Contrary to what one might think, the current leadership of the United States has not been very kind to its fighting men and women. Those fighting in Iraq today do not receive the same level of medical care upon their return as those who fought in the first Iraq war. The deficit budget tries to save money in sometimes cruel ways.
Like many previous wars, the war in Iraq has become highly controversial. In one respect, however, the controversy surrounding this war is unique. This writer believes that one factor affecting our debate is that this is a remote war for most Americans: We don’t see it up close and personal, unless we’re among the minority who know someone wounded or killed there. Unlike most previous wars, there has been no tax increase to finance it. Unlike most previous wars, there has been no conscription, nothing approaching universal military service. In an effort to keep its distance, the US government has even adopted a law that prohibits the filming of military coffins that are returned to the United States. This remoteness is not an accident; it is clearly a matter of intention.
So how much do we really care about the women and men who fight there? Doesn’t seem like much. Military recruiting has become increasingly difficult, and to aid the recruiting effort, substantial signing bonuses are promised to those who volunteer. But apparently with a big “gotcha”. If a volunteer is sent abroad to fight and is crippled, that person is considered no longer useful, thus no longer good for the funds. If a soldier can no longer fight, his bonus stops being paid, or he may be asked to give something back. We have no shame! Life is really hard for anyone with a disabling injury. Has war become so remote that we don’t even need to help our wounded veterans upon their return?
There are those who think the opposite. Representative Jason Altmire, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, is reported to have introduced the “Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act of 2007” (HR 3793), and now has over forty backers.
The shocking aspect of this situation is that such a bill should be proposed. The president is the commander and chief, as he reminds us so many times; and it is his job to supervise the military. President Bush should never have allowed this shameful policy to go into effect. Someone in the Department of Defense or the Pentagon should have questioned this and it should have been fixed. It is now possible that the legislation funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan requires such disgraceful treatment from our military, in which case everyone who voted for that legislation should be looted along with the president who signed it.