BS: After they come home, then what?

Subject: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 02:07 PM

While I am a vet and I do think the military is necessary and that every man should be required to serve—not like this. This is a war so built up on lies that it boggles my mind that the public is still as silent as it is about it.

The media are stoking us up on these stories of American courage via wounded soldiers demanding to be returned to their units to continue the good fight and the govt being so touched that they grant them their wish—bless you boys . Those stories frighten me because the media are praising what is actually a psychological disorder that is not being treated!!!

Quite simply, an increasing number of our soldiers are becoming addicted to war. The adrenalin rush is a drug no different than any other except your brain is the dealer in this case. Once you get addicted to that rush, you have no other way to get it than to be in dangerous situations. The idea of just going home and taking it easy and sitting out the rest of the fight is unthinkable—you'd rather be dead. Indeed one man I read about had his ankle blown up but is still able to walk on it, has volunteered for a third tour and insists he will sign up for a fourth. Only then does he lament that he doesn't see his two young sons very much. I mean, my god, isn't it obvious the man has a severe psychological disorder induced by this war and that he desperately needs to go home and receive extensive counseling? Good lord, they sent him back to his unit!! You know they wouldn't have if they weren't so low on troops but right now they'll even take a disabled, mentally fucked up casualty instead of sending him home saying "you've done enough."

The point is, Bush did indeed claim this war will still be ongoing after he leaves office. By that time, how many Americans will we have sent? How many will come back addicted to war? What's going to happen when these people try returning to a peaceful, relatively nondescript lifestyle in middleclass America? They're going to go crazy. Just like those Nam vets who kept having flashbacks about being back in Saigon (the body is so badly withdrawing from lack of chemical rush that it recreates the locale in the mind in an attempt to induce the rush again) are going to be replaced by thousands and thousands who return to Iowa, Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, wherever and still think they are in Baghdad or Fallujah or Sadr City.

And judging from these atrocity incidents that keep surfacing (and about which the public is very silent) we're due to see some brutality and crime break out when enough of these troops come home and have had a few years to let their juices stew over everything they saw and did. If you're 20 years old and never saw a dead body before and you watch a fellow soldier rape a girl and shoot her in the head and kill her family because they were witnesses, what is that going to do to your head ten years down the road when you have a family of your own and you have never received an ounce of counseling?

One thing about a draft is that it makes people go who don't want to go and who don't want to be soldiers. They're not ever likely to enjoy the situations they are in. When you have a volunteer army, you have people who DO want to go and who DO want to be soldiers and you're much more likely to have cases of killing and torturing innocent people from the overzealous righteousness of their cause. And you're putting them in a situation where an Iraqi dignitary has to have a 12-vehicle heavily armed escort simply to cross the street (no exaggeration according to a Newsweek reporter currently there). I mean, DANGEROUS! And we're dropping them in this hellhole a mandatory 2 or 3 times and allowing them to volunteer for as many tours as they want!! Good god, the horrible psychoses we are going to start seeing in our midst a few years down the road.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: number 6
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 02:20 PM

Didn't anyone think of this before the U.S. attacked Iraq?

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 03:09 PM

Most people aren't thinking about it now. I only thought about it because I could not understand how a man could receive grievous wounds and demand to be sent back to the fight rather than go home and be with his family. I wondered what is going to happen when he is finally sent home for the final time. Something's very wrong there.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 03:32 PM

The only reason troops serve over and over is because the US military uses the Reserves, the National Guard, and "stop loss" instead of fresh soldiers. This is because of failed civilian leadership, not because the military leadership didn't foresee what's happened. Of course the civilian side, which controls the military, told the generals and admirals to shut up and march. And now we see what that has led to.

GWB could have had a declaration of war, a draft, and all that immediately after September 11, 2001. He didn't ask for it and I suspect it was because of economics rather than for any other reason (and don't get into this "you can't locate terrorists" -- we knew then and know now that the attacks came from Afghanistan no matter who hijacked the planes). A declaration of war would have given him all the powers he's usurped and more.

Why economics? Well, for one thing, no one could collect the insurance on the WTC buildings if the damage was due to an act of war. And if you doubt this, read the fine print of your homeowner's insurance policy.... If you look you can find the others.

Of course, there will be immense problems: PTSD is already rampant, as are amputees and head injuries due to blast effects. But that's okay, because even though the VA budget has been cut (again) the VA will take care of them just like it's taken care of the Vietnam vets.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 04:16 PM

I very much dislike cut 'n' pasting news stories, but this one seems very a propos and I can't get a clicky to work right. So here:

Homelessness a Threat for Iraq Vets

By VERENA DOBNIK
Associated Press Writer
        
NEW YORK (AP) -- Herold Noel had nowhere to call home after returning from military service in Iraq. He slept in his Jeep, taking care to find a parking space where he wouldn't get a ticket.

"Then the nightmares would start," says the 26-year-old former Army private first class, who drove a fuel truck in Iraq. "I saw a baby decapitated when it was run over by a truck - I relived that every night."

Across America on any given evening, hundreds of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan like Noel are homeless, according to government estimates.

The reasons for their plight are many. For some, residual stress from daily insurgent attacks and roadside bombs makes it tough to adjust to civilian life; some can't navigate government assistance programs; others simply can't afford a house or apartment.

They are living on the edge in towns and cities big and small, from Washington state to California and Florida. Some of the hardest hit are in New York City, where housing costs "can be very tough," says Peter Dougherty, head of the federal government's Homeless Veterans Program. Studio apartments routinely exceed $1,000 a month - no small sum for veterans trying to land on their feet.

As a member of the National Guard, Nadine Beckford patrolled New York train stations after the Sept. 11 attacks, then served a treacherous year in the Gulf region.

But when she returned home from Iraq, she found her storage locker had been emptied of all of her belongings and her bank account had been depleted. She believes her boyfriend took everything and "just vanished."

Six months after her return to America, she lives in a homeless shelter in Brooklyn, sharing a room with eight other women and attending a job training program. Her parents live in Jamaica and are barely making ends meet, she says.
        
