Given the war in Iraq, the number of US veterans is increasing sharply (I've heard an estimate of 12,000 wounded soldiers and 1 in 4 soldiers suffering mental problems due to their service, but someone might find more accurate and current assessments).

Now, whatever one's stance on the war, support for those who served is paramount, especially in the realm of medical care. In recent years, VA hospitals have improved markedly, but all is not rosy for our military. Consider the following:

In January, House Republican leadership removed (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/10574226.htm) Christopher Smith from the Veteran's Affairs Committee, due to his willingness to buck party line on budgeting. A few quotes:
The GOP leaders, in a secret ballot, chose Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., a 10-year veteran of the committee, to replace Smith, R-N.J., who has led the panel for the past four years. Smith is expected to lose his committee seat, which he has held for 24 years.
...
Buyer was the only lawmaker to challenge a sitting chairman as party leaders met to organize for the 109th session of Congress. Removing an incumbent is highly unusual, but Smith has been criticized for not being a team player and threatened with loss of his post for questioning party policies.
...
That independence has won Smith strong support among veterans groups. On Monday the heads of eight veterans groups, including the American Legion based in Indianapolis and Veterans of Foreign Wars, wrote House Speaker Dennis Hastert to say it would be a "tragedy" if Smith were removed from his post.
In February, Bush presented a 2006 budget with only a mild increase in VA funding, despite the obvious increase in need for services due to Iraq and Afghanistan. The VFW expresses their disappointment http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2362 here (http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=news.newsDtl&did=2362).
Two key issues are the proposals to charge a $250 enrollment fee that would impact approximately 2.2 million veterans and a prescription co-payment that would more than double from $7 to $15. The VFW is concerned that the enrollment fee and prescription co-payment increases will cost some veterans thousands of extra dollars in health care expenses, while driving an estimated 220,000 veterans away from the VA, to include those who may not have access to other forms of health care.

"The message that this budget communicates is that part of the federal government's deficit will be balanced on the backs of military veterans," he said, "because it's clear that the proper funding of veterans health care and other programs is not an administration priority."
In March, hundreds of vets protested (http://www.truthout.org/issues_05/031105HA.shtml) the budget at hearings held by the Veteran's Affairs Committee
The loudest heckling was reserved for House Veterans' Affairs chairman Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., who was criticized by Democrats on the committee and rebuked the crowd at one point by saying "where the river is the shallowest, it makes the most noise."
Chairman Buyer now desires to redefine (http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/03/12/100bus_philpott001.cfm) how veterans qualify for services, perhaps offering one-time payments for disabilities, denying veterans the ability to pursue future compensation claims. From here (http://www.military.com/Opinions/0,,Scott_032905-P1,00.html):
The bipartisan [/url][url="http://speaker.house.gov/library/retirement/040325veterans.shtml"]Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission (http://speaker.house.gov/library/retirement/040325veterans.shtml) will hold its first meeting soon. The Commission will review whether Congress went too far by allowing concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability payments. Also on the table is a change in the way disability ratings are determined, and a restructuring of the definition of "service-connected." Buyer says he cannot guarantee veterans who currently have disability ratings that they will be exempt from Commission findings.
Any thoughts on all this, especially from our servicemen and women? I'm not military, but budget cuts at this particular time in our history seem counterproductive.

This is just one more glaring piece of evidence of why this is possibly the worst goverment we've ever had in this country. i'm sure that poor guy is also on Tom Delay's i'll get you list. I'm staunchly in favor of giving veterans all thier due despite what it may cost. what little we can give these men and women in health care is a hell of a deal for what we as a nation have asked of them.
Bush sold the american people on how he was the only kind of person who could do right by our men and women in service. better even than a Vietnam veteran.
it saddens me that all the people who answered his call to arms of service, were sold another damaged (ok out right lie) promise from this texas monkey.

This is why i fear for the sanctity of our democracy.
Smith has been criticized for not being a team player and threatened with loss of his post for questioning party policies.

So much for bieng the nation of great debate.

