Troops React With Anger And Frustration

[Psychoblues]

War ain’t fun, guaranteed or even just in most cases.


"Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced yesterday that all U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq would have their 12-month tours in Iraq extended by 3 additional months. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) called the policy “an additional burden to an already overstretched Army,” and warned not to “underestimate the enormous negative impact this will have on Army families.”

Now, newspapers are returning harrowing accounts from the ground, where U.S. soldiers reacted to the news with “muffled outbursts of anger and frustration laced with dark humor.” The Washington Post reports:

They found out by reading exasperated e-mails from their spouses, hearing somber announcements from their platoon commanders, seeing snippets of the secretary of defense at a televised news conference: The American soldiers who thought they were staying in Iraq one year would now stay 15 months. All of them.

From Texas to Baghdad and Baqubah to the Beltway, the reaction Thursday among U.S. soldiers and their families to the news of the mass extension was akin to a collective groan."


More: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/troops-extensions/


It’s a power thing that doesn’t apply to the power of the soldiers themselves.

[Gunny]

War ain’t fun, guaranteed or even just in most cases.


"Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced yesterday that all U.S. Army soldiers in Iraq would have their 12-month tours in Iraq extended by 3 additional months. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) called the policy “an additional burden to an already overstretched Army,” and warned not to “underestimate the enormous negative impact this will have on Army families.”

Now, newspapers are returning harrowing accounts from the ground, where U.S. soldiers reacted to the news with “muffled outbursts of anger and frustration laced with dark humor.” The Washington Post reports:

They found out by reading exasperated e-mails from their spouses, hearing somber announcements from their platoon commanders, seeing snippets of the secretary of defense at a televised news conference: The American soldiers who thought they were staying in Iraq one year would now stay 15 months. All of them.

From Texas to Baghdad and Baqubah to the Beltway, the reaction Thursday among U.S. soldiers and their families to the news of the mass extension was akin to a collective groan."


More: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/13/troops-extensions/


It’s a power thing that doesn’t apply to the power of the soldiers themselves.

Is there a point here? As PEGWINN stated, the only thing troops want when in the field is o-u-t. I don't think anyone expected them to throw a parade over it.

When I was a part of it we had this simple little attitude to cover instances such as this .... suck it up and march on.

[avatar4321]

If Democrats stopped playing games with our troops lives, perhaps we wouldnt have any of the troops burning out

[Gunny]

If Democrats stopped playing games with our troops lives, perhaps we wouldnt have any of the troops burning out

Troops are always burnt out. It's just a fact of life for them. This is just something else that's happened to all of us at some point in time. I deployed in 1990 for a routine, 180 day WESTPAC. We had no idea that when it was over, that 180 days would turn into 301. And you can just bet we all bitched about it. Even the officers got caught bitching a time or two. We always had this old saying though .... if a Marine ain't bitching, something's wrong or something's getting destroyed.

I'll tell you when troop morale is going to go to shit, and there is historical precedent to back my opinion.

When the date of our abandoning the field to the enemy is set, EVREY person in the military is going to turn into a marginalist. Do as little as possible and stay alive because from the date of announcement to the date of actually leaving, they will KNOW they are serving no purpose.

[gabosaurus]

I am sure that, when the military offers a sufficient incentive, some grunt will issue a "statement" supporting the new deployment policy.
Does the Pentagon make it a policy to lie to the common soldier? It is bad enough that they are sent over to fight's Bush's War of aggression. Then they are stuck there for who knows how long, because no one wants to join up.
What message does this send to a young person who is considering enlistment?

[Samantha]

If Democrats stopped playing games with our troops lives, perhaps we wouldnt have any of the troops burning out

Don't you mean republicans? It's the dems that want the troops to come home. It's the repubs that want to keep them stuck in the middle of an Iraq civil war with Saudi Arabis funding the Sunnis (who are killing our troops) and Iran funding the Shias (who are killing our troops). I think we should get out of the way and let them fight amongst themselves.

[glockmail]

Don't you mean republicans? It's the dems that want the troops to come home. It's the repubs that want to keep them stuck in the middle of an Iraq civil war with Saudi Arabis funding the Sunnis (who are killing our troops) and Iran funding the Shias (who are killing our troops). I think we should get out of the way and let them fight amongst themselves.

Its the dems that have tied the hands of the troops, not enabling them to finish their job.

[Gunny]

I am sure that, when the military offers a sufficient incentive, some grunt will issue a "statement" supporting the new deployment policy.
Does the Pentagon make it a policy to lie to the common soldier? It is bad enough that they are sent over to fight's Bush's War of aggression. Then they are stuck there for who knows how long, because no one wants to join up.
What message does this send to a young person who is considering enlistment?

