Do you think that it would work, politically? Conscripting and sending an entire generation of youngsters into the meat grinders the US starts allover the world? Consider sending the women too! It would create an outrage, sending only men would be discrimination and create an even greater outrage. No elected politician will want to touch that potatoe.

Theres a far better alternative than scraping the AVF.

Namely that americans wake up and realize that the world WILL still turn without the US army twirling it, the tide WILL come in without the US navy pulling it. This planet have had an advancing civilization for MILLENIAS before there even WAS an USA.

What Im trying to say is: "YANKEE GO HOME" and you will have soldiers enough, if DEFENCE of your country is the concern, sending troops oveseas isnt "defence" its outright agression.

America is at the Mall...

There is a reason why our leaders can initiate and then mismanage conflict with little outrage by the American people, because for most Americans it will never affect them, they never have to worry about the pressures of service, they will never see combat, they will never see their sons and daughters sent to war, or receive them in a flag covered coffin.

For some reason it is up to 1% of the population to constantly bleed again and again so that the rest of us can sit back and reap the benefits of being the world's sole super power. Americans, humans in general, are very self centered people usually and they will not act until it affects them.

I can assure you if a draft of some sort was reinstated there would be a lot fewer politically apathetic citizens to say the least. One of two things will happen, a larger segment of the population will stand up and serve our country in the service or they will stand up and serve our fighting men and women by keeping our leaders accountable.

We will be far less likely to engage in reckless foreign policy when all our butts are on the line.

TYRTAIOS, in principle I think you make darn good points and I really cannot disagree. It is unjust and demeaning that WW’s must be comingled with the incompetent and dysfunctional cast off’s that should not be part of the armed forces in the first place. The latter should be dismissed from the armed forces with general discharges. Better to be undermanned with good people that fully manned with a portion being incapable. In my view the advantage of a National Service Act would be that induction standards could be radically revised upwards among a larger universe of candidates. The armed forces would not be compelled to play recruiting games that admit less than desirable recruits. The reality is that highly qualified people with superior intelligence are easier to train, and usually make better leaders (not always) yet by and large these people are not part of our armed forces to any great degree. The services seem to be somewhat inbred and like all institutions could probably do with an influx of some new blood and ideas.

The Draft would only see these same problems and in larger numbers, while it is horrible to see these folks intermixed with those good troops who have done what is right and expected of them it would only be worse in a draft army. A lot of draftees would not want to be there, it is a gamble who you get since only a small population is picked at a time via lottery, most teens are fat and out of shape, etc...I would love nothing more than to get rid of the disconnect between the civilians and military caste groups, since it seems that more and more the military is becoming a caste. Heck, my whole family has served since my Great Grandfather in the Spanish-American War, but only my brother and I have made careers out of it. Most of the people I work with (I can bet you that your son will attest to this as well) have brothers, uncles, fathers, etc..who have all served. In your son's group, it is quite common to see brothers or sons' galore at different teams but still in the same community.
The only way to get rid of the divide is to make it cost something for the "elites" to join and as far fetched as it sounds, I really think Heinlein had a point on what a "Citizen" should do to earn the right to vote or run for office-join and that EVERYONE fights who is in, no exceptions, no pacifists, etc... I know, a little out of bounds but otherwise, a draft would only give us more of the same unless we made it mandatory that EVERY single male and female at the age of 18 had to serve for two to three years or ever better, do what the Swiss do, but the costs of that would be a wee bit out of our budget, out of the political realm and out of the general populations ideas of good citizenship I am sure.

ERIC, you know I have a great deal of respect for your views on things but I still think that the draft as imperfect as it was largely worked in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. The problem in the 60’s was the design of the system that allowed the wealthy, well connected and academically talented to avoid service and the fact that the war we were fighting was stupid. If you wage wars which cannot engender and keep public confidence your going to have problems conscripts or not. National service would most likely affect the Army more than any other service since that branch seems to have the biggest problem in recruiting top talent. It would allow a major expansion of both the National Guard and Reserves and that is no bad thing. Our SEAL’s will still get their high-octane candidates and the Navy and AF would be able to select high quality inductees from a much enlarged pool. Long service professionals such as you would still receive current pay levels, increases, benefits and retirement but overall personnel costs could be dramatically reduced for short-term inductees. Yes, there would be problems but nothing that could not be sorted out.

Thanks, I respect your views as well but I think it has to be an all of nothing, ie; everyone in the US at the age of 18 serves or even goes the Swiss Route where you are in for life in the Reserves or keep the AVF. The Talent pool is way to random with a lottery draft and you would get a higher number of low end people who just do not want to be there and in my opinion, the Army already has a very low ability as it is outside of their actual combat forces.
A draft might force some of the elites to join but many would still get a way out or even worse, do a non-combat job and never stop speaking about their time in the service for political use. The only branch that has had problems in recruitment is the Army, the USMC has had waiting lists! lol Not kidding.
If it was an all or nothing thing, ie; everyone had to serve and no excuse to get out or even a Heinlein type drive of an AVF but with a price, I would support it. Since I do not see either of those ever coming, then I would prefer to just have a better Officer Corps for all branches, a better trained grunt at the ground level (an area the Army really fails in, especially at the support end) and that our Political Leaders (to include our current CNO, he might as well be a Politician, he has just as much integrity as one) would put practical warfighter needs above PC silliness.

Eric,

I think you are creating a strawman argument here. A draft would not force the military to take anybody off the street. To suggest this misses the point. The military services and DOD set their own accessions criteria based on aptitude, educational attainment, health etc. Any draftee would go through this battery of evaluation and the military services would have the final say whether they gained entry.

JPWREL raises some excellent points and I believe that a hybrid draftee-volunteer Army (like we had from 1948 to 1973) would raise the qualitative value of our entering enlsited cohort. When you look at the educational attainment data for the Army's entering enlisted cohort in the early 1960's, it is nothing short of amazing. In 1964 we had more entering soldiers with college experience (as a %) than