I agree.... no matter what your political views, no matter how you feel about the war in Iraq or what position you take on the issues... the men and women who put their lives on the line deserve much better than this.

The men and women who served this country and that of our allies, deserve the recognition due them for their valiant efforts. More importantly, they deserve our respect and they deserve to be treated fairly, with honor and grace.

It was once said that in war the most basic rules are very simple. Men (and women) are injured and die, and those that live, must live with the memories. It's a sad reflection on any nation that does not take care of it's armed forces, especially those who received wounds/injuries in a theater of war.

Perhaps it's time to let some of the "professional" politicians seek other employment opportunities and put some folks in there that can see something other than monetary or political gain. It's time to do what's right... not what's politically correct.

This is just one more glaring piece of evidence of why this is possibly the worst goverment we've ever had in this country. i'm sure that poor guy is also on Tom Delay's i'll get you list. I'm staunchly in favor of giving veterans all thier due despite what it may cost. what little we can give these men and women in health care is a hell of a deal for what we as a nation have asked of them.
Bush sold the american people on how he was the only kind of person who could do right by our men and women in service. better even than a Vietnam veteran.
it saddens me that all the people who answered his call to arms of service, were sold another damaged (ok out right lie) promise from this texas monkey.

This is why i fear for the sanctity of our democracy.

So much for bieng the nation of great debate.

Gods , the crack you must smoke must be the excess from someone elses old pipe.

Clinton RAPED the military infrastructure....

Wake up, do some reading outside the lit your professor gives you to read and grow the hell up....

Fandros

Well prepared counter-argument, Fany.

This is a difficult issue, knowing that there are merits to both sides' arguments.

A former coworker was receiving disability payments from the military for injuries he received when he fell down on his motorbike on the base during his free time. He used to crow about being a disabled vet all the time, which really irked the rest of the vets (including myself) in the office. This is exactly the kind of cases that should be reevaluated.

I receive disability payments at a 40% disability rating, having lost the use of my left eye (along with minor nerve and muscle damage in the left side of the face) while serving in Viet Nam. I am able to still perform most tasks of most jobs I qualify for, being able to see with the right eye. If anything should happen to the right eye, I will still only be eligible for the 40% rating, being the right eye was not damaged during my military service.
Should my case be reevaluated?

The idea of making one time cash payments rather than life-long monthly payments has been discussed by many, myself included, over the last several years. The problem is deciding what the value would be for a specific diasbility, and how to make it palatable to the general public when announcing that the loss of a foot = $X, and the loss of an arm = $Y, etc.

A disability check of $400 a month for life does not generate any visible tax revenue; a one time payment of $400,000 would require investing, or at the least a savings account, and then that money would be taxable via interest and/or dividends.

Basically, the entire argument comes down to Republican leadership looking for more ways to bring money in without tax increases; this is just one more possible method of doing that, although it would initially require a large cash outlay via one time cash payouts.

And for Fan, it is true the Clinton made many cuts to the military during his two terms. It is also true that the varied military heads at the time were involved in the decision making. The Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld cartel are simply looking for ways to fix their mistakes on the backs of those who have already suffered for their mistakes. While Bush visits the troops and exhorts their contributions, he would only sign off on a pay increase after intense lobbying and news stories showing the conditions military families were forced to live in at current pay rates. We will never see genuine concern for the troops and their welfare following service until we reinstitute the draft and have the sons and daughters of our elected leaders serving alongside the volunteers.

I've a 13 year old son, and I'm still all for 2 years compulsary service. Be it Military or other...

Bring back the draft, make no exceptions...

