Monday, January 23, 2006

"I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter."

If you think these are the words of a National Guardsman or reservist, explaining why their deployment to war would put a hardship on their families, well, you'll have to guess again.

They were written by Jonah Goldberg, an editor at the National Review and a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. Mr. Goldberg was defending himself because, an avowed hawk, he had written numerous pieces enthusiastically endorsing the administration's plan to go to war in Iraq. However, some thinking individuals had complained, pointing out that, if he was so hot for this war, then why didn't he volunteer to go fight it himself?

Hence, the excuse, "I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter."

I seem to recall similar excuses--FIVE of them being offered up by the meanest hawk on Capitol Hill--Vice President Dick Cheney--back when this nation was at war in Vietnam. Our commander-in-chief didn't have to make excuses. His congressman daddy could pull strings and get him a choice slot in the Air National Guard, where there was a lengthy waiting list. The Texas congressman's son was able to be squeezed into the crowded flight class along with the son of Texas Senator Lloyd Bentson. (I guess whoever got bumped from the regular waiting list wound up going off to fly jets in a real war.) And although our esteemed Secretary of Defense, Daniel Rumsfeld, did a stint flying jets for the Air Force, he never had to do it in a place where there was any kind of chance whatsoever that he could actually be SHOT DOWN.

None of the Big Three who sent more than a hundred thousand troops (not counting the last war Cheney and Rumsfeld fought, the Gulf War, which sent in half a million)--anyway, not one of them has ever once in their lives been in a position where they've had to dodge a bullet.

The only member of this administration who DID, General Colin Powell, presented a number of sound arguments as to why this war was a bad idea. Consequently, he was ignored, manipulated, cut out of serious policy discussions and eventually, forced out.

In fact, anyone who DARED to say anything against this war back in the spring of 2003-- especially if he or she had the supreme misfortune of running for political office--were hacked up into little pieces by their opponents and presented as haters of their country. Max Cleland, who sacrificed both his legs and one arm and who once ran the Veteran's Administration under President Jimmy Carter, was defeated for his Georgia congressional seat when he was portrayed as unpatriotic, because he opposed the war in Iraq.

Unpatriotic.

So we went to war. National Guardsmen and women, who had joined the Guard because the commercials promised money for college and who thought they'd be doing things like riot control, hurricane relief, and fighting forest fires, found themselves shipped off to war. Reservists, some of whom had been on inactive lists sometimes for twenty years and were in their forties or even FIFTIES, were called up and given little time to settle their affairs before being deployed.

Often, the families of these troops were placed in severe financial hardship during that time, some having to sell their homes or go into foreclosure and many filing for bankruptcy. Divorces have been higher than ever.

They went without proper armor and had to buy their own from private companies charging up to $2000 per set. Once in-country, they had to jerry-rig armor for their Humvees, scavanging tin and plywood from trash piles and wreckage. Even as a Marine, my son on his last deployment had to do similar things.

And, by the way, did you know they have to buy their own medals? And extra sets of fatigues and boots? You old soldiers may not know that, but none of that stuff is issued any more. They have to buy much of the gear (on private's and corporal's pay) that they will need to fight this war.

Too damn bad they didn't go to work for Halliburton, eh? They'd have all they needed, then.

Anyway, if a Guardsman-woman or Reservist were wounded, they were usually pretty surprised when the hospital bill came. See, the National Guard and the various reserve units don't have the same military health care coverage as the active military.

Let me repeat that. Guardsmen and women and reservists who were wounded while fighting for their country in Iraq and Afghanistan had to pay their own hospital bills. I don't know if that is still the case, but it damn sure was for at least two years.

When a soldier complained about this sort of thing to our esteemed Secretary of Defense, he was brushed off with, "You fight a war with the Army you've got."

(Or the Halliburton you can buy.)

And if any troops were killed, well, they were flown in under cover of darkness, late into the night, and if anyone tried to photograph their flag-draped coffins, they were fired.

After all, we didn't want any depressing news coming along about this war that might upset all those Goldbergs out there who were busy supporting our troops!!!

Most of whom were in their twenties and thirties, with babies at home, or in their forties, with pre-teens and teens now left motherless or fatherless.

