Posted by DeLong at July 2, 2003 07:39 AM | TrackBackIn recent months, 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 from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief -- or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others...
Kos has posted the full text at his site. Link: http://www.dailykos.com/archives/003248.html
Posted by: Greg Greene on July 2, 2003 07:50 AMBefore I retired from the Army eighteen months ago, I had several discussions with fellow senior NCO's during the 2000 election campaign. Most soldiers at the time had the idea that a Republican President would be better for the military in general than a Democratic one.
I tried to tell them that while Republicans might spend more money on national defense, it would all go to defense contractors like Halliburton and Martin-Marietta. If you want better pay and living conditions, I said, vote for Gore. They didn't listen.
The wealthy type of conservatives who control our government now care little about the folks who serve because they know their children will never have to die for their country. And senior officers support these people so that they will have lucrative careers waiting for them in the defense industry after they retire.
When young people ask me about a military career I advise caution, because I know that Congress will likely adjust whatever benefits they expect to accrue over a twenty-year career. It did so during my stint.
Our government should be careful that it doesn't make the cost of serving so high, and the return so meager, that it can no longer recruit mercenaries to protect the state.
Posted by: rstanton on July 2, 2003 08:01 AMIn addition, the GOP believes that they can scr*w the servicemen and women, and most will still vote GOP.
Curious how little attention there is now to the military personnel who are being attacked day by day. No more of that sort of patriotism on Fox?
Posted by: andy on July 2, 2003 09:24 AMSurprised? I'm not. The AT has increasingly become a DOD propaganda rag. What is surprising is that such an editorial was ever permitted to be written at all.
I'm not surprised. Unlike the Clinton Admin that was too cowardly to object to a 2 hour a day diet of Rush on the effin Armed Forced Radio, the Bushies are not afraid of using power.
Maybe it was being copy-edited; maybe the AT edits staff needed a couple of hours to grow their spine back. But the editorial appears to be back up:
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php
Posted by: Mark S. on July 2, 2003 11:17 AMBy the way, 140,000 troops appear to be ever so sadly bogged down, and bogged down for a long while, in Iraq.
Posted by: arthur on July 2, 2003 11:22 AMArticles on the web are like Pandora's Box. I wonder if more people rush to read articles that are suddenly snuffed than if they kept it posted as in banning the Quibbler interview with Harry Potter?
Posted by: bakho on July 2, 2003 11:31 AMAnother thing, I find it hard to know just how many American troops have been killed since the war ended. We seem to be separating combats and other deaths in a way that is not clear.
Posted by: jerr on July 2, 2003 12:32 PMIf I recall correctly, it is forbidden (by the UCMJ) for troops to, at a minimum, protest against the President. I can not recall if that a) only includes officers, or officers and NCOs. I'm also not sure if an editorial is protected or not, but it wouldn't shock me if the answer was no.
At a minimum, it's a career limiting maneuver.
Posted by: Unseelie on July 2, 2003 03:14 PMI notice that nobody has yet entered a comment in the discussion area.
Since the President apparently believes we haven't lost enough troops in Iraq yet and we all know courtesy of the Army Times the miserable future promised by Congress, this is a good time to give out the links for the services relief societies:
Army Emergency Relief Society
Navy and Marine Corps Relief Society
Air Force Aid Society
Or the Salvation Army or American Red Cross.
Help out the people who are really in the line of fire, unlike some Reserve-deserting ex-drunk simian we all know.
Posted by: Jon Gallagher on July 2, 2003 05:14 PMRhetoric aside, here we have the real reason why today's "conservatives" are so adamant about a smaller, "all-volunteer" force - they don't want to pay for a larger force's benefits and pensions down the road. It's quite a switch from the view a lot of populist conservatives held through the 'sixties that conscription nurtures good citizenship. Whether you agree with that view or not, the important point is that these guys are willing to starve the force regardless of threat assessments, and redirect any surplus to contractors. I don't consider that a pro-defense model.
Posted by: William Hillis on July 5, 2003 01:12 AM