It is no great secret that the military and their families are the only ones that are really sacrificing anything in the war on terror, as it is known. In spite of the global nature of the threat of terrorism, since terrorists are essentially criminals, it is difficult to hold the world accountable for the acts of the violence that occur. And while our President said that we would no longer discriminate between the terrorists, and the countries that gave them save harbor, this speech seems to have excluded a great many countries. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Hell, most of the Middle East would be fair game were that doctrine to be pursued in any meaningful way. But the countries of origin for most of the 9/11 terrorists were not attacked, and our only offensive actionagainst Al-Queda was the action taken in Afghanistan, which we of course pulled most of our forces out of to invade Iraq. Not that the job is Afghanistan was anywhere near complete, mind you.
But as another election time draws annoyingly closer (annoying because of the commercials, mostly), the fight for the voters has begun in earnest. The bill to allow soldiers to go to school because they have not been killed has found quite a bit of traction this election year, which is surprising to no one. But the GOP Presidential nominee has made a decisive error. McCain himself said he was not for the GI Bill in it’s current form, which entitled soldiers to help pay for college after 3 years of service following 9/11. Now McCain says that such an offer would harm retention in the military, lowering it by 16%. The Democratic sponsors of the bill cited Congressinal Budget Office, which by a strange coincidence said that the GI Bill would help boost enlistment by 16%. As to how both parties could come to the same 16%, but in opposite directions is troubling, but in probably explains our current national debt.
GOP strategist Ed Rollins stated ”I think John McCain has been outmaneuvered”, also saying that ”Sometimes in politics, there are intellectual issues and emotional issues.” Sort of like the inheritance tax being renamed the “Death Tax”, I suppose. Only this time, instead of giving a break to people wealthy enough to actually leave an inheritance, this break was given to men and women in the armed forces.
But instead of listening to the gas bags that we call politicians, or even their advisers, we could perhaps actually listen to the men and women currently serving in the military. Some told of how their college loans had gone to collections while they were in Iraq, others that the financial assistance promised was never to be found. When Veteran’s groups are telling you that this would help those in the service, maybe we should be listening to them a little more closely, as opposed to the snakes that writhe about trying to sell us their oil, and ask us to re-elect them.
