<p>In a letter written in the months before America declared its independence, Samuel Adams described the way in which soldiers lose their sense of citizenship:</p>
<pre><code>"A standing army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the liberties of the people. Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens. They have their arms always in their hands. Their rules and their discipline is severe. They soon become attached to their officers and disposed to yield implicit obedience to their commands. Such a power should be watched with a jealous eye.
</code></pre>
<p>Sorry but the second part of Adams’ quote was cut off from my previous post:</p>
<p>“Men who have been long subject to military laws, and inured to military customs and habits, may lose the spirit and feeling of citizens. And even citizens, having been used to admiring the heroism which the Commanders of their own Army have displayed, and to look upon them as their saviors, may be prevailed upon to surrender to them those rights for the protection of which against invaders they had employed and paid them. We have seen too much of this disposition among some of our countrymen.”</p>
<p>I see absolutely no contradiction in providing moral and physical support to our servicemen and women overseas (I despise the platitude “support out troops” as it has been twisted to mean different things to different people) and believing that our invasion of Iraq was a horrible blunder, then and now, and wanting our people to get home safely as soon as possible. </p>
<p>My support now is limited to financial contributions to USO. Back in 2001 when a friend was sent to Afghanistan (45 yr old army reservist was called up because he flies helicopters) he told me there was lots of down time and asked me to send him some car magazines. So I filled a box with magazines, topped it off with some suntan lotion and treats and sent it off to his APO address. I did this a few more times, even after he returned, addressing the boxes to the base commander, until he returned to the states and I had a box returned due to no name on the address. Today there is a much better support system in place with lots of care packages being sent over, so my personal efforts are no longer as important.</p>
<p>So you think that the problems at Walter Reed only developed in the last 6 years? I think there was a long standing problem, which is now being addressed, as it should be. At least the people in charge are taking the fall – the Secretary of the Army has now resigned.</p>
<p>The problems Walter Reed had in Building 18–its outpatient, long-term care unit for men and women disabled in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan? </p>
<p>If you had read up much on the issue, you will see over and over again, people on both sides of the issue say that the system was overwhelmed by the large numbers of injured soldiers coming into the outpatient facility without adequate planning or infrastructre set up for them. Six years ago, this wasn’t a problem.</p>
<p>If you had read up much on the issue, you also would know that a huge problem is the lack of trained, experienced staff to help the soliders and their family. Why is there a shortage? A decision made by the wartime adminstration to privitize management of the facility–a decision that led to the resignations of 250 of the 300 staff members. </p>
<p>The administration was warned at the time that care would be compromised if it proceeded to privatize the facility (and that costs would likely increase, rather than decrease) and it proceeded anyway, awarding the contract to a company owned by someone who had been a high ranking Halliburton official.</p>
<p>How can anyone reasonably expect a facility in the face of 75% turnover rates to provide good, consistent care for something as complex as rehabilitating seriously disabled people in a large bureacracy? </p>
<p>Not only have the prowar folks done nothing to improve conditions at Walter Reed, the problems have gotten worse during the Bush administration, because the administration failed to plan for the influx of disabled soldiers, and in the case of the privatization–the administration specifically took action that created more problems.</p>
<p>The DAV? One of the resources you linked to? Gives your party very low grades on for its voting record on issues of importance to troops, veterans, and their families.</p>
<p>Will those who both “support” our president’s war and our troops BE THERE for our soldiers when they return home and realize that they not only participated in a war that was launched on false premises but also are at least partially responsible for the killing of, at a minimum, 150,000 innocent Iraqi civilians? My beloved nephew, currently serving as an officer in Iraq, is already a broken man. The third deployment has put him over the edge. His parents and the rest of his extended family are all bracing for the worst when he returns home. That will be the final judgment on how our family “supports” our troops.</p>
<p>That’s a distortion. I said that the DAV gives low marks to Republican politicians on issues of importance to military families and veterans; things like health care, rehabilitation, and equipment. As indeed they do. Because the track record is dismal.</p>
<p>And it gives high marks to Democrats on those same issues. Why? Because Democrats vote for them, Republicans vote against. It’s based completely on objective votes.</p>