"I'm just an ordinary person who served. I'm not embarrassed about my homelessness, because the circumstances that created it were not my fault," says Beckford, 30, who was a military-supply specialist at a U.S. base in Iraq - a sitting duck for around-the-clock attacks "where hell was your home."

It was a "hell" familiar to Noel during his eight months in Iraq. But it didn't stop when he returned home to New York last year and couldn't find a job to support his wife and three children. Without enough money to rent an apartment, he turned to the housing programs for vets, "but they were overbooked," Noel says.

While he was in Iraq, his family had lived in military housing in Georgia.

In New York, they ended up in a Bronx shelter "with people who were just out of prison, and with roaches," Noel says. "I'm a young black man from the ghetto, but this was culture shock. This is not what I fought for, what I almost died for. This is not what I was supposed to come home to."

There are about 200,000 homeless vets in the United States, according to government figures. About 10 percent are from either the 1991 Gulf War or the current one, about 40 percent are Vietnam veterans, and most of the others served when the country was not officially at war.

"In recent years, we've tried to reach out sooner to new veterans who are having problems with post-traumatic stress, depression or substance abuse, after seeing combat," says Dougherty. "These are the veterans who most often end up homeless."

About 350 nonprofit service organizations are working with the Department of Veterans Affairs to help veterans.

But the veterans still land on a hard bottom line: Almost half of America's 2.7 million disabled veterans receive $337 or less a month in benefits, according to the government. Fewer than one-tenth are rated 100 percent disabled, meaning they get $2,393 a month, tax free.

"And only those who receive that 100 percent benefit rating can survive in New York," says J.B. White, a 36-year-old former Marine who served with a National Guard unit in Iraq. His colon was removed after he was diagnosed with severe ulcerative colitis, which civilian medical experts believe started in Iraq under the stress of war.

"I'd be homeless if it weren't for the support of my family," says White, who is trying to win benefits from the VA. He also helps others, like Beckford, as head of a Manhattan-based social service agency that finds non-government housing for vets.

Noel now attends a program to get work in studio sound production. He was the protagonist of the documentary film "When I Came Home," which was named best New York-made documentary at the Tribeca Film Festival this year.

Just after the news reports about his plight, he learned the government was granting him the 100 percent disability compensation he sought - after being turned down.

Noel doesn't blame the Army, which "helped make my dreams come true," he says, recalling the military base life in Georgia and in Korea that his family enjoyed before his deployment to Iraq.

"I had a house, a car - they gave me everything they promised me," he says. "Now it's up to the government and the people we're defending to take care of their soldiers."

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Alice
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 07:04 PM

282RA, you have brought to light a very important issue. I hope it is something that gets more attention.
This reminds me of when I was helping people who were coming out of cult experiences, trying to sort out what was a false idea and what was true, what was their cult programmed personality and what was the personality they wanted to continue into the future.
One statement that was clearly made by a person who had helped many people regain their lives, "group think" takes advantage of our most altruistic intentions. A leader or group can use our best intentions, our highest ideals, our desire to help the world, to fight for good and freedom, etc., to make us follow the leader and remain loyal. It is amazing how strong this bond can be and to what extent people feel completely locked into an activity that they have been programmed for. It is amazing how people will leave their children behind and pursue what they have been programmed to do by strong emotional conditioning.
A close friend of mine has a young son who joined the National Guard right out of high school. It was before the Iraq war. He was a junior olympic champion in biathlon target shooting/ski racing. He was planning on winter rescue work in the National Guard. They promised to pay for his college education when he signed up. Now, he is back home after spending over a year in Iraq, and they told him at the end of his semester in college, he has to come up with the money himself to pay the tuition. The fund is empty for college tuition for the national guard. He told his mom, don't tell anyone, don't call a senator or complain, it would only make me look bad. We are supposed to keep our mouths shut.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 08:08 PM

Alice, I don't know about your friend's son's specific situation, but he should contact the VA directly rather than listening to somebody else telling him that there is nothing available. Reservists (and that includes the Guard) who served on active duty in Iraq have benefits much the same as any other vet, and that includes education. And, if the VA had run out of money to pay activated reservists, we would have all heard about it. Money in state scholarship funds is something else entirely, but telling his mother that she shouldn't ask her...and his...elected rep. is just so much BS.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 09:07 PM

Thanks 282RA for this posting. It's criminal neglect how this government has treated their Vets. My singing partner was just diagonosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome a couple years ago. How long ago did Viet Nam end? My brother's been off ever since coming back, he lost all his mates from sub school in one day & thinks he should be with them. I lost many friends after they came home to depression or substance abuse. The ones that came home were trained killers let loose on an unsuspecting public, it wasn't fair to them or us. They should've been looked after, starting before their release. When I go through downtown Boston I pass the VA & it's heartbreaking to see the Viet Nam era Vet's homeless, begging for work & pennies. This is what's in store for our youngsters that are coming home now & for those that'll be following them. It's very few politcians whose kids are fighting, it'd be a different story if they were. This is the fault of those that want war so bad that they'll lie to get us there & once it's all said & done they'll shit on the unfortunates. God help them when their time has come.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 09:57 PM

It's the usual story. The men who plan such duplicitous wars are not concerned one bit about the fate of the young people they dupe into serving in them.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:13 PM

The biggest problem now is that many of these soldiers don't want the war to end. They like it. This is their job and they love their job and they're proud of the job they do and they just want to keep on doing their job. For the war to end is to basically tell them: "As of now, you are laid off but good luck on your future endeavors."

After all that--the firefights, the bombs, the RPGs, the killing, the dying, the bleeding, the crying, the twisted wreckage, the smoke, the pleading, after watching good buddies die, after losing a limb--they are told, go home and forget about it. And thanks for everything. We'll call you if there's another war.

That's a war set up for failure. You have to have soldiers who are motivated to want to get the job done and go home. Instead we are creating an army that is more motivated to keep the war going because it's their life and existence now. It's all they have. Once it's over, they have nothing, they are unemployed.

I cringe everytime the media quote some marine in Iraq saying, "I love this job!" The media put it forth as something noble and so semper fi. They don't know or care that this guy will be a basket case once he comes home.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:42 PM

Interesting points you're making, 282RA.