Fandros

While Bush visits the troops and exhorts their contributions, he would only sign off on a pay increase after intense lobbying and news stories showing the conditions military families were forced to live in at current pay rates.
The Republicans also voted down an amendment to the truly awful bankruptcy bill that would exempt (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00013) service members from some of its provisions. The amendment would:
...protect servicemembers and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.
I do agree, as Bylimet pointed out, that there are two sides to the issue. Certainly, there are vets who use the system; it happens in every corner of life. Questions:

--Is it more cost effective to investigate vet medical claims in order to parse the users from the truly needy? Or are we better off erring on the side (presumably) of generosity?
--Given our current budget woes, is it really a good idea to add a series of lump payments to the country's financial burden? (Here I'd expect Bush & Co. to make the payments effective once he leaves office; his successor already has a fiscal mess on his hands.)
--Are the proposed annual fee and increased co-payments an undue burden on a significant number of troops? How many of these folks live paycheck to paycheck? How will major injuries impact returning Iraqi vets in the job market (thus affecting their ability to afford the new fees?).

I'd rather Buyer publicize a study concerning the possible effects of his proposals instead of just jumping into this.

I agree instate the draft or.... make a mandatory military service committment of at least 2 years for all young adults.

"this is possibly the worst goverment we've ever had in this country."

Bush is in now, get used to it. As much as I dislike him, I am hoping and believe he will do right by the vets.

" Clinton RAPED the military infrastructure...."

Last time I checked Clinton did't get us into a war with tens of thousands (perhaps 100,000 when all is said and done) that will need extended VA services. The system needs to be adjusted from a peace time existance, so there is little doubt it will handle the needs of our Iraq War Vets.


Like many have said, this isn't a partisan issue. We have to take care of these valorious men and women no matter what the cost. Raise my taxes to do it...but do it, and do it right (a tall order for any government program). This country should be ashamed how it treated Viet Nam vets, it can't happen again.

"this is possibly the worst goverment we've ever had in this country."

Bush is in now, get used to it. As much as I dislike him, I am hoping and believe he will do right by the vets.

" Clinton RAPED the military infrastructure...."

Last time I checked Clinton did't get us into a war with tens of thousands (perhaps 100,000 when all is said and done) that will need extended VA services. The system needs to be adjusted from a peace time existance, so there is little doubt it will handle the needs of our Iraq War Vets.

.

Clinto put our soldiers at risk (yeah I was one of those guys) by not giving us the tech and manpower needed to function. I remember simulating loading plans for the back of trucks with TAPE ON THE FLOOR because we didn't have trucks to actually practice. But I digress...

Although it is just speculation, I do agree that Clinton would not of got us into a war... I think he would have went and made some speeches at the UN, used that closed fist with the thumb between his index and ring finger and shook it vehemently at the camera to scare the world into liking us....

Clinto put our soldiers at risk (yeah I was one of those guys) by not giving us the tech and manpower needed to function.
This sounds disturbingly similar to what's happening in Iraq (especially if you substitute 'armor' for 'tech.').

Clinton would have lobbed missiles. While there weren't any WMD's to destroy, he might at least have nailed al-Zarqawi's well-known camp in northern Iraq.

The "armor" was a battle field adjustment that was made after the enemy adjusted their tactics.... now the vast majority of vehicles are up-armored.... so I don't see this as a viable analogy.

Armor configurations have indeed been updated to deal with the regular threats offered by the insurgency, but production has been sluggish at best. While Rumsfeld claimed that armored humvees were being produced as quickly as possible, the US supplier of same stated that not only were they operating at less than capacity, but that they'd informed the administration of this fact. So now, after much publicity and loss of life, production has increased and changed in format to deal with the insurgency, something that should have been attended to over a year ago.

Similar problems have prevented body armor from reaching our troops. An abstract (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20712F935590C748CDDAA0894DD4044 82) from a NY Times article:
Records show that Pentagon's difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles in Iraq with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged, special report, Missing in Action: The Supply Gap in Iraq; finds that supply problem seen as emergency on ground in Iraq was treated as routine procurement matter back in Washington; among findings: Pentagon's contract for ceramic plate inserts that make vests bulletproof was given to former Army researcher lacking any experience with mass production; Army's equipment manager effectively reduced armor's priority to status of socks; 10,000 plates were lost along way, and rest arrived late; in all, Defense Dept took 167 days just to start getting bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once order was placed; records show it actually took weeks and even months more, at time when Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting; by contrast, US allies in Iraq got armor in just 12 days by bypassing Pentagon and ordering directly from manufacturer.
I think the analogy is more apt than you believe.

