DeltAlum |
10-16-2003 09:32 PM |
"Referring to the Army rate, Rudd said, "I don't think the suicides we've had in Iraq are going to seriously skew the numbers."
This is terribly sad.
Does that strike anyone else as a cold, inappropriate statement? I think I would have at least added condolences or something. Of course, we don't have the entire context from which the quote came, so maybe it wasn't as uncaring as it sounds.
I'm wondering (with absolutely NO insight or proof) if this kind of thing might be a result of the all volunteer military and the necessity to use National Guard and Reserve components more often and for longer periods of time? Every volunteer should know that there is a chance of a war, but the reality is that many young people enlist in hopes of reaping the educational benefits, etc. later and don't every really expect to see combat. At least with the draft, as awful and unfair as that was, we knew what to expect if/when our number was called.
I think (notice I said "think," again no proof) that setting a time to be away may also be a mistake. In WWII, the soldiers were drafted for "The remainder of hostilities and three months," or some quote very close to that. Once they were sent overseas, they didn't expect to come home until the war was over.
Many people believe that setting an expected one year maximum deployment seriously hurt our combat effectiveness in Vietnam, because during the last couple of months the soldiers were so transfixed on not getting hurt or killed, they might not have been as aggressive. I know that in many cases that was true. I have seen no comment on that so far in this conflict -- and our forces have been magnificent as far as I can tell.
Since this article has been published, I suspect we'll hear more about all of this after the end of hostilities.
|