I read some stuff about the neo-conservative think tanks who planned the "New American Century". One of their key ideas was to avoid a draft and instead work with an all-volunteer army...the reasons being:

If you have a draft, then you have a lot of people going to war with mixed feelings, and you have far greater likelihood of a good number of them ending up thinking that war is not a good idea at all. They are thus a lot harder to control and to motivate. Meanwhile you have all the other civilian people who get mad about the draft because it's directly interfering in their lives and the lives of their children. That results in a lot of dissent and antiwar organizing on the home front.

If you have only a professional volunteer army, then you avoid most of that antiwar activity on the homefront...because the average young person is not afraid he or she may get drafted! Presto, you have eliminated the sort of mass antiwar movement that arose in the 60's, not because most Americans gave a damn about what happened to the Vietnamese, but because they gave a damn about their OWN lives being interfered with by the US government!

A volunteer army is, as you say, motivated to keep the fighting going indefinitely, and that's exactly what the planners want. This so-called "War Against Terrorism" is not a war that has any planned end. It is intended to be a more or less continuous conflict, such as was described in the novel "1984". A continous but undeclared war allows for continous war production and continuous weapons development. All that is good for the people who are financing and backing this war.

Objectives have been chosen that are so nebulous and grossly unrealistic that they cannot be achieved. The effect of this war will be to stimulate further wars. The volunteer army that is fighting it is, in effect, a mercenary force of people who are not really prepared to do anything OTHER than continue fighting more wars. What do they have to come home to? No wonder a lot of them get addicted to the thrill of war.

Patton was like that. He was only happy when fighting a battle. When his war ended, his purpose for being ended. That's what I call a seriously disturbed human being (although he was a great battlefield commander).

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Peace
Date: 04 Jul 06 - 11:45 PM

And where IS Orwell when ya really need him . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:02 AM

Thank you, 282RA, for saying some horrible, grievous, disturbing things that need to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:09 AM

I stressed this ruinous after-math early in the "Popular Views of the Bush Administration" thread, among others, as just one of the many, many consequences that made no difference to the warmongers in Bush's brigade. His psychosis in starting a war he could have avoided will result int he injection of more and more post-war psychoses as the individuals he used do come back Stateside. Anyone who has any familiarity with the range of consequences among Vietnam Vets could have predicted that a similar catstrophic array of bad after-images from active war in Iraq would be with us long after the troops are with drawn.

A

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: number 6
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:17 AM

Post-war psychoses go back a lot further than the the Vietnam war ... problem is we choose to ignore the results.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 12:40 AM

It is much too soon to say about the veterans of Iraq I and II, of course, but for an interesting read try Stolen Valor by Burkett and Whitley. Among other information in it, it notes that, statistically, the (if I remember the number correctly) 2.6 million Vietnam veterans have a lower rate of homelessness, a higher education level and lower suicide and divorce rates then their Vietnam-era (without in-country service) and non-veteran peers. They do have a higher rate of PTSD than veterans of previous conflicts (the condition wasn't actually recognized until the mid-1970s) but developing research indicates that this is more because WWII and Korea vets concealed these problems than because they didn't have them.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 01:44 PM

What's really sad is that 10 years from now, Iraq war vets are going to be persona non grata. By then, they will have the reputation of being PTSD nutcases and ticking timebombs. No one will hire them because people are afraid they might walk in one day and shoot the place up. They may as well be ex-cons (and undoubtedly many will be).

All this rah-rah we're giving them now is going to give way to outrage and hatred when these guys go on crime sprees, workplace shootings, family murder-suicides. That's all the thanks they'll get in the end. We love them as long as they take our places on the frontlines. Soon they will return to get their payback and then we'll act like the spoiled brats we are and demand something be done about them.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 02:23 PM

One old Gunny was asked what he felt after he shot his first Jap. His studied reply was "Recoil Sir"... Different breed of men in those days I guess.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 02:48 PM

A different breed is right!

These are the men who were not allowed to express their feelings for fear of being 'unmanly'. These were the men that were emotionally unavailable to their wives and children. These were the men who concealed their problems until they erupted in fits of violence and abuse at home. These are the men who told their son's that boys don't cry. These are the men...

Hopefully those men are indeed a different breed than the men we have today.

Lets just say that we have evolved and a new breed of man is coming through.

As far as those who are coming home? The Vietman Vets had a very difficult time finding their place amongst their peers at home and most of them were drafted. What kind of reception do you think the army of volunteers will receive?

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 03:54 PM

The disturbed ex-military man was well known in previous eras too, at least as far as my limited English history goes.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:22 PM

Disturbed by the lack of care and understanding by people at home. Disturbed because people tell him/her they should be breaking down and crying and having problems. Just getting on with life glad he survived like tens of thousands of men who survived the trenches and battlefields of WW1 and WW2, who did not have mental problems, and got on with life without breaking down. Today people have a nervous breakdown if they have a bad day at work.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Charmion
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 04:51 PM

You're all writing as if this is a great, big surprise. A cursory read of newspapers and magazines published in English and French between 1919 and, say, 1930 would give you a crash course in the "veteran problem", which you could follow up with a 1946-1950 reading program to complete your education.

Bill Mauldin's downbeat second book Back Home, sequel to the far more popular Up Front, should be compulsory reading for everyone involved in the administration of veterans' benefits in the United States. The big difference between then and now seems to be that in 1946, such a large proportion of 18- to 50-year-old men were veterans that they could not be ignored for fear of repeating grievous errors of the post-1918 era. Nobody wants another Bonus Army.

