Are Republicans good for the military?
Soundbites and campaigns speeches by Republicans constantly consist of their pushes for military strength and care for the soldiers. But, are Republicans really watching out for our men and women in uniform.
Now, I’m not sure how accurate this number is, but something like 60 vets are running for office this year as Democrats. Two vets are running as Republicans. Could it be disenchantment with the party?
Additionally, it is this current administration who is cutting veteran benefits and who limit the type of body armor for soldiers. Better body armor is available from private entities but soldiers are not allowed to use that armor and if they do and still get hurt, the government will not pay their medical.
What about that bombing at a mess hall about a year ago? General military practice is to stagger mealtime dramatically so you never have so many unarmed soldiers in one place at a time. The new food contractor found it cheaper to serve more soldiers at once and so instituted a different policy which had more soldiers in the mess hall at one time than was probably appropriate. Why? Money.
So I ask again, are the Republicans good for the military or just good for military contractors???
Now, I’m not sure how accurate this number is, but something like 60 vets are running for office this year as Democrats. Two vets are running as Republicans. Could it be disenchantment with the party?
Additionally, it is this current administration who is cutting veteran benefits and who limit the type of body armor for soldiers. Better body armor is available from private entities but soldiers are not allowed to use that armor and if they do and still get hurt, the government will not pay their medical.
What about that bombing at a mess hall about a year ago? General military practice is to stagger mealtime dramatically so you never have so many unarmed soldiers in one place at a time. The new food contractor found it cheaper to serve more soldiers at once and so instituted a different policy which had more soldiers in the mess hall at one time than was probably appropriate. Why? Money.
So I ask again, are the Republicans good for the military or just good for military contractors???
posted by Holly | 6:08 AM
1 Comments:
Holly/The Magoo Politic,
I found your blog by hitting the “next blog” on the Blogger Bar at the top of my page. Great blog, by the way! I have one as well, wilsonizer.blogspot.com. It is a political blog as well, somewhat to the right of yours, but I try to keep it interesting and without any meanness, so please check it out when you get a chance.
I read your post about Republicans being bad for the military, and I feel my 15 years (so far) of active duty service in the Army qualifies me to provide somewhat intelligent feedback.
Your most serious point raised in the post is about body armor. In all honesty, both parties have failed the military on this end, but the military has failed ITSELF most of all.
During the Clinton administration, the military saw a trend of deployments in places like Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans. Many field commanders correctly identified that universally issued body armor would be a necessity for soldiers in this new, urban environment, where “the front” is everywhere and nowhere all at once.
However, the military balked on reacting to this new, expensive requirement. Instead, the services focused on large weapon systems like the Comanche helicopter and the Crusader artillery piece, both of which were cancelled shortly after Sept 11. One retired General Officer once told me that under the system in place prior to Iraq, it would have taken four decades to field appropriate body armor to every soldier in the Army.
Neither the Clinton nor the Bush administrations took any action to remedy the situation with the body armor. As a result, only active duty combat arms troops (especially Special Operations Forces soldiers) had the best body armor available going into Afghanistan and Iraq; Combat support and combat service soldiers had little to no body armor whatsoever. The military identified this loudly as a major shortcoming in Iraq, and the United States has been playing catch up ever since.
Your second point about body armor concerns fielding “the best” body armor. The military is attempting to field body armor that can stop a 7.62 round effectively; this is the highest level of body armor. Even as this armor is being fielded, companies are coming out with body armor systems that can do this that are lighter or more flexible than the armor being fielded currently by the military. Soldiers at times opt to buy the more expensive types of armor rather than the stuff being issued. The new systems offer the same level of protection, but may be lighter or more comfortable, or both. A year from now, the best system today will be the third or fourth best system; the military cannot keep up with the changes in technology as a result of this war, and is attempting to ensure everyone is protected from 7.62mm rounds. Pretty much a non political issue in my humble opinion.
The other issue you brought up with fielding this stuff dealt with a type of armor called Dragon Scales. In that case, some soldiers were buying this system before their unit knew whether or not it was approved (ie tested to ensure it met military standards), while other units in the army were already using it. Again, not really a repub/dem issue, methinks.
In my unit, I have soldiers that have purchased their own vests, but I make sure that the stuff is authorized before I let them wear it during live fire exercises and deployments. Anyone injuries in training or combat are thoroughly investigated by the military, so commanders always try to ensure people are doing the right thing. The “wrong thing” in this case, might be wearing a type of armor that has not been thoroughly tested by the military.
You brought up the issue with the personnel being injured in a dining facility in Iraq about 1 ½ years ago. Again, I can tell you from personal experience that no military commander is going to let a contractor do something that will intentionally put his/her troops in harms way based on issues like the contractor’s bottom line. If a decision was made to consolidate dining hours, then it was the responsibility of the military commander on site to make that decision, and to determine whether or not he/she was incurring more risk for the soldiers who would use the facility. Again, not a decision chain that was susceptible to republican or democratic ideologies.
Your last point about eroding benefits for veterans is a little beyond me, something I haven’t tracked on. I really hope your wrong about that one, since in about five years I will be retiring and moving back to Litchfield County, CT, and will need all the money and benefits I can get!
Therefore, my conclusion is that BOTH political parties have had so so effects on the capabilities, survivability, and quality of life in the military. This is the case, at least, in my 15 years of experience as a soldier in the US Army.
Great blog, once again, and I promise I will come back every few days to check out your posts. Please do the same for mine (www.wilsonizer.blogspot.com) if you have the time, and post a few comments from time to time to keep me honest. Cheers!
Post a Comment
<< Home