The costs of a war of attrition.
| By Doc - Feb 5th, 2009 at 11:34 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Colorado Citizens for Peace | Veterans for Progress |
As the costs of maintaining our presence, as opposed to advancing goals whatever they may be, in Iraq and Afghanistan approach 600 billion dollars with no end in sight, and with the economic meltdown topping the news daily, displacing the other drain on the public coffers, now is as good a time as any to number the reasons that there is no immediate effort to reduce troop numbers and stand down our military presence in spite of the enormous cost and in light of efforts to resuscitate the rest of an economy in cardiac arrest. Without a thumbs up or down on how United States forces deployed in war zones are doing, these are some of the realities facing our reservists and guard units.
Many of these troops will be returning to unemployment due to layoffs, downsizing and closures of businesses in which they were formerly employed due to current market conditions. State unemployment services are already approaching their thresholds of funding for non-military residents caught up in current downsizing.
Many of these troops will need services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, services that it is currently unable to provide, be they medical, educational, or readjustment oriented. No budget available according to the VA. Even the highly touted new GI Bill hasn't been rolled out yet.
Many of these troops will require long term or permanent compensation for physical and mental health issues related to repeated or contiguous assignments in combat areas, even if the VA reforms claim processes to reduce lengthy, redundant and expensive hearings and appeals processes. No budget available according to the VA.
Frankly, isn't it cheaper to keep the war going than it is to bring back 150,000 plus troops and try to reintegrate them into an economy in crisis. After all, these folks have been over there for so long already… some on their third and fourth tours. It's like a second home to them. But is this really a good reason to keep a war going? It worked in Vietnam, didn't it? Or did it?
Of course in Vietnam, the fewer of us that came back, the fewer the administration and the VA had to worry about taking care of. History has shown that scenario worked out really well for the Nixon administration. Mission accomplished, victory with honor, stupidity with consistency.
Many of these troops will be returning to unemployment due to layoffs, downsizing and closures of businesses in which they were formerly employed due to current market conditions. State unemployment services are already approaching their thresholds of funding for non-military residents caught up in current downsizing.
Many of these troops will need services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, services that it is currently unable to provide, be they medical, educational, or readjustment oriented. No budget available according to the VA. Even the highly touted new GI Bill hasn't been rolled out yet.
Many of these troops will require long term or permanent compensation for physical and mental health issues related to repeated or contiguous assignments in combat areas, even if the VA reforms claim processes to reduce lengthy, redundant and expensive hearings and appeals processes. No budget available according to the VA.
Frankly, isn't it cheaper to keep the war going than it is to bring back 150,000 plus troops and try to reintegrate them into an economy in crisis. After all, these folks have been over there for so long already… some on their third and fourth tours. It's like a second home to them. But is this really a good reason to keep a war going? It worked in Vietnam, didn't it? Or did it?
Of course in Vietnam, the fewer of us that came back, the fewer the administration and the VA had to worry about taking care of. History has shown that scenario worked out really well for the Nixon administration. Mission accomplished, victory with honor, stupidity with consistency.
Comments are closed for this post.
Speaking as another PNC writer who has completed a career in the Armed Forces I am confident that Doc does not want any of us to utter one word, or write a single byte advocating a prolonged US military presence in either Iraq or Afghanistan.
What is vital is a change of priority to building-up the Iraqi and Afghan civil and government institutions to a level where they can also stand-up to the insurgents, Taliban and Al-Qaida. Every increased effort in the non-military measures (economic development, rule of law and smart diplomacy) will hasten the end of military action.
Of final note it is important o remember that the redeployment of active-duty troops will not mean a repeat of the post-Vietnam RIF (reduction in force). That's the "off the table" action that would automatically send them into the unemployment line through government action. Unfortunately, this will not prevent many from abadoning their military paychecks in the face of a future combat deployment.
The population that remains at risk are National Guard and reserve troops coming home from their one-year temporary jobs working overseas jobs for the Department of Defense. Closed businesses, lay-offs and an under-funded/staffed Federal Government capability to enforce the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) leave them at the mercy of the recession.