And that's only part of what total war can do for a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:46 PM

I remember watching "America's Most Wanted" once and they were looking for this old guy who shot someone--a storeowner, I think. Everyone said the guy would start blithering about Anzio. The guy was at Anzio in WW2 and saw horrible shit there and it messed him up so that he was never right inside again. 50 years later and he's in this store raving about Anzio and they had to have him removed from the store and he came back later with a handgun and killed the storeowner and went on the lamb. I think they mentioned that his wife said he would just get into these raving moods and start yelling about Anzio and how he was there and how you had to be there to understand. Weird. 50-some years later and he can't put it past him.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 07:58 PM

I also remember a man by the name of Maris Karklin or something like that. He told everyone he was Adolf Hitler and walked into his workplace and shot a coworker to death because she had argued with him earlier. Everyone who knew him said he wasn't really a neo-Nazi. Ever since they had known him, he would be a different figure from history--Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan or like that. Everyone said he was claiming for the longest time to be Sun Yat Sen and they were surprised about his new Hitler persona. Others knew he had adopted it recently.

His father, a Latvian immigrant if I recall correctly, stated that his son was once a warm, loving young man but had fought in Korea, took a bullet in the head, survived it but was never right again. This was in the late 70s I believe. So, some 20+ years later, this poor guy was crazy as a loon.

His father recounted one time coming home with his wife and finding a set of his pajamas and his wife's gown lying on their bed pierced with knives. Suddenly in walks the son with a gas can, looks at them in complete shock and says, "You can't be alive! I just killed you!"

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:04 PM

282RA says "10 years from now, Iraq war vets are going to be persona non grata. By then, they will have the reputation of being PTSD nutcases and ticking timebombs. No one will hire them because people are afraid they might walk in one day and shoot the place up."

Dianavan says "The Vietman Vets had a very difficult time finding their place amongst their peers at home and most of them were drafted. What kind of reception do you think the army of volunteers will receive?

Fact is, the people that will be hiring and supervising the Iraq War II vets are and will be the successful Vietnam War and Iraq War I vets and their families who know that the story of the hair-trigger veteran is just so much bull shit.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:07 PM

I would suggest you read "Bloods" sometime. First person accounts by black Vietnam war vets. You will quickly realize your statement is bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:17 PM

Read it about 20 years ago, 282. Nothing much in it about this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:20 PM

Art:

I know many Vietnam vets, who have managed their lives successfully. One for example is a now-retired international sales executive, who made millions by hard, smart work. He had been exposed to the most brutal faces of war, was captured in hand-to-hand combat and actually broke out of POW cage and killed his guards by hand, and made his way back to his own side through the jungle, barefoot. But he was an excellent sales exec, highly competitive, acquisitive, intelligent, social.

On two occasions, however, he "touched off" under conditions of stress and antagonism with strangers; one time he flattened the guy with a board, and the other time he broke the guy's arm in three places.

My sense is that the extremes of violence any warrior has been through are never too far from re-activation; what happens next depends on the character, I guess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:32 PM

Some people are like that, Amos. Myself, I am a Vietnam vet and I have never laid hands on another person in my (civilian) life.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: NH Dave
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:36 PM

Little Hawk,

    The big trouble with the draft in times past, was that it was so unfair in the way people were selected to become military. Children from the more well to do families, the ones who cold afford college for their kids, stayed in college, or got stay-at-home positions in the Guard or Reserves, like George Bush. The less afluent, working at home, or perhaps not working at all, were snapped up, given 8 - 16 weeks of training and then sent right to Viet Nam.

    Some of us saw the writing on the wall and were lucky enough to qualify for jobs not directly involving combat, unless our base got hit. Many of the rest of us not qualfying for the les combat related jobs, became infantrymen and suffered disproportionally greater injuries incuding PTSD. Unfortunately, many of our youth had never learned enough during their school days to where they could qualify for these non-combat jobs, with a better chance of surviving their tour.

    By the time my son became old enough to qualify for service, the All Volunteer Force was in effect, but because he had never graduated from high school, could not qualify for a job in the Navy or Air Force, and could only qualify for the Army, if he was able to pass the GED, the high school equivalency test. Eventually he decided that his talents pointed in anothe direction, and never joined up. The friend with whom he wanted to join, was injured severely enough jumping into Grenada or Panama that he was medically retired from the Army on his return to the states.

    Dave
Sgt, USA, Beat Feet
MSgt, USAF, Ret.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:37 PM

Good on you, Art, on both counts.


A

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 08:40 PM

I think for some people, it's easier to believe these guys weren't all that badly affected by the war. It's enough to know they took a spot on the frontlines that might have prevented you from having to do the same. Then to see the tremendous burden many of them bear afterwards makes it even harder to think about. That they carry this with them so that you wouldn't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Alice
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 09:06 PM

Artbrooks, he is not yet a veteran. He is active duty National guard until 2010, and since he is still active duty, they say the program for education for Montana National Guard (not veterans) is basically unfunded now. There is no reason he would not be truthful about this. He's working hard to pay the tuition bill from last semester and save money for the fall, since they can no longer help with tuition.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Jeri
Date: 05 Jul 06 - 09:18 PM

When I first went into the Air Force, there were a lot of Vietnam vets still in. Most of those with obvious problems were out - at least I never met anybody I would think of as hair-trigger dangerous. I've know some that did end up like that, but they were very, very few. People react to horrible situations according to their own personalities, and every person's experience is different. Some dwell on the horrors constantly, and some can remember but still let it fade into the past, and some will say things weren't so bad and those who say they were are just a bunch of whiners.

The really damaged folks who go off and kill people is a commonly-believed stereotype primarily because those guys make the news. Your mechanic, your banker, your bartender, taxi driver, doctor or shop owner don't fit the psycho vet stereotype. Fact is, you may not even know they're vets.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 12:35 AM

Alice, is he active duty...that is, he puts on a uniform every day and gets military pay, or is he what we laughingly used to call a "weekend warrior?" I was an active reservist for almost 20 years after I left active duty and, as far as the VA was concerned, I was a veteran and entitled to all veterans' benefits. I also worked for the VA for most of that time. He really needs to talk to a VA representative and get the full story. Tell him to specifically ask about the Reserve Educational Assistance Program...this is intended for people who have been called up, completed at least 90 days on active duty, and are still in the Guard/Reserves. Some specific information here.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 11:54 AM

AR282:
"One thing about a draft is that it makes people go who don't want to go and who don't want to be soldiers. They're not ever likely to enjoy the situations they are in. When you have a volunteer army, you have people who DO want to go and who DO want to be soldiers and you're much more likely to have cases of killing and torturing innocent people from the overzealous righteousness of their cause."

