Politics, News & Issues >
Political Issues
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedWas an US Army reservist right to sue the government after multiple deployments?
Results so far:
| No | 69% | 22 votes | Total: 32 votes | |
| Yes | 31% | 10 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesVolunteering for military service is often the last choice a person will be able to make for the duration of their contracted time. I was amazed by the number of military personnel who suddenly balked at their duty when the first Gulf War began. Unfortunately, it is the result of a society that thinks that honoring commitments is archaic. No, just to clear the air it is not right or appropriate for a volunteer to decide to no longer honor the oath they freely made when joining the military.
Most difficult is explaining to one never in the military what such an oath means. You are not merely saying something automatically like the pledge. This is a public expression of your desire to serve the nation in its military according to the rules governing such service. This is NOT something for a child it is the act of an adult.
"The recruiter lied to me." or "Those military types brainwash poor dumb kids into joining." Sorry you are an adult in the eyes of the law and there are multiple points in the enlistment process where you are notified verbally and in written form that you are making a very serious commitment to serve for the length of your contracted time.
I think people who cry foul about this likewise want to bail out people who bought a house they can't afford and now they want some institution to take responsibility for their lack of maturity. The problem is a society that wants to let individuals make and break their words when the wind changes direction. This reservist signed a contract, made an oath before others, and showed up for training / deployments all done voluntarily. They can't decide to break this promise because of multiple deployments.
Sure it sucks that our sons and daughters have to repeatedly risk life and limb for a dubious political reason. Rest assured even when the reason for fighting was clear cut our military members very much desired an escape from danger but realized they had a duty. Heck, many who were drafted still served honorably so what exactly is the gripe of a volunteer? The answer is not teaching the young that the oath of service should have an asterisk like Bonds home run record. Whether the war is popular or not the fact remains that once you volunteer you are committed and to shirk your duty and try and get out of it is to dishonor yourself.
One problem with people and their opinions on Iraq is a lack of fundamental knowledge. They say, 'It's Bush's war.' No, he asked and received authorization from Congress otherwise who would have neither the authority nor the funds to commence operations. Clinton has had an attack of hindsight and Obama a sigh of relief that he was not yet in office to vote for or against the operations. However, both have voted for continued funding of military operations in Iraq. Another problem is the most simple, if you are against the war in Iraq then don't join the military. Well people are still joining and those who were on active duty at the outset are still re-enlisting enough to sustain operations. This is perhaps the most frustrating factor is the media's spin that the war is like Vietnam.
Vietnam was a civil war that we got involved in. American troops where by majority draftees. North Vietnam was supported heavily by both China and the Soviet Union. Iraq was a threat to the stability of the region under Hussein's rule. In military operations the United States was able to with support from allies remove Saddam and end decades of brutal minority rule of the Iraqi people. American troops are exclusively volunteers so if the war is so unpopular would it not stand to reason none could be found to serve there? No, Judges can no longer give one a choice between the military or jail. The insurgency is being supported by a variety of tribal factions that have limited resources and difficulty in logistics.
All the history aside the cold hard fact is this reservist has no legal right to agree to serve and then balk when deployments are more than they like. This reservist has the option to request transfer, become a conscientious objector, or just wait out their time and not re-up. Those options at least reflect an honorable alternative to a very childish act of defiance when things don't go their way. I can respect that they have done their duty what I can't abide is a decision that their oath to serve is based on their whim and not the letter of their contract with the United States military. This lawsuit is another symptom of decreasing individual responsibility in the face of one's duty.
Learn more about this author, T. M. Beeker.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
If we are to be known as a nation of laws, it is incumbent upon the citizens of this country to honor their contractual obligations. In joining the military (or the reserves) this person had to sign a contract which obligated them to service to their country and possibly being called to war. This is no problem if both sides understand the terms of it and honor the contract.
However, our laws also give us the right to sue if one believes an inequity is incurred by means of, or implementation of the contract.
Certainly, when one initially signs up for military duty, they expect to learn a job skill and do their duty to the best of their ability. And, not always do they fully understand this obligation at the time of signing. Let's face it - not everyone is mature and understanding enough at an early age when they are getting out of school, or initially go in, because of perceived patriotic feelings. Nonetheless, they must commit themselves to the stress and rigors of any duty assignment into which the military places them. Now they are part of a team and other people depend on them for successful completion of the missions - and possibly with their lives. Particularly in war.
Having said this, and having an intimate understanding of the military from personal experience, it should be pointed out that there is often much deception by recruiters to reach their recruiting goals. Particularly in time of 'questionable' wars such as Viet Nam, Korea, and Iraq.
What makes the Iraqi war different from those in the past, is that we as a Nation did not commit this Nation's military fully to the war. In the past, we did not rely solely on our National Guard to fight these wars. We had an expanded policy that included a national military lottery system to equitably place a greater burden on the people of this country AS A WHOLE BODY. There was a greater consciousness, agreement and commitment to those wars. Consequently, we as a country geared up for war. We provided adequate equipment and personnel to accomplish our goals in those wars, unlike what has been done in this incursion which has lasted longer than World War I and II.
In a congressional speech earlier this year to Congress, California Senator Barbara Boxer stated that 20% of the deaths in Iraq were of Californians. In a nation of 50 states, it would seem that undue burden has been placed on one particular state.
The individual filing this lawsuit did not object to military service - or even to going to war. It was the excessive burden placed on them through unreasonable demands which inspired this lawsuit. Why should one person be discharged after two rotations and others be committed to five rotations? This person and others like them did not commit to a CAREER in the military. If this country was committed to a military and political policy that commits us to long-term engagements overseas, it is up to our leaders, particularly the Commander-in-Chief, to prepare this country appropriately. This means with regard to its personnel, industry and stockpiles to successfully implement such a conflict. Such is its obligation to its own people, and a draft system should have been imposed upon the nation once again. Spread the responsibility.
Thus said, the answer to the question is not as simplistic as one might assume at first glance. We, the people, need to question our needs and commitments imposed by our leaders. This lawsuit is more than just one person trying to get out of responsibility or shirking their duty. Their commitment has already been proven.
Sometimes, the phrase " SUPPORT OUR TROOPS " means to support their rights.
Are we placing undue burdens on them? Are we providing what is necessary for their sustenance and well-being? Or are they just cannon-fodder to be used without regard by some glory-hungry general looking to promote his career? Or by a stubborn politician who refuses to admit he made a BIG mistake and refuses to reallocate manpower?
Think about it. Our men and women have once again done what has been needed . Sure, many of them go into the military to make a better life than they had at home.
Or to learn responsibility, or for family pride, or to take advantage of the money for college. Few go in to it looking for the government death benefit provided to their spouses, parents or children. When our troops go from a "gung-ho" attitude to a
"what are we fighting for?" mode, we need to re-ask ourselves what we are truly committed to 'over there'.
Learn more about this author, Tim Schroll.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
