Lose-lose situation
How can a soldier choose.
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
So the Presidential elections are three weeks away. Oh boy.
According to Army Times, the vast majority of military personnel, across the Services, are planning on voting for President Bush.
I can understand why, Bush has increased Military Pay rates, gave the Military the authority to offer more and better incentives for re-
enlistment and so on. However, the simple fact that President Bush forced our Army to go to war, with Rumsfelds insistance that
we need only a few combat troops to secure Iraq and that Iraqi Civil Servants would stay in place and keep the country from
collapse, with very limited forces. Granted the Divisons that initally conducted the war in Iraq did a good job, many senior military
commanders insisted that we would need many more troops to secure the country AFTER collapsing the regime.
Bush went to war without a properly planned SASO (Stability And Support Operation) plan. Without an adequate rotation plan for
most of the Army and military in general. And sent a Division, the 101st Airborne Divison, to the Area of Operations, on very short
notice and expected that the Division would be fully combat ready when the time came. The White House also assumed that Turkey
would allow the 4th ID acces to Iraq through thier country, therefor opening up a second front wich would bring the war to a more
rapid and efficent close. Turky refused. By sheer determination and not a little luck, the 101st became combat ready just in time for
the war in spite of all the logistical obsticals not in its favor.
So the war begain. The expected revolt of the sheites upon our invasion did not happen. Not suprisingly as they learned a hard
lesson by our quick withdrawal after Desert Storm, which left them stranded and eventually severly punished for their actions.
Also the surrender, en masse, of Iraqi forces did not occur. So when we destroyed Iraqi Divisions and Battalions many armed Iraqi
soldiers vanished into the country side, either laying low or waiting for their chance to get back at the Americans.
The US assumed that with the fall of Saddam's regime most of the Saddam loyalist paramilitary forces would be dishearted and
give up. The opposite happened and after the capture of Saddam they increased thier insergency.
With the lack of troop numbers on the ground to effectivly guard the borders, many terrorists and terrorists groups arrived in Iraq
and begain operations. Just like the senior military commanders said they would.
The list of policy shortcomings can go on and on, but now we are stuck and I pray for the best.
Like a joke I read, it says of Bush " Im the one who got us into this mess, Im the only one who can get us out."
Despite all of the negative things the administration has done in Iraq, the military does like the fact that we have a president who is
determined and unwavering in his commitment to the mission and support for the troops.
On the other hand you have Senator Kerry. Right off the bat he is a "No-Go" for many service members simply for his anti-war
activities after Nam. Understandably, who would want some one like that as your Commander-In-Chief?
Another thing to consider is that the major religion in the military is Christian and of that almost 25 percent of service members are
Roman Catholic. John Kerry proclaims to be a Catholic but is not in line with the teaching of the Church. Now a politacian who
flaunts his Faith must be prepared to back it up with actions and be willing to suffer the back lash of their convictions.
John Kerry does not. Against his Bishop's, and the Vatican's, orders, he went to Church and recieved the Euchorist. All this AFTER
he declared that he was Pro-Choice and other violations of Catholic teaching. If a person is Pro-Choice and they are a Catholic
there is no problem, but if a person is Pro-Choice and is running for an office which has a direct influence on the issue, it IS a
problem. He is running for President, he declared himself Pro-Choice and that he would uphold a "womans right to choose" then
he was automaticly Excommunicated from the Church. He then ignored the Church's declaration of his status and went right along
proclaiming he is a Catholic while at the same time disobeying the Faith in which he claims to adhere.
How can you trust a man who says one thing and does another, without any thought or respect.
His voteing record and past statements also show him to constantly change his "beliefs" to better mach those to whom he is
speaking to. Basicly he is a liar, BUT he has a much better Domestic Policy than the current adminastration.
Obviously a soldier's home and family are important and regardless of thier job overseas, their main focus is the "home front" and
they would be inclined to vote for one who would better serve both their familys and thier nations domestic needs better.
Bottom line is that a soldier is a defender of freedom, but more than that a soldier is one who attempts to portray the best of
American values. So when we must decide between these two, it is very diffacult as they both, in different areas, personify the
values of Americans, we are forced to choose which value is more important. In fact they are equally important. It is a shame if we
do not vote and it will be a shame when we do.