Bise...my point was, from both partisan statements, this isn't a partisan issue. We can argue till we are blue in the face about who did what to screw the military...it isn't going to change the reality of the situation now. Getting the vets from Iraq proper treatment at home has no relation to what anyone thinks of the war itself. It cuts across any disagreemnt with the current administration, or any past administrations.

"I think he would have went and made some speeches at the UN, used that closed fist with the thumb between his index and ring finger and shook it vehemently at the camera to scare the world into liking us...."

...and some or many would argue we would be a whole hell of a lot better off, but I digress. ;)

"The "armor" was a battle field adjustment that was made after the enemy adjusted their tactics.... now the vast majority of vehicles are up-armored.... so I don't see this as a viable analogy."

God knows RPGs have not been around very long :confused:

The issue I have with this stuff is Bush running on Kerry not wanting to provide armor to the troops who were in the war (which is a mis-statement anyways).....who the hell sent them to war without proper armor in the first place...hmm?

I'd like to add something to Ailwon's post and my own (this applies to Bise's notion of improper analogies):
Clinton faced a Republican Congress, and had to compromise considerably to get anything passed. I can't tell you that his initial budget proposals didn't include cuts to the military (I don't know either way, honestly), but Clinton adhered to principles of fiscal responsibility (even if by political necessity) and ended up with a budget surplus. Bush faces a Congress from his own party, a Congress well known (perhaps even infamous) for enforcing party discipline, and has made his wartime misteps while running up record deficits. So to complain about what Clinton did or didn't do isn't precisely analogous either.

But it's also irrelevent to my initial post. What Clinton did to active duty personnel doesn't really apply to what Bush & Co are doing with veterans (which, as Ailwon and others rightly point out, is a bipartisan concern).

We could take a few pages from old uncle Robert and only let the Vets vote.

Caught Thormir's post at a pretty funny time. Currently I'm pseudo volunteering ($9/hour, which is a big discount from my normal rate so I'd like to think I'm volunteering) at the Military Severely Injured Joint Support Operations Center working on their web / intranet. Its actually located in the same office that used to be the Bush/Cheney National Election Headquarters *boo hiss* but that doesn't stop me from coming in :)

Ultimately the center acts as a joint operation between all branches of the military and Walter Reed Medical Center as well as some of the homeland security departments to help injured veteran (they help them get their wheelchairs on airplanes and arrange for private searches to help make the search process for the veteran easier and quicker), servicing mostly those returning from Iraq and Afghanestan but any severely injured veteran can qualify I suppose.

Your numbers are slightly off from what we are reporting here at the center Thormir, but not signifigantly. We currently have 1065 Service Members in our database, though I'd say we can safely guess there's about 1500 or so who qualify and just 400 or so who opted not to. Now this is a "Severely Injured" center, so there are some requirements such as a 30% or greater or Special Category disability (like, severe injuries including loss of sight or limbs, unsightly disfigurement of a portion of the body, incurable diseases, and established psychiatric conditions) which is thankfully a smaller portion of injured servicemen. I can't get the exact numbers, but Thormir's are "low" from what I can tell.


Now, the real kicker. The guy who sits in the cube next to me handles employment for these returning veterans. The US government gives priority to veterans for employment which is awesome, plus training and all that through the GI bill and well you know the rest. However, guess what 2 departments of the government signifigantly turn down veteran applications and ultimately have the lowest ammount of veterans working for them?

The VA and the DoD. Their numbers combined isn't even a quarter of what the next department up is. Dept of Agriculture seems to hire the most.

*edit* Oh Esbat, I am re-reading that book for like the 20th time as we speak! However, I'm not sure how pleased the Republican Party would be with the majority of voters being uneducated minorities!