Oh dear, oh dear! What utter claptrap, let's take the first bit -

"One thing about a draft is that it makes people go who don't want to go and who don't want to be soldiers. They're not ever likely to enjoy the situations they are in." This is seen as an advantage???? For someone who does think the military is necessary, I would ask this question. Taking those two quoted sentences, do you honestly think you are better defended by troops with such low morale, disinterest and lack of motivation? The idea that "everyman should serve" is also utterly ludicrous in the military of today - unless you want to go back to the Sgt. Bilko days - Conscripts are of absolutely no use to the modern armed forces of today, they have not been of any use for almost 50 years now.

The second bit is equally ludicrous:

"When you have a volunteer army, you have people who DO want to go and who DO want to be soldiers and you're much more likely to have cases of killing and torturing innocent people from the overzealous righteousness of their cause."

I was a member of the armed forces, I was a volunteer (UK National Service ended in 1957). My colleagues, those who served in the Navy, Army and Air Force, ALL WANTED to serve in HM Armed Forces (Note no inducements such as sponsored education, etc, on completion of service in the UK)- But I do not ever recall meeting ANYONE who WANTED to go into action. We were trained for it, we were trained relentlessly and well for it. If circumstances transpired and you were ordered into situations that were "hot" (In my case on three occasions), you went because that was your job and you were the ones allocated to respond - But I never saw anyone dancing up and down with glee at the prospect. I would imagine that the same thing rings true for members of the United States of America's professional armed forces today.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: 282RA
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 06:05 PM

>>I was a member of the armed forces, I was a volunteer (UK National Service ended in 1957). My colleagues, those who served in the Navy, Army and Air Force, ALL WANTED to serve in HM Armed Forces (Note no inducements such as sponsored education, etc, on completion of service in the UK)- But I do not ever recall meeting ANYONE who WANTED to go into action.<<

I frankly have to question whether you are telling the truth. I was a volunteer and I served in the Persian Gulf and while I hated it, I knew guys who utterly LOVED it. Everytime an incident happened they wanted to go there. I knew a LOT of guys like that. It boggles my mind that you could say you never met anyone who didn't to see action. They wanted to see it and we saw it. If you recall the Stark incident in '87, I was at that one. After that nightmare was over, a lot of those guys wanted more. They wanted to bomb the fuck out of Iraq for that one. Don't tell me you never met anyone in the military like that. You are lying. You have to be.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 06 - 06:40 PM

Teribus do you seriously contend that our troops are being used to defend us?

Our troops are almost always used for offence rather than defence.

If I want to be defended, I would prefer my defenders to be stationed in the UK not in Iraq or Afghanistan.

And before you start, there were no Al quaeda terrorists in Iraq before we marched in on Bush's coat tails....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 03:14 AM

AR282: "If you recall the Stark incident in '87, I was at that one. After that nightmare was over, a lot of those guys wanted more. They wanted to bomb the fuck out of Iraq for that one."

AR282, you are now talking about something completely different, after being hit, and after taking losses, it is natural to want to strike back.

Akenaton, in answer to your questions:
- Yes they are.
- No they are not.

In response to your statements, first:

"If I want to be defended, I would prefer my defenders to be stationed in the UK not in Iraq or Afghanistan."

This course of action would allow those who have openly declared that they will attack you, your national interests and kill your citizens (primarily because you are upholding a UN Security Council Resolution dating back to 1948) the initiative and freedom to attack you at will. If you doubt that, take the example of the US since 1992, how often were the US attacked during the Clinton administration (He tended to share your view) and how often since G W Bush (Remember that 911 was sanctioned and put into planning while Clinton was in office). You could keep your defenders at home and you would suffer repeatedly and on an increasing scale. Go on the offensive and it gives your attacker something to think about other than where, when and with what he is going to attack you.

As for the second:

"...there were no Al quaeda terrorists in Iraq before we marched in on Bush's coat tails."

Oh but there were Ake - Mullah Krekkar and the Answar Islam group - allowed, by Saddam, to set up shop in a part of the Kurdish North in an area outwith the protected "No-Fly Zone" demarcated by the 38th Parallel, so that they could have a go at the Kurdish opposition groups.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Jul 06 - 01:39 PM

Teribus - I don't think that close ties and co-operation between Al queada and Mullah Krekkar and the Answar Islam group, indicates that they were one in the same. Seems to me that the focus of the Answar Islam group was on the Kurds, not the U.S. With the arrival of the U.S. troops and the removal of Saddam, their focus shifted.

Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq and the Answar Islam group were not a threat to the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 03:01 AM

"Prior to the U.S. invasion, Iraq and the Answar Islam group were not a threat to the U.S." - Dianavan

Fortunately that was not the assessment of the Joint House Security Committee set up to assess external threats to the United States of America in the wake of the September 11th attacks on New York and Washington. And remember it was this Committee that identified Iraq as posing the greatest threat - not the Administration of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 11:53 AM

Oh, fer....

They will, and have, come home. They will try to get on with their lives, picking up where they left off, and they can't because time and change have happened. Not only do I know because I've been there (as an Guardsman activated for Vietnam in 1968, although I served in Korea while my brother, also activated, was at Chu Lai) but because I know them now. It will be and is very, very hard. But they will make it with the help of their loved ones and their communities (however you define that). They will not be hair-trigger killers, although the media will portray the exceptions that way just as happened after 'Nam and, for that matter, after WW2 and WW1 (and if you look into it, after the American Civil War).

I can promise you that almost all of them (there are psychotics everywhere) do not like the killing, the grenades, the war. I never, ever, met anyone in the combat arms who was both sane and liked war, although I have met the others.

But I do think that there will be a revolution of sorts, because these people aren't stupid and they ARE aware of what's going on around them, perhaps more that we are. And they know about the cuts in the VA budget and the other things being done. And I suspect that they will cause change that will cause grief to those who ordered them to march away. I can say this because I already see it happening....