According to Army Times, the vast majority of military personnel, across the Services, are planning on voting for President Bush.
I can understand why, Bush has increased Military Pay rates, gave the Military the authority to offer more and better incentives for re-
enlistment and so on. However, the simple fact that President Bush forced our Army to go to war, with Rumsfelds insistance that
we need only a few combat troops to secure Iraq and that Iraqi Civil Servants would stay in place and keep the country from
collapse, with very limited forces. Granted the Divisons that initally conducted the war in Iraq did a good job, many senior military
commanders insisted that we would need many more troops to secure the country AFTER collapsing the regime.
Bush went to war without a properly planned SASO (Stability And Support Operation) plan. Without an adequate rotation plan for
most of the Army and military in general. And sent a Division, the 101st Airborne Divison, to the Area of Operations, on very short
notice and expected that the Division would be fully combat ready when the time came. The White House also assumed that Turkey
would allow the 4th ID acces to Iraq through thier country, therefor opening up a second front wich would bring the war to a more
rapid and efficent close. Turky refused. By sheer determination and not a little luck, the 101st became combat ready just in time for
the war in spite of all the logistical obsticals not in its favor.
So the war begain. The expected revolt of the sheites upon our invasion did not happen. Not suprisingly as they learned a hard
lesson by our quick withdrawal after Desert Storm, which left them stranded and eventually severly punished for their actions.
Also the surrender, en masse, of Iraqi forces did not occur. So when we destroyed Iraqi Divisions and Battalions many armed Iraqi
soldiers vanished into the country side, either laying low or waiting for their chance to get back at the Americans.
The US assumed that with the fall of Saddam's regime most of the Saddam loyalist paramilitary forces would be dishearted and
give up. The opposite happened and after the capture of Saddam they increased thier insergency.
With the lack of troop numbers on the ground to effectivly guard the borders, many terrorists and terrorists groups arrived in Iraq
and begain operations. Just like the senior military commanders said they would.
The list of policy shortcomings can go on and on, but now we are stuck and I pray for the best.
Like a joke I read, it says of Bush " Im the one who got us into this mess, Im the only one who can get us out."
Despite all of the negative things the administration has done in Iraq, the military does like the fact that we have a president who is
determined and unwavering in his commitment to the mission and support for the troops.
On the other hand you have Senator Kerry. Right off the bat he is a "No-Go" for many service members simply for his anti-war
activities after Nam. Understandably, who would want some one like that as your Commander-In-Chief?
Another thing to consider is that the major religion in the military is Christian and of that almost 25 percent of service members are
Roman Catholic. John Kerry proclaims to be a Catholic but is not in line with the teaching of the Church. Now a politacian who
flaunts his Faith must be prepared to back it up with actions and be willing to suffer the back lash of their convictions.
John Kerry does not. Against his Bishop's, and the Vatican's, orders, he went to Church and recieved the Euchorist. All this AFTER
he declared that he was Pro-Choice and other violations of Catholic teaching. If a person is Pro-Choice and they are a Catholic
there is no problem, but if a person is Pro-Choice and is running for an office which has a direct influence on the issue, it IS a
problem. He is running for President, he declared himself Pro-Choice and that he would uphold a "womans right to choose" then
he was automaticly Excommunicated from the Church. He then ignored the Church's declaration of his status and went right along
proclaiming he is a Catholic while at the same time disobeying the Faith in which he claims to adhere.
How can you trust a man who says one thing and does another, without any thought or respect.
His voteing record and past statements also show him to constantly change his "beliefs" to better mach those to whom he is
speaking to. Basicly he is a liar, BUT he has a much better Domestic Policy than the current adminastration.
Obviously a soldier's home and family are important and regardless of thier job overseas, their main focus is the "home front" and
they would be inclined to vote for one who would better serve both their familys and thier nations domestic needs better.
Bottom line is that a soldier is a defender of freedom, but more than that a soldier is one who attempts to portray the best of
American values. So when we must decide between these two, it is very diffacult as they both, in different areas, personify the
values of Americans, we are forced to choose which value is more important. In fact they are equally important. It is a shame if we
do not vote and it will be a shame when we do.
PolMach Forums