Oh, and when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita blew away half the Gulf Coast, where was the Louisiana National Guard?

Why, fighting in Iraq, of course.

Which brings me back to the hapless Goldberg. In a piece called "Another Chance for a Chicken Hawk," in Salon.com, Tim Grieve writes that the Army is having so much trouble recruiting people willing to fight and die for their country in this war that they've had to raise the top age for military recruits from 35 to 42.

A "chickenhawk," in case you're unfamiliar with the term, is someone who's very hawkish about going to war. They wave the flag and get all teary-eyed during patriotic songs and rant and rave about "our enemies" and how, if we don't want to be destroyed by them, we must fight! fight! fight!

But see, they're chickens, on account of how THEY don't want to be the ones to do the fighting. The bleeding. The dying.

But there's good news for the Jonah Goldbergs and the young aspiring Dick Cheneys and Karl Roves and George Bush's who worry that they might have missed their chance to fight! fight! fight! for their country.

As Grieve writes, with the new recruiting age of 42, "That gives Goldberg and other chicken hawks his age six more years in which they can sign up for the war they've been only too happy to have others fight.

"But really," points out Grieve, "why wait that long? Forty-two U.S. soldiers (and Marines) have died in Iraq already this month, and recruiters are waiting by their phones to hear from their replacements."

God bless America, eh Goldberg?

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

For all your rhetoric about seeing both sides of the issue and presenting a balanced approach, it looks like you are showing your true liberal colors. Instead of arguments as to the merits of the war, you resort to personal attacks on Republican leaders.
Going to war is based on what the President believes is best for our country. Whether he actually fought in a war is beside the point. Are you suggesting that President Bush does not care about and empathize with what our troops are going through. Why do most of our troops seem to prefer President Bush over Senator Kennedy?
There have been mistakes in the war in Iraq, but we are at war with an enemy who hates us for what we are. Why did they attack us in the first place? What are their demands that we can give in to in order that they will no longer attack us?
Do you want to go back to the Clinton years where we stuck our head in the sand and let them freely plan our destruction from the safe havens of Afghanistan and Europe?
At least President Bush is doing his best to make us safe. What good are personal attacks? What is the Democratic strategy? Try to talk them into being nice?
That used to be called appeasement.
That being said, it is true that our military people are making great sacrifices to keep us safe and most other people are not making these sacrifices.
It is very important that all of us keep this in mind and honor those and their families who willingly serve our country.

7:40 AM  
Blogger Deanie Mills said...

As I recall, back in the Clinton years, when he tried to stop genocide in Bosnia, the right howled and sneered about how this country was not interested in "nation-building."

Pre 9-11, this country had been at peace for an entire generation, and Congress--and the American people--did not have the stomach for "another Vietnam." When Clinton ordered rocket attacks on Bin Laden's Afghanistan training camps, he was criticized soundly for not getting Bin Ladan when he had the chance.

9-11 changed the climate in this country DRAMATICALLY. I don't buy revisionist history that the Republican congress was all hawkish and gung-ho for war before that. Not if there was going to be dreaded "nation-building" to be done. They obstructed and obfuscated every chance they got before they had a Republican in the White House.

So tell me...what are we doing now in Iraq? We're nation-building. And I don't hear anybody from the right howling about it now.

Whether the commander-in-chief fought in a war is beside the point, is it? So how come the right raised high holy hell about that awful draft-dodger, Clinton?

Yet when George W. Bush ran for president, suddenly, it didn't matter any more.

This is a very sensitive issue to me because my son could die any day because of decisions made by people who never had to kill or be killed in combat.

I'm not saying this country should never go to war. I am not a peace activist. I live with and come from a family of proud combat veterans. But when our warriors are sent into harm's way, the reason should be clearly spelled out, and it ought to be for a damn better reason than a political ad filmed on board a navy ship, complete with banners printed up by the White House.

8:35 AM  
Blogger MarineMom said...

All I can say here .. is YOU GO GIRL!

Your comment to anonymous was insightful and eye-opening too.

And to anonymous ... sometimes it is HARD to see both sides of the issue when those of us with children fighting in Iraq right now hear what our young Marines have to say about things.

Semper Fi and God Bless you and your son Deanie.

8:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with MarineMom that having a son in Iraq would be a beyond stressful thing and would give one insight into the military that others don’t have.
However, it doesn’t automatically make one’s politics correct. Liberals hate Bush. They go after him in a very personal and often vicious way.
But a least he has coherent vision of the War on Terror.
It is based on what happened to us on 9/11/.
He believes we are in a war against an enemy that has absolutely no qualms about how they try to kill us.
He believes that we cannot allow them sanctuaries to plan their attacks against us.
He believes that a democratic government that allows some kind of freedom of expression and elects its leaders in a legitimate election is less likely to sponser terrorists than a dictatorship.
He believes that Muslims are capable of and do want democracy.
Such a government in Iraq could have a profound and positive influence on the Islamic world, where most of the terrorists now come from.
He believes that Iraq is the central battlefront. It draws terrorists from many countries. We are able to attack them directly there and deplete their resources.
Liberals will disagree with many of his assumptions and they may be right.
But they may be wrong and Bush right and that could allow us to make significant progress in the war on terror.
What is the policy of the liberals. Withdraw from Iraq. Let the U.N. decide our foreign policy.
We have the example of the Clinton years as to how this policy works. I am not saying that Clinton could have done what Bush is doing now, even if he had wanted to.
What I’m saying is that we allowed terrorists to multiply undisturbed and we can’t allow it again.
What is the plan of liberals to combat terrorism in this post 9/11 world?

1:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unless you have a child over there, and you stay up every night afraid to sleep because the nightmares are to much. Terrified that every car that drives by might stop and be "the car". Afraid that everytime the phone rings it could be bad news. Waking up from a dead sleep thinking you heard a knock on the door, and praying all the way there you imagined it.
Sending box after box of socks and underwear because they have throw out the ones they wear. Sending food because your son calls and tells you he is hungry and is losing weight. Anyone who isnt a part of that has a clue what it feels like. And I know damn well Bush doesnt go to bed at night worrying about a loved one who he may never see again,because they are over there fighting for WHAT?I dont care what Bush has done. I want to know what he is going to do to get these men and women home.

11:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Do any of you know what the president should have done after 9-11? I belive president Bush is a christian man, I believe he prays in earnest about the descisions that he has to make. like the war. I do not think anyone wants a war, and I know how you moms fell about your son and daughters being over there, I have lost two sons(not in wars) I believe the president really cares about the moms who have lost there sons . I sure don;t know the answers, but I do pray for president Bush, that god will give him the wisdom and knowlege to do what is right, regardless if we are republickins are democrates, we need to pray more than ever for our president,

4:30 AM  
Blogger Deanie Mills said...

First of all, let me say how my heart breaks that you have had to bury even one child, much less two. The fact that you're here, posting your feelings and opinions, is a towering testament to plain old survival in the face of much misery. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

What the president should have done after 9-11 is what he did do--he invaded Afghanistan and put the rout to the Taliban. All Democrats in Congress agreed to this course of action without hesitation. (I think only one, a liberal named Russ Feingold, voted against it.)

Should he have then yanked 80% of those troops out, let the Taliban regain a foothold, allow Bin Laden to escape and go on inspiring his nut-case followers--all so that we could start a war in Iraq, which has now become a swarming nest of terrorists and is poised to collapse into civil war?

Conservatives like to say that as long as we are fighting them over there, we won't have to fight them over here. That sounds great in a simplistic way, but bombings in London and in Spain--with hundreds of casualties--show that independent terrorist cells will do what they're going to do whether we're in Iraq or not.

They'll just get better training into guerilla warfare, learning all about sophisticated explosives and weaponry, fighting against my son and other service men and women on the ground in Iraq, that they can then use in any country they please.

It's a mess right now. But I think it will take at least ten years to figure out whether the president and his cronies did a good thing cooking up this war, or made one of the greatest mistakes of this century.

For my son and his buddies' sakes, I hope to God I am proven wrong as to this disastrous course of action, and that it will have all been worth it. You don't know how much I hope for that.

As for my prayers, well, I send them out to the guys doing the actual fighting. They're the ones who really need it.

1:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home