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 12:54 PM

Teribus - According to this article (2003), the Answar Islam group were not a threat to the U.S. but to the Kurds. Their goal was to set-up a Taliban type govt. in Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/10/iraq-031030-22e685dc.htm

Since they were allowed by Saddam, how does this make them a terrorist group?

They became terrorists (working with the insurgency) after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

The U.S. invasion has created more terrorist groups than it has destroyed.

If you have other info, please give me a source.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 01:10 PM

282RA, this is not a war. It's an occupation.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 03:45 PM

Excellent post.

Notice that dumbshit Hubby and Obnoxious GUEST don't have much to say here. Probably because Fox News hasen't anything they can quote...

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:10 PM

After they come home they will continue to be the excellently prepared and totally professionally members of the armed forces of the United States of America that they trained to be.

Please don't confuse them with a bunch of scared conscripts that your nation sent of to Indo-China, poorly trained, less than well motivated, hopelessley, inadequately lead and totally undermined at home. Your servicemen in Vietnam were not defeated by General Giap's Viet Cong but by their own citizens sitting safe, fat, dumb and happy back in the good ol' US of A.

The servicemen and women currently on active service out in Iraq and Afghanistan, know full well why they are there, they totally belive in the reason why they are there and they take great pride in the fact that they will complete their mission, or at least hand it on to others in such a state that the mission will be completed.

If anyone has bothered to read BBC news currently pouring forth from Helmand Province in Southern Afghanistan, you will read of the escalating violence and the dramatic rise in the number of casualties and deaths. The only thing that the BBC, for reasons best known to themselves, has not expanded upon is that the deaths including the dramatic rise that they hasten to report is amongst the ranks of the Taleban, obviously it does not suit the agenda of the totally impartial BBC - Totally impartial - MY ARSE.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:50 PM

Please don't confuse them with a bunch of scared conscripts that your nation sent of to Indo-China, poorly trained, less than well motivated, hopelessley, inadequately lead and totally undermined at home.

Teribus, except for the words after "less" that statement is a pile of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: gnu
Date: 08 Jul 06 - 07:56 PM

I don't know how this fits in. I don't have any real knowledge on the actual topic. I just know this. It struck me odd... and it rang true, in a way.

I said to my bro yesterday that I felt very poorly for the Canucks in Afghanistan. I mean, gosh, a war on terrorism, okay, and yay to an extent. But, a war on the Taliban is a religious war... a civil war... a war we should not be involved in... a war we cannot win.

His answer, as a 30 year + veteran was this... "Well, at least, it's first time in almost forty years, other than Desert Storm, that our lads can shoot back when attacked."

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 12:41 AM

gnu - I think he means this is not a peace-keeping operation.

Teribus - I don't know how anyone can "take pride" in a military force that engages in torture, kills innocent civilians, levels cities like Fallujah and shoots its own allies when they know they have been lied to and should never have invaded in the first place.

What planet are you from?

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 02:36 PM

Teribus et al. giant intellects--

As a veteran, I'd say the good thing about a draft--which this time should not be so riddled with exceptions--and should include females--Mr. Bush's daughters, to pick a purely theoretical example----is that it will force the country at large to decide whether a war is really justified. The Iraq war needed precisely this discussion--before the fact----and didn't get it. It's one of the few ways to counteract a propaganda campaign. And the Bush regime is obviously a master at such a campaign--especially with a country still on edge and only too willing to believe its "leaders" as to the source of its problems.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 02:41 PM

Another bunch of major malcontents - not all - but most. Is life that sad that your negativity clouds everything?

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Jul 06 - 03:46 PM

Another bunch of major malcontents - not all - but most. Is life that sad that your negativity clouds everything?

Looks like you're the biggest malcontent here. You hate freedom, in particular, freedom of expression so much, you have to go around trying to shut everyone up who says things you don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 09:22 AM

Dear GUEST:

If you are in the US, have you actually READ the Constitution? It permits people like you and me to say things without fear of governmental reprisal. Sure, it's happened in the past, like during the US's participation in World War I, but it should not have.

The "war" in Iraq is unconstitutional. So were the "wars" in Korea and Vietnam. The fact that the US has a cowardly Congress does not eradicate the fact that the Constitution says that only the Congress can declare war -- and a do lot of other things.

And it certainly doesn't eliminate the fact that those rights which are are not given to the President or the Congress are reserved to the States, or to the People.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:25 PM

Teribus, you say, "After they come home they will continue to be the excellently prepared and totally professionally members of the armed forces of the United States of America that they trained to be."

So how do you explain how the members who were recently charged with the rape of a 14 year old and the murder of her family, were able to carry out such a crime in this so-called totally professional military force.

People, like you, make it possible by supporting this illegal and immoral occupation.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 01:56 PM

Dianavan, one such incident or even five or six does not make every soldier a killer rapist anymore than such a killer rapist in Vancouver would condemn every Vancouverite.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 02:04 PM

I think the question is not whether or not they are totally professional, but whether or not they are poorly led.

I would submit that it is the latter... they are poorly led, from the very top (Sec. of Defense et al).

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 02:29 PM

So a Draft is viewed by ex-vet Ron as being a good thing. Question Ron how long would you draft the youth of America for - 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 8 years? Longer?

By the bye dianavan please let us know what you thought life was like in Afghanistan and in Iraq before the overthrow of the Taleban and Saddam - the armed forces and security services of both conducted themselves faultlessly did they? Depending upon which figures you read the number of Iraqi citizens who died every day under the rule of Saddam Hussein was somewhere between 154 and 282 - That's per day dianavan, wives, daughters and sons were raped before their fathers and brothers as an accepted interrogation technique, only in those instances it was not really an interrogation all that was wanted was a confession, so that the victim could be taken outside and shot (if he was lucky, other more exotic means of depriving a supposed traitor of his life were devised). What you seem to lack is any sense of perspective. That very good analogy made by Rapaire illustrates the point perfectly.

