugman writes that we have too few, yet too many, troops in Iraq:
...Our all-volunteer military is based on an implicit promise that those who serve their country in times of danger will also be able to get on with their lives. Full-time soldiers expect to spend enough time at home base to keep their marriages alive and see their children growing up. Reservists expect to be called up infrequently enough, and for short enough tours of duty, that they can hold on to their civilian jobs.To keep that promise, the Army has learned that it needs to follow certain rules, such as not deploying more than a third of the full-time forces overseas except during emergencies. The budget office analysis was based on those rules.
But the Bush administration, which was ready neither to look for a way out of Iraq nor to admit that staying there would require a much bigger army, simply threw out the rulebook. Regular soldiers are spending a lot more than a third of their time overseas, and many reservists are finding their civilian lives destroyed by repeated, long-term call-ups.
Two things make the burden of repeated deployments even harder to bear. One is the intensity of the conflict. In Slate, Phillip Carter and Owen West, who adjusted casualty figures to take account of force size and improvements in battlefield medicine (which allow more of the severely wounded to survive), concluded that "infantry duty in Iraq circa 2004 comes out just as intense as infantry duty in Vietnam circa 1966."
The other is the way in which the administration cuts corners when it comes to supporting the troops. From their foot-dragging on armoring Humvees to their apparent policy of denying long-term disability payments to as many of the wounded as possible, officials seem almost pathologically determined to nickel-and-dime those who put their lives on the line for their country.
Now, predictably, the supply of volunteers is drying up.
Sorry, why are we in Iraq?
> Sorry, why are we in Iraq?
To piss off the Saudis. And the Syrians, the Libyans, the Iranians, and other players to be named later.
> "Our all-volunteer military is based on
> an implicit promise..."
Says who? Your enchantment with Krugman is inexplicable. Complaining that infantry duty is too "intense" would be funny if it weren't so inane. One fears that the Olsen twins have given this generation a bad rap.
Crid at May 30, 2005 6:49 AM
Dying to make other countries mad is helpful how? I don't see Saudi Arabia becoming a democratic paradise -- nor do I see how we're ever going to get out of Iraq. Vietnam Redux.
Amy Alkon at May 30, 2005 7:43 AM
How can anybody be in the military if it means ruined lives financially and otherwise? The truth is, we don't have the troops and we're unlikely to get them unless we recruit from amongst the very dumb and illiterate.
Amy Alkon at May 30, 2005 7:46 AM
> How can anybody be in the military...
I'm one of Nam's golden babies, born '59, and never even had to register. But if you don't mind some Memorial Day speculation, motivations may include
1. 3 Squares a day (see also #6).
2. Comraderie.
3. Eagerness for discipline and training.
4. Patriotism and gratitude.
5. Adventure.
6. The MONEY. Soldiers may not get a lot or even enough, but it's a better deal than many corners of our economy are offering.
When people who are resolutely against the war complain about soldier's wages, it's feared that they're highballing: Setting the compensation so high that no nation could ever afford them. In the hearts of many we-are-the-world peaceniks, that would be just fine.
But we need people who can kill and fight, and how we can ever compensate for death or maiming?
Crid at May 30, 2005 10:37 AM
I interviewed a former GI who lost his leg in Fallujah, and he said they never discussed/question any of these subjects with his Army buddies. Hejokes about how he gets free beer in bars by showing off his fake leg. A psychologist also told me this guy and other veterans won't probably discuss this in 5 years either. They focus on doing their job and never question the war or the president, perhaps because it would be too crushing.
I wish those young people participated more to the discussion, publicly at least, since we know some express concerns in letters to their families. Unless I'm missing the most interesting blogs by soldiers.
Emmanuelle at May 30, 2005 11:55 AM
Crid -- Your Motivations #1-5 are also good reasons for joining a college fraternity.
Lena-doodle-doo at May 30, 2005 1:17 PM
Emanuelle --
Ginmar's blog is great. I think she's back from Iraq now, but she's a really interesting writer, with a lot to say about the bilking Haliburton is giving us over there:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ginmar/
Frank at May 30, 2005 7:52 PM
Ahem. One more time. Congress, not "the Bush Administration" has ALL of the power to spend money on troops and their equipment.
Repeat that out loud.
You may logically and therefore properly question a commander's ability to fight given the situation - the assets of the enemy and all of the other tactical issues which exist even prior to operations - but you may not properly question that commander's ability to fund or supply them.
That is not my opinion; that's simple logic, supported by the law, as set forth in the Constitution.
Radwaste at June 1, 2005 11:28 AM
Leave a comment