I've a 13 year old son, and I'm still all for 2 years compulsary service. Be it Military or other...

Bring back the draft, make no exceptions...

Fandros


This is one of the things I always admired about Israel; compulsory service is a part of being a citizen of the country, and if I am not mistaken it is required of both male and female (or was, at the outset).

I may be wrong, but my perception has been that those who have invested of themselves in their country tend to be a bit more involved in what is happening in their country, and take ownership more readily rather than attempting to sidestep responsibility.

Thanks for the post, Kel, interesting perspective. Too busy to comment further right now, but thanks to the respondents.

"The "armor" was a battle field adjustment that was made after the enemy adjusted their tactics.... now the vast majority of vehicles are up-armored.... so I don't see this as a viable analogy."

God knows RPGs have not been around very long :confused:


Not to complicate matters but I think it was more of those Roadside devices that were injuring the troops vs RPG's.

Like someone said in one of the posts in this thread.... this part of the thread is kinda rehashing old territory so I will bow out of it now :)

1. BOTH sides have been chronically under-funding the VA and Veteran's Benefits since the 1970s. After all, most veterans don't vote as a bloc, so they can safely be ignored, politically, unless there's a war on, or its' either Veteran's Day or Memorial Day, where mouthing inexpensive platitudes generally suffices. . . .

2. Whether or not we want a draft, we don't have the infrastructure to train draftees. And it would take 2-3 years to spin it up. . .

3. ALL we have, relative to a draft right now, is recently-appointed draft boards. I know, because I'm on one. And the reason they have all recently been appointed, is NOBODY was appointing ANYONE to boards from about the mid-Reagan I administration on. Draft Board members serve a single 20-year term, and someone realized that the law required all the slots to be filled. No SEKRIT EEEVUL PLAN by Darth Cheney, the Dark Lord of Halliburton or other conspiracy theory, just. . .some civil servant realized that if the boards WEREN'T filled. . . .their jobs would have no justification, and the law required it. . . so they got busy standing things up that we otherwise covered in dust for 2 decades. . . .

So blame Civil Servants who wanted maximum paycheck for a minimum-work sinecure position for all the Draft rumors. . .

FWIW, I hadn't heard anything about the draft board positions being filled (though I can see why people would react to that). I do know a lot of folks are kicking around the idea, but few of them are actual politicians.

Gods , the crack you must smoke must be the excess from someone elses old pipe.

Clinton RAPED the military infrastructure....

Wake up, do some reading outside the lit your professor gives you to read and grow the hell up....

Fandros

/AGREE

Having been their, I can attest that although the death toll may not seem that high in comparison to wars in the past, the injury toll is far worse.

We're talking roughly 12 thousand injured.

Sure you can feel sorry all you want for those soldiers who gave their lives, but how about the soldiers who lost a limb? Or an eye? Or who are injured so bad, they cannot work anymore. How are they supposed to provide for their wives, and children?

Clinton drastically downsized the military, and we are just now feeling the effects.

Soldiers serve 18 months - 24 months in theatre, come home for 6-8 months, and turn around and get shipped out agian for another 18 month tour. I did 18 months in Iraq, came home for 6 months, and was whisked away to Kosovo for another 18 months. My best friend in the Marine Corps has served 3 rotations in Iraq already, and he is a reserve...

Why?

Because we need at least 10 more Divisions to cut rotations to 6 months, and provide longer than a year in between deployments.

Will it happen?

Probably not without a draft. Recruitment is at an all-time low right now, active duty army just reported they are down 46% in recruitment numbers.

So what does congress do?

Instead of forming a draft, they punish those who willingly serve.

How so?

By the army's wonderful (insert sarcasm here) Stop-Loss program.


Having said that, I would rather have soldiers working for me, who volunteered.

I don't think having a bunch of whining draftees would boost the already sagging moral amongst troops.

Probably not without a draft. Recruitment is at an all-time low right now, active duty army just reported they are down 46% in recruitment numbers.