Dianavan, here's something for you to ponder on the subject of perspective - How many US and Coalition Troops are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan? Any idea dianavan? I will tell you something about them dianavan and I will bet that it is true:

The vast bulk of US and Coalition Troops currently serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan HAVE NOT, raped anyone, HAVE NOT tortured anyone, HAVE NOT killed anyone. I would even venture to guess that the majority of them have not even fired their personal weapons in anger.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:02 PM

Of course not every US serviceman is a child rapist and murderer. But there would be less of them if they were sent back to be tried for their crimes in the country they committed them.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 03:11 PM

The US has a "Status of Forces Agreement" with many countries, including Germany, South Korea, and Japan. A member of the US Armed Forces who violates a law involving a civilian (such as murder or rape) is turned over to the "host country" for prosecution and punishment. Since the US is not legally at war with Iraq I would suggest that this should be done there.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 06:46 PM

I think that's an excellent idea, Rap. Turn those soldiers over to the Shiites and let them decide if they are guilty and what the punishment should be.

I did not mean to imply that every U.S. soldier was a murderer or rapist. I do mean the if they are as professional as Teribus would have us believe, murder and rape would not be happening. Not every soldier is a professional and we have to live with the scum that are not.

I would also venture to guess that although most soldiers do not partake in criminal activity, guilt by association is not uncommon. Whether or not they actually commit the crime, witnessing it can be just as destructive.

Why do you think most men do not discuss their war experiences with their mothers, wives and children?

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 07:11 PM

Because, dianavan, they are so horrible/absurd/tragic/comic that those doing the telling aren't believed.

Really.

Would you believe cannibalism of prisoners by Japanese forces during WW2? Would you believe parachutists dropped behind their own lines because the drop zone was overrun just a couple hours before? Both happened and both are documented.

So the veterans, men AND women, talk to each other about it. Those who have been there believe.

And this has been the case for centuries.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 06 - 11:37 PM

Teribus--

Draft--3 years. Same as during the Vietnam era--but, as I said, vastly tightened.

Then we'll see how many wars the US starts.

It will be very instructive.

Don't worry, Teribus--you and your family live in the UK, as I understand----and therefore none of your family will be affected.

With a draft, there will be enough intelligent people to ask the hard questions that should be asked before starting a war--even though Bushites seem to think that blind faith is all you need.

By the way, I'm still a veteran. Perhaps you're an ex-veteran--whatever that is.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:02 PM

Ron's recommendation - Draft--3 years. Same as during the Vietnam era.

With exactly the same result, armed forces that aren't worth a toss and that are on a downward spiral, even more so in this day and age, as the game has moved on a considerable stretch since Vietnam. In three years you are going to train these draftees to do what? What level of expertise do you think that they will they acquire in that short time?

Think of the number of specialists required by modern day armed forces, it takes time to train them Ron, it takes time for them to gain experience so that their training can be put to good use, it takes time before they begin to contribute to the effectiveness of the unit in which they serve. All these were points that killed off "National Service" in the UK in 1957, complete waste of time, resources and effort in training people that would be of no use to you if push ever came to shove. As an ex-Vietnam Vet Ron you might be interested in that date (1957) and what was happening in the world around that time Suez had just finished, Kenya, Cyprus and the "War of the Running Dogs" was at it's height and about half way through (It lasted from 1947 until 1964). At this point with all this going on the UK ended it's "Draft". The "War of the Running Dogs" was won, the ONLY instance of a western nation defeating a communist backed and communist inspired insurrection. The UK and Commonwealth's professional armed forces won in Malaya, in Vietnam conscripted French and drafted US Forces were in turn defeated.   

Ever heard of the expression - a volunteer is worth ten pressed men. Draftees by definition, are not there by choice, they are bloody-minded about the whole set up from before day one, they couldn't care less about learning anything, or contributing anything, they only have to put up with it for three years, then they can promptly forget everything that they have ever been taught. Now what effect do these stalwarts have on their instructors and those few who are career men/women - they demoralise, they demotivate, they are dispiriting and depressing to be associated with, until any who were interested ultimately jump on the merry-go-round and just go through the motions (if you can't beat 'em join them). Dafted, or conscripted armed forces are a complete and utter joke, if that is the calibre of men and women that you want to see defending your country, good luck pal, but I wouldn't give much for your chances against the lot who declared all out war on you way back in 1996.


Ron, this one of yours is an absolute pearl:

"With a draft, there will be enough intelligent people to ask the hard questions that should be asked before starting a war."

How utterly ridiculous - you say that you are a veteran, judging by that sentence I cannot imagine what service, or branch of service you were in. In the UK if referred to at all its ex-serviceman.

Can you explain Ron at what point these "intelligent people", in their position as draftees, are going to be given the opportunity to ask those hard questions? Laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 04:10 PM

Dianavan, I can only refer you to pictures to explain why vets -- especially combat vets -- don't talk about what they've seen and done.

Like this. And this.

If you ever see it in the flesh you'll know.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 05:36 PM

Teribus, the period served by draftees during the Vietnam Era was two years, not three. This had been the length of service since the end of WW2 and includes the Korean Conflict.

Your comments only show that you know very little about the US military and those who make up its ranks.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jul 06 - 10:53 PM

Teribus--

At some point, you might want to start thinking--it might open up new horizons for you.

To spell it out, since it appears too complex for you to grasp so far---the point is not that draftees have all sorts of means to prevent wars, but primarily that since, in my utopian vision, there will be virtually no exemptions--including females--2 things will happen:

1) prospective draftees will make it their business to be informed about foreign policy--and possibly influence it

2) more importantly, since the sons--and daughters--of the powerful will be drafted---(you might recall my citation of Mr. Bush's daughters, if your memory can reach back 2 full days)---their parents will make damn sure that any war started is started for good reason, in stark contrast to Iraq Part II under our current "leader".

So draftees are worthless? There was a draft in both World Wars. Were those draftees worthless?

Rapaire is of course correct--in the Vietnam era draftees served 2 years, not 3. I had 3 years firmly in mind, since that's what I served. Mea culpa.

But, as I said, as a UK citizen, you and your family wouldn't have to worry about being caught up in a US draft. So you can put that burning issue out of your head. Now you can sleep tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 12:43 AM

Rapaire - 11 Jul 06 - 05:36 PM

As rather clearly stated in my post of, 11 Jul 06 - 04:02 PM

"Ron's recommendation - Draft--3 years. Same as during the Vietnam era."

