Don't know who is responsible for this, but this kind of crap really gets under my skin. Fortunately, "the right people" are looking into it and hopefully it will get fixed. http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71741 Legitimate questions (rather than blind accusations): Who at the Pentagon drafted this in such a manner and whose head will roll (no offense to a certain religion) for it? Let's hope this gets resolved and these soldiers get their benefits.
I'm glad you posted this. I agree its a travesty. In fact its just obviously sneaky...the 729 days versus 730 days. It is so grotesque that it got instant response from the various representatives he contacted. They got an instant response from the Secretary from the Army. It looks like it will be corrected and these guys will receive appropriate education benefits...and anything else. I couldn't help but do the math with some estimates. Suppose 500 (less than 1/2) of those guard members took advantage of something that should be their right. Suppose they each needed $600/month for 2 years. That is $7.2 million. I just used wild guess numbers. It could be a third as much....it could be more. Regardless, I'd say those guys deserve the benefit and the cost of the benefit before virtually anyone else in the US. There are thousands of these items that comprise the Pentagon budget and the Iraq war budget. The very way this thing was done tells me the Pentagon is trying to shave little cots anywhere they can...since the costs of the war are so huge. I believe the costs and benefits are big complex issues that need to be scrutinized so better decisions can be made. I'm glad the guys instantly challenged it, the representatives instantly pushed it in front of the Pentagon, and very top brass instantly addressed it and reported, as stated in the article, that these benefits should be available by the start of the normal next semester. At least that is fast corrective action. I'm also glad you reported it here.
I agree. But there are a million of these drops in the bucket that add up. My guess. Its not like anyone in the Pentagon was trying to purposefully screw the guard unit. Alternatively, folks in the Pentagon are trying to control costs on all the drops/even the half drops. This particular one s*cks. It looks like it will be rectified. I wouldn't even blame it on anyone...at least if it happened the way I'm guessing. If it happened for some sort of malicious reason or screwed up reason than I'd blame someone.
From what I've read, this may not have necessarily been "intentional." They were originally deployed for less time, but their tour was extended by 125 days. None-the-less, it appears this is being looked at (and handled) at the highest levels. That's what's important.
Gtech I'm glad you posted this, I heard about this a couple of days ago but had yet to see an article printed. Yes things like this piss me off like no other! Sadly I have heard of many similiar circumstances in the past few years even when the troops were supposedly getting better funding, pay, etc.
The Pentagon is well known for short changing the National Guard. Local residents need to pressure their Governor, Congressman and Senators to take care of their state's guardsman.
This does suck...its this kind of stuff that gets our military into trouble. I'm surprised it hasn't already been blamed on Bush.
I could have easily written and blamed it on Bush and the administration. But I didn't. I wish I could bring in a citation from saw guy I saw on television. (can't remember the guys name.) He was a former high up guy at the Justice Department. Very very conservative credentials and very strong academic/legal credentials. He has since left the administration. He was involved in overseeing legal and justice department review for things like prosecuting terrorists, the treatment of people caught and being held for terrorism. Basically he was at the cutting edge of some issues that are highly controversial like torture, legal rights, etc. The guy basically worked to maintain the legal system, using his expertise, while simultaneously was aware of and cognizant of the effort to get information from the prisoners, however possible. He described how he was often in conflict with Cheney's staff person/attorney. But what I felt was highly interesting and relevant was how in describing his own actions he took care to give a very balanced response. He said something like.....he respected the effort from all sides in balancing the very difficult problems of maintaining the legal rights as described in various elements of the American system (public and military) and the International rights given to prisoners....with the very real need to obtain information from prisoners for defense purposes. He was very balanced in his description of the natural conflicts that come between those two concerns. Not every review of every issue concerned with Iraq, the military, etc. has to be wrapped up in deep criticism of Bush. though i do believe he merits the lion's share of the criticism's. In any case it looks like these guard members will get the benefits they deserve and it will be corrected quickly. Quickly correcting the mistake is a good step.