Why is recruitment down? Because people realize that all they'd end up doing is being the stuffing between the front and the back of a body bag. The planning prior and throughout a lot of the recent military engagements has been noticably weak and I don't think I need to argue the obvious.
In the past our military is mostly been supported by the poor and minorities, people who didn't have many good options and saw the military as a way to survive -- not because they wanted to serve the greater good. Realizing now that they'd be nothing but cannon fodder, the other options are looking pretty good. Can't blame Clinton for not wanting people to die when there are diplomatic solutions. He didn't kill off nearly as many good soldiers as the recent administration in his two terms in office.

He didn't kill off nearly as many good soldiers as the recent administration in his two terms in office.


Nope, but with one order to the CIA we wouldnt still be looking for Bin Laden.

What Clinton did to our military was inexcusable, regardless of how you feel about Bush, Clinton did more to fuck us over. Base closures, down sizing the military, downsizing budgets for equipment. Sure he didn't get us into any wars, except Kosovo (which we needed to get involved in) oh and Somalia, oh and ... yeah I hope that fucker rots in hell. Besides if you're going to be dumb enough to get your dick sucked in the oval office, at least find a good looking intern.

Before the Clinton administration our manning was good and people didn't mind staying in for a few years or end up doing 20+. Since the Clinton admin my command and many others have had a hard time to keep people in. People in my field are dropping after thier first enlistment everyday. The only thing the military has done is increase bonuses and try to entice people into staying. Since Bush has come into office our manning has actually gone up to where people are more likely to stay in since they are not getting screwed by shitty sea/shore rotations and command duty rotations.

When I first got to my ship we had 24hr duty every 3 days at shore with 12hrs of watch each day. When I left the military due to unforseen circumstances our manning allowed us to have duty at shore once-twice a week, and sometimes only have one 6hour watch those days.

Our sea/shore roation was 5 years at sea and 2 years at shore if anyone knows the navy rotation that is crap. Now they can offer 3 and 3 year rotation. While at sea we would average a deployment for 6mos every 18mos or so, now they are talking about every 2 years or more with new ships comming and more people coming to.

People do not want to stay in when they can never get time to be on a good shore rotation and they spend most of thier time at sea. In the 5 years I was stationed on the USS Enterprise we spent probably about 3.5 years of it actually underway.

As for the military I would never regret joining and my reasons were not due to low income or anything of the sort. The Navy for me was a clean start and a way to get away from the road I was heading down in the first place, it took me alot of work to just let the military accept me let alone the clearance I got. (Lots of waivers)

Now that I am out yes I have to pay for my medical via the military but when people even at my current employment are paying 400-500 a month for medical which doesnt compare to the service and cost effectiveness I get paying 300 a year.

I know the VA is a different story but they are actually trying to streamline the Military/VA transition to where you going out physical can be used for the VA phsysical allowing for a faster transition into the VA pipeline. Yes you may have to pay but it will never be as much as some pay for medical and with more and more new highly technological VA hospitals and clinics popping up it will get better in the service area. Also when you do get out of the military the VA will treat any prior military injuries for free for life as long as they were documented. The VA knows thier history and appearance have never been good and they are trying to rectify it.

Just to add to what Korlis said, now under the Bush administration, my base pay, and bonus payments have gone up every year, now when I get home from my current deployment I can keep my medical insurance for much less than I pay for at work, and it covers me for everything. I don't have to worry wether or not my HMO is going to aprove something. It's full healthcare and dental, for damn cheap. If I had a famiy it wouldn't be that much more. Before National Guard/Reserve guys like me were usually screwed after they got home, but now we have more options.

Long story short, the mIlitary is getting payed better, better benefits, and the reservists are being treated 100% better than before. You might end up spending a few bucks more with the VA now than you would have before, btu it's still better than what is was.

Thanks to the military folks for their input.
Long story short, the mIlitary is getting payed better, better benefits, and the reservists are being treated 100% better than before.
Do you think this is specifically due to Bush being in office, or due to the war, its effects on recruitment, effects on morale, publicity over combat and death pay, etc?

I've heard some real horror stories regarding the stop loss program, but it's all been hearsay. Any extreme cases out there you guys are familiar with?

Do you think this is specifically due to Bush being in office, or due to the war, its effects on recruitment, effects on morale, publicity over combat and death pay, etc?


While conservatives love to blame Clinton for all that is bad and praise Bush for the good, and the liberals do just the opposite, the truth is that larger forces are usually at work in these situations affecting the decisions that later become attributed to the person in the office.

If our nation had not been attacked, and our national defense made the focus of so much media attention, I doubt that the improvements made and being made in the lives of our military personnel and their families would have occurred at the same level.

Due to the enormous national debt left by the Reagan years, Bush Sr. was already being advised by the think tanks to begin the process of downsizing the military and consolidate bases as a means to trim the budget.

The business-as-usual pork barrel politics played by our elected representatives in both the House and Senate have as much to do with the defense budgets as any policy put forth by the occupant of the White House. One of the most glaring examples in my memory is that of Trent Lott, whose supporters included the employees of the shipyards in his home state; he repaid them for their votes by forcing the Navy to accept a carrier that they did not want/need at a cost of almost one million more than what the navy said it should cost, to be built at those very same shipyards. It is amazing to me how these legislators trade their votes on each others bills the way we used to trade baseball cards as kids. I know at least one of the television news magazines covered this issue.

When a national budget includes X dollars for national defense, and the riders attached by legislators for their home state pork amounts to Y dollars, the money left over is what the military actually gets. And because the defense budget is only one small part of running the country, it's passage is usually tied to passage of a much larger budget bill.

Presidential policies are based on the advice of the think tanks, cabinet members, advisors, what the leaders of the House and Senate say may have a chance of being heard/voted on, and what the polls say with their numbers. And, no policy can be put into action without a majority in the House and Senate agreeing.

Edit: In the Lott example, I cannot recall if it was a million or many millions, but it was a 20% over cost amount.

I think it's 50/50 Some is because of the administration, and some is a driect result from the aftermath of the war and so many reservists being put on active duty.

A lot of the changes they've made have been kicked around for awhile, but usually got put on the back burner because there wasn't enough funding etc etc. But now that the National Guard/Reserve is taking a much more active role than ever before, these issues have come back up and now are getting the attention they deserved.

i.e. Before the only time I could get healthcare was if I had orders for more than 30 days, and then it was for only as long as my orders ran. Now if I get deployed, I keep my healthcare for 6 months after I get back home, if I nt to keep it longer than that I have the option to pay for it. And most times it's cheaper, and better than what civilian employers offer. Especially for guys like me who work crappy hourly wage jobs.

But i think they pay increases would have gone through anyways because those had been in the works from even before September 11th.

I think it's also worth mentioning that one of Rumsfeld's goals has been a smaller, lighter, more technologically advanced military force -- reduced manpower compensated (one hopes) by greater efficiency. Iraq was a testing ground for this template, which proved effective in a standard battlefield milieu, but much less so in policing, securing and keeping the peace following "Mission accomplished."

Yes. The fact remains that you can take all the territory you want, but you'll need people with rifles standing there if you want to keep it for very long.

Yes. The fact remains that you can take all the territory you want, but you'll need people with rifles standing there if you want to keep it for very long.

At least for now. The way things are going, it won't be all that long until it's armed robots on the ground, or in the air overhead. Picture an up-sized Predator Drone with a MetalStorm array in its' belly. . .Scarily awesome concept for anti-personnel warfare. . .and even scarier if we get a SkyNet, and it wakes up. . .

Excuse me while I go look for John Connor. . . .

Obligatory Link: Grenade-firing Robot Prototype (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001451.html)

Another Obligatory Link: Drone with MetalStorm load (http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_ucav.html)

this is where you provide a link to the video about a Robot Patroller :/

Just in time (http://robots.engadget.com/entry/4734164640784831/) to save the day!
To fend off accusations of child camel-jockey abuse by international human rights groups (which we reported on (http://www.engadget.com/entry/7818361058314672/) earlier), Qatar has announced they will be officially substituting robots in camel races in 2005 and beyond. Approximately 1.37 million dollars was spent developing the robots (why, we can’t tell; they just receive input for handling the reigns wirelessly) for mass production, which will cost roughly $5,500 apiece; however, for now only 100 will be purchased, meaning the Swiss company producing them immediately takes a loss of about $820,000 unless they get selling these things fast. So please, for the future of tomorrow’s child camel-jockey, would you all please buy one of these robots for camel races of your own?
Just a few alterations, and the robot patrol is on the case!

Thanks to the military folks for their input.

Do you think this is specifically due to Bush being in office, or due to the war, its effects on recruitment, effects on morale, publicity over combat and death pay, etc?

I've heard some real horror stories regarding the stop loss program, but it's all been hearsay. Any extreme cases out there you guys are familiar with?

Well, my deployment to Iraq was supposed to be 12 months. We were on the bus heading to Kuwait ready to fly out, and our bus was turned around, and we had to stay 6 more months.

About 20 soldiers were about to ETS and were basically told "tough shit" and had to survive another 6 months.

Before we left, a few soldiers in my platoon were ETS'ing about 1-2 months after they were to be deployed. They were told "tough shit" as well.

As far as the recruitment being down 46%? I think you answered that question just fine. Its pretty damn obvious why people want out, or why people would hesitate to join.

Hell if anyone is thinking about joining the reserves, you might as well go active duty. At least you'll get better benefits, since either way, you will be deployed on the first plane to Kuwait anyways.

The Stop loss program is bullshit. Same with IRR. For first timers, I strongly suggest re-enlisting for 1 year, after the initial 4-6 years, so that they don't get screwed by going IRR.

IRR will just pull anybody they need to augment a company or battalion heading to the sandbox. So you'll end up with a company that doesn't even know you, and could give two shits about you.

1. A draft is politically impossible, AND we don't have the training infrastructure for it. And I'm a member of a local Draft Board. . . .:D

2. I hate to say it, but read the fine print, next time you sign ANY contract. Stoploss, IRR callups, etc, are all there. You just didn't think they'd ever do it. Except when they do it. I know, I was IRRed into DESERT STORM, ended up flying 12 missions over Iraq.

3. The Ops Tempo is going on a downward trend. The REAL problem is the way the Reserve and Active Forces are structured: too much transportation, logistics, and MP/Civil Affairs in the Reserve and Guard, and not enough in the Active force. That being said, the Reservists and Guardsmen are STILL taking it up the butt far worse that the Active forces are. . .

1. A draft is politically impossible, AND we don't have the training infrastructure for it. And I'm a member of a local Draft Board. . . .:D

2. I hate to say it, but read the fine print, next time you sign ANY contract. Stoploss, IRR callups, etc, are all there. You just didn't think they'd ever do it. Except when they do it. I know, I was IRRed into DESERT STORM, ended up flying 12 missions over Iraq.

3. The Ops Tempo is going on a downward trend. The REAL problem is the way the Reserve and Active Forces are structured: too much transportation, logistics, and MP/Civil Affairs in the Reserve and Guard, and not enough in the Active force. That being said, the Reservists and Guardsmen are STILL taking it up the butt far worse that the Active forces are. . .

/agreed

Don't misunderstand me, I know I was the one who signed on the dotted line, and agreed to stoploss, etc. I just think its a bad policy is all. I can understand IRR, but stoploss is pretty fucked up.

As I understand it, they have been converting alot of field artillery and other non-essential MOS's to Mps now based on the current needs in Iraq. Hell right now we have a battalion of infantry and a battalion of armor patrolling the streets and doing cordon searches in Kosovo. Because we don't have enough Mps.

I'm an Mp, but I think the re-class thing needs to be looked at. These guys took a two-week course and now they are 31B's ??? When I went through AIT it was 9 weeks, and that wasn't nearly long enough.