And in Ron's post of, 10 Jul 06 - 11:37 PM

"Teribus--

Draft--3 years. Same as during the Vietnam era"

In response to my question posed in my post, 10 Jul 06 - 02:29 PM

"So a Draft is viewed by ex-vet Ron as being a good thing. Question Ron how long would you draft the youth of America for - 2 years? 4 years? 6 years? 8 years? Longer?"

Having waded through that Rapaire are you still in anyway confused as to who it was that stated, incorrectly, that the US Draft period was 3 years. If you are in any doubt try Ron's post of, 11 Jul 06 - 10:53 PM:

"Rapaire is of course correct--in the Vietnam era draftees served 2 years, not 3. I had 3 years firmly in mind, since that's what I served. Mea culpa."

My comments on the effectiveness of the US military during the Vietnam war period are based on observation during the earlier part of it and on comments from others whose opinions and judgement I respect. During the early part of the Vietnam war the US sent some of their "advisors" to the Jungle Warfare Training School in Changi in Malaysia, the British at the time were just in the process of rounding off Sukarno's bid to take over Sarawak, Brunei and Sabah. On aptitude, application and achievement the general opinion of the British, Malaysian and Ghurka Instructors was summed up by the comment, "Thank fuck they aren't advising me." They (US personnel) arrived with the certainty that nobody could teach them anything, they arrived with the firm conviction that these goddamn limey's knew nothin'. They arrived totally convinced that the whole exercise was a complete and utter waste of time.

Only thing was Rap, we ran circles round the Indonesian insurgents in Borneo, not a single one in four years ever made it from the Kalimantan border to the coast. Two main reasons for this, one, we trained (keeping our eyes and ears open during that instruction), and two, we had the "Hearts and minds" of the local population, and we worked very hard at that Rapaire.

"Hearts and minds" is a phrase that you hear bandied about a great deal, it was originally stated by a man called Templeton during the early days of the "War of the Running Dogs", the Malayan Emergency. It is one thing, and this represents what I have been saying about US forces at the time. The armed forces of the United States of America have NEVER been very good at implementing a uniform "Hearts and minds" strategy, even to this day in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It is something that they had better start to seriously get to grips with.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:32 AM

US draftees served for only a nominal 2 years which, (IMHO, and I was there) was one of the primary reasons why US forces in Vietnam were less effective than they could have been. They came in to the Army, received about 6 months of training, went to Vietnam, and then often got out several months early. Another was the US policy of individual replacements...that is, soldiers joined a unit that was already in-country and went home after 12 months. The result of this was that any given infantry squad of (theoretically) 10 men usually had 2 vacancies, 2 people who were new and hadn't integrated with their comrades and 2 who were within 90 days of the end of their tour and had nothing much else on their minds.

It should be remembered that the overall US military strategy in Vietnam was designed by civilians (which might or might not have been appropriate), but so was the concept of operations. Whether or not the outcome would have been different if the soldiers had been allowed to fight the war is a question that will never be answered. The same is true in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 09:56 PM

I can easily believe that the US advisors had the attitude from the start that the "Limeys" couldn't teach them anything. Of course the question then becomes why they went for the training at all--except they were ordered to, I suppose.

Fascinating article in the WSJ recently on the conflict in the US military between the security and the WHAM (win hearts and minds) approaches in Iraq. As I recall, part of it had to do with the destruction of fruit carts in a town in Iraq. Letting them set up would be a step toward normal life, but it was feared they were sheltering murderous insurgents. So the carts were destroyed. And there were repercussions up the US chain of command.

And the US officer who was on the losing side of the argument was removed.

Bush (and his "team") was so stupidly naive in his expectations regarding Iraq. Now we are all paying the price--the Iraqis most of all.

I've also read that the parallel with Malaya may well not hold. In Malaya there were not porous borders for men and munitions to come in--or unfriendly states bordering. And, as I recall, in Malaya it was easier to tell who your opponents were--Chinese, as I recall, not indigenous Malays. But to Western eyes all Iraqis look the same. Any confirmation or denial of this?

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST,Rapaire, sans cookie
Date: 12 Jul 06 - 10:31 PM

The VN conflict was run from Washington, DC by politicians. The military leaders, according to the US Constitution, are subordinate to the civilian leadership (and the oath of the US military is to the Constitution, not to any individual). Even ground support fire could be and was directed from Eagle One, the White House. Safe and secure thousands of miles away, Johnson and others could play "Army" with real soldier and real bullets and never give a thought to what was happening on the ground.

Much like Hitler and the Eastern Front, actually, only with better commo.

Teribus, remember that US forces fought with and trained the Karin and the 'yards during WW2. If you want a history of the US and jungle warfare (which much of the VN conflict was not, on either side, I suggest you look at the 158th RCT ("Bushmasters"), Merrill's Marauders, and similar units. (No, I do not include the "Green Berets" of the VN era in this.)

But the question is not "What happened in 'Nam?" but is "What happens when the troops return from Iraq?"

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 09:50 AM

And on-topic I should mention that the US is now experiencing the suicides of 22 veterans per day -- and Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) managed single-handedly to block the passage of the "Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention Act" on December 15.

While he is an MD, I can find no record that he or his have ever served in the military.

His father, on the other hand, did fund the school of optometry at Oral Roberts University.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 10:45 AM

"a war so built up on lies that it boggles my mind that the public is still as silent as it is about it."
Can anyone think of a war not entirely built up on outrageous lies? The poor will generally refuse to kill each other unless given extreme distortion of the facts. As Pound said, the technique of infamy is to invent two lies and then get people fighting over which one is true.

"Quite simply, an increasing number of our soldiers are becoming addicted to war."
And that's exactly what a belligerent empire needs. The suicides are collateral damage.

Subject: RE: BS: After they come home, then what?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Dec 14 - 11:29 AM

Of course, it's only the losing side whose lies are exposed. The citizens of victorious countries continue to believe the lies forever.

John Harington: Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.