The calling back off 5,600 soldiers
Why aren't more people talking about this: 5,600 soldiers who had been 'Honorably Discharged' have been called back into action.
To me it is very sad: these people who had thought that it was all behind them and that they could get on with building families or starting careers have to go back to Iraq.
and Why?
Because the planning for the war was Completely bungled! a travesty of arrogant unreality on the part of those in charge.
If you couple this with the extending of service rotations then you are treating these soldiers like dirt!!
to quote a NYTimes story: "In the meantime, overworked soldiers get orders for extended and multiple tours, even as new evidence shows that one in six soldiers who returned home from earlier tours in Iraq is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or other severe emotional difficulties"
Why is this not causing more uproar?
are we afraid that overt concern for the soldiers may appear too much like "not supporting our troops"? --I think that is the twisted logic that reigns these days . . . if we raise our voices about the mistreatment of our fine young soldiers, then we risk appearing like we are willfully sabotaging "moral".
But really. how can soldiers maintain moral when they are being abused due to absurdly bad planning in a war based on lies (or 'faulty' information)?
Why didn't we wait for a real plan, some real coalition members (perhaps arabs) and real reasons?
To me it is very sad: these people who had thought that it was all behind them and that they could get on with building families or starting careers have to go back to Iraq.
and Why?
Because the planning for the war was Completely bungled! a travesty of arrogant unreality on the part of those in charge.
If you couple this with the extending of service rotations then you are treating these soldiers like dirt!!
to quote a NYTimes story: "In the meantime, overworked soldiers get orders for extended and multiple tours, even as new evidence shows that one in six soldiers who returned home from earlier tours in Iraq is showing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or other severe emotional difficulties"
Why is this not causing more uproar?
are we afraid that overt concern for the soldiers may appear too much like "not supporting our troops"? --I think that is the twisted logic that reigns these days . . . if we raise our voices about the mistreatment of our fine young soldiers, then we risk appearing like we are willfully sabotaging "moral".
But really. how can soldiers maintain moral when they are being abused due to absurdly bad planning in a war based on lies (or 'faulty' information)?
Why didn't we wait for a real plan, some real coalition members (perhaps arabs) and real reasons?
Comments
RE: the soldier recall: I am sure that many of the soldiers will say that they are dying to get back and help out their buddies and do their duty. -to me this just adds to the pathos, making it that much sadder
Originally posted by pfflam
Why didn't we wait for...some real coalition members (perhaps arabs)...
I think that this is the entire problem and the biggest miscalculation with the war effort.
It was probably assumed that, once the situation stabilized, the Arab countries could be called upon to send troops to show that this wasn't simply a US colonial enterprise. (Which it's not.)
However, introducing troops from Arab countries would likely ADD to the problems. There is no way Sunni or Shia troops from foreign Arab countries will be well received by the Iraqi Sunni, Shia or Kurd populations.
One commentator on tv (CNN?) I heard last week mentioned that Sunni forces from Jordan would never be trusted to watch over the Shia mosques in the South. Mosques they see as blasphemous in the first place.
The Iraqis see the US and British troops as neutral third parties who - at the very least - won't intentionally attack their shrines.
The answer would seem to be more troops from Western countries, or everybody watching the situation deteriorate on the sidelines.