All I can tell you is that my father in law, a WWII vet was screwed by the Clinton administration when it comes to his GI bill. He put his life on the line and he got crap.
2007-05-05 12:55:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by For_Gondor! 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
People can talk about this and that need for the mission at hand, but you do have to take time to step back and think about your troops well being not only physically but spiritually, and mentally. Many soldiers are going to Iraq for their second and third year long tours, and that is an enormous strain on an individual and their family. This will affect the soldier through stress and depression. Which will in the end hurt your mission. Your troops will be more careless because of stress. Suicidal because of depression. In the end carelessness causes accidents, and accidents kill more military personnel than war.
People want to always scream they volunteered. Yes they did. They volunteered to do a job most wont, but that doesn't mean they volunteered to be used and abused.
To answer your question.... No ....
2007-05-05 20:33:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by Nick P 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would say that the whole "mental health" issue is approaching the dimensions of a farce. The major land combatants in the Second World War had veterans who had upto 6 years of continuous fighting under their belts who didn't get grief counseling or any of the "approved" modern-day "treatments" on the couch.
"Experts" in any field employed by the government need a reason to justify themselves and their budgets. What better way to ensure a steady paycheck for the increasing ranks of psychiatrists employed by the state than to state that all veterans are mentally sick and need help?
And yes, any given combat unit can last upto 18 months of constant fighting before it reaches burnout, to where the physical and mental strain of perpetual combat on men and equipment demands it be reconstituted. The American policy has traditionally been to pull units off the line. The Soviets used to just keep the unit on the line til it was destroyed, then rebuild another unit with the remnants because it was cheaperfor them to do so.
Iraq nowadays is not THAT stressful, not like 2003-4. People get showers, KBR food, and amenities such as the PX and intrnet. Same as Afghanistan.
It may just be better to have entire units along the lines of the French Foreign Legion, or composed mostly of single, unmarried personnel to reduce the family issues.
2007-05-05 20:10:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nat 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
to bad soldiers never got more than 30 days in any previous war theUS has fought. The Soldiers are volenteers, you must understandwhat that means. no one has twisted there arm to join, they are instructed over and over whatto expect. the media is the ones complaining. I have one son who has beren there twice, and another just came back for two weeks, and just went back. I didn't here much complaining. Sure they would rather be home with ther families, but they both re-enlisted, and re-enlistments are holding there own. emember the Media likes to keep any two sides a polar opposites for any topic, this makes good press to them, it's rarely as bad or rampant a problem as they would have you think. WhY? because it's got to get your attention, and if things are just a little messed up, that don't sell many papers or get many arguing on talk shows. I'm a vet, I got good benifits, I don't see many complaining. You can complain and find fault in everyone and anything. and Experts in Mental health is a confused term, because Mental health is a very debatable science, most disagree with another. there are some mental health issues for sure, but you have to take them individually. some people can adjust better or quicker than others. Hey some people kill themselves because there girl friend leaves them, and experts say they where depressed and needed much care, others have had parents die, a few wives leave, loss of jobs and poor health, yet they get by just fine. So you can't ever categorize people in a simple way. we are all different.
2007-05-05 20:10:40
·
answer #4
·
answered by edjdonnell 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think we're doing the best we can considering that we are under strength and over committed.
If I were a general (and I did retire as a lieutenant colonel) I would want to make supporting the combat mission my first and highest priority. There are times that other issues have to be sacrificed to do that. I would prefer those other issues be supported as best they can, but when bullets are flying and blood is flowing combat is the greatest military need.
I was fortunate enough to have never actually been in combat and to have spent a year in a war zone without being threatened or injured. But I had weapons issued and was more than prepared to use them had there been a need. It is a great relief to me that I never had to kill anyone.
But that was a matter of luck, just as being injured or stressed is often a matter of luck. I wholeheartedly support the medical and mental health needs of those troops who have those needs. But not all do or will, and blanket policies often weaken otherwise effective people and units.
I do think it would help if the services can identify and treat those individuals who really need the treatment and rest. Many of those who don't will gladly return to combat duties if they are needed.
2007-05-05 20:02:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Warren D 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The military has to do with what it has as far as personnel are concern. Tour in Iraq and Afghanistan is now 15 months to afford the requirement 12 months at home.
2007-05-05 19:56:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by furrryyy 5
·
0⤊
0⤋