When "supporting our troops" means keeping them in Iraq

Comments

2 comments posted
Troop Rotation

Actually, the early problems are going to be with replacing equipment rather than troops. That one will come later, and will linger on for years.

Equipment is being used up at a stunning pace. Our high-tech military gear is the WWII gear that could be run off on assembly lines in relatively short order. It is complex, expensive and hard to maintain in field conditions. Replacement of equipment has received very little attention, either in the press or in DoD budget lines.

"Combat troops, meanwhile, are coming to realize that the Pentagon can't fulfill its commitment...", and so have the people in the potential pool of recruits. Others see this, and it does not encourage them to enlist in any service, but especially in the Army or Marines. Young people of age to serve do not believe the nation is in peril from al-Qaeda, not in an existential sense. And they are not rushing to the ramparts to defend America. That tells it's own story. The Army has had to raise the upper age limit twice, and pulled back people who thought they had retired or that they had served their time and could bet on with their lives. And they're still having trouble making their recruitment goals.

But the issue doesn't get any real ink, because the fate of the troops is not really a topic for discussion. Even after the Walter Reed revealations. People now expect soldiers to go fight till the fightin' is done; they don't expect "whining" about getting out of combat as promised. This is especially true of the "support the troops" crowd.

zak822's picture
Posted by zak822 (not verified) on 12 March 2007 - 11:44am
Great point

Rather frightening, isn't it? Especially when you consider how dangerous the world is otherwise.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 12 March 2007 - 9:41pm