What incentive do you envision being offered? Do you know what a "grunt" is?

The Pentagon hasn't lied to anyone, and once again your ignorance is on display. Deployments are routinely extended for various reason, whether or not we are at war. The only thing deployment limitations affect in reality are financial entitlements.

Anybody that's ever done a seabag drag up the pier and requested permission to come aboard knows that before they every step foot on the vessel, face aft and salute the National ensign.

[Gunny]

Don't you mean republicans? It's the dems that want the troops to come home. It's the repubs that want to keep them stuck in the middle of an Iraq civil war with Saudi Arabis funding the Sunnis (who are killing our troops) and Iran funding the Shias (who are killing our troops). I think we should get out of the way and let them fight amongst themselves.

So you feel no obligation whatsoever to finish something we started? It's okay to just leave those Iraqi's that like their version of a democratically elected government and the hands of religious extremists who envision only one thing ...another radical Islamic theocracy?

Your "humanitarian concern" is touching, but misplaced. It should be for the weak at the mercy of wolves, not the warriors who come to protect them. That's our freakin' job.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

So you feel no obligation whatsoever to finish something we started? It's okay to just leave those Iraqi's that like their version of a democratically elected government and the hands of religious extremists who envision only one thing ...another radical Islamic theocracy?

We did finish what we started. Bush even went on some aircraft carrier and told us the Mission was Accomplished. What happened after that was Mission Bungled. The neocons blasted Clinton for his efforts in Bosnia over nation building and Bush ran for president on those concepts. Then he decided to prove he could do better than Bubba and look what he did.

The war that rages now is a civil war and it is of our making. Unless you are suggesting a Viet Nam like troop "surge" there is no winning a war where both sides are aiming at you as well as each other. The troops on the ground see that and they are correct to be irritated by this latest move to extend their tours just like they were mad over the Stop Loss program.

The Pentagon hasn't lied to anyone, and once again your ignorance is on display.

Tell that to the family of Pat Tillman.

[Gunny]

We did finish what we started. Bush even went on some aircraft carrier and told us the Mission was Accomplished. What happened after that was Mission Bungled. The neocons blasted Clinton for his efforts in Bosnia over nation building and Bush ran for president on those concepts. Then he decided to prove he could do better than Bubba and look what he did.

Odd, I don't recall Bush mentioning Bosnia much at all.

The war that rages now is a civil war and it is of our making. Unless you are suggesting a Viet Nam like troop "surge" there is no winning a war where both sides are aiming at you as well as each other. The troops on the ground see that and they are correct to be irritated by this latest move to extend their tours just like they were mad over the Stop Loss program.

We did not create the Civil War in Iraq. That's crap. We merely gave the factions a stage to play on. They existed pre-US.

What the troops on the ground "see" is they are shackled by a bunch of politically correct, politically-based rules that prevent them from doing their jobs to the best of their abilities.

I'm not contending anyone likes or is embracing the extensions. Of course they're piss them off. I'd be pissed off. But not for any reason you assume. Most people I knew were usually pissed off about two seconds after a deployment began, and weren't happy until their feet were back on US soil and momma was there to greet us. During that one, REALLY long day in between the first and last days of a deployment, we just shouldered our loads and did our jobs, hating every minute of it but knowing it had to be done.

Tell that to the family of Pat Tillman.

Tell them what exactly?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) on the subject of Bosnia

Concerning the lying of the Pentagon: Not that you ever look at sources but for the lurkers who are following this discussion, I'm posting this so they know you just got owned.

[Gunny]

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) on the subject of Bosnia

Concerning the lying of the Pentagon: Not that you ever look at sources but for the lurkers who are following this discussion, I'm posting this so they know you just got owned.

You couldn't own me if I made your argument for you. It's pretty-damned clear in what context I made my post, and it's pretty damned clear how far you had to stretch to try and compare one completely unrelated instance to another.

The only ass you kicked is your own, dumbshit.

That horseshit out of the way, are you saying the President has no exit strategy in Iraq? Seems to me it's been said all along that once the government of Iraq is stable and can sustain itself we will leave. That would be called an exit strategy.

Getting from deposing Saddam to that point would be called an Occupation Strategy.

You just ain't all that bright, are you?

[glockmail]

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
–Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) on the subject of Bosnia

.... .

What's the US exit strategy in Japan, Germany, and Korea? As this conflict (with Muslims) has gone on since before 1776, why should we expect to exit Iraq sooner?

[Gaffer]

The war with saddam ended after three weeks. The war with islam continues. It's being fought in countries around the world. It will continue until it's over. There is no exit strategy as that is not an option. There is only victory over islam.

Exit strategy is a stupid liberal term that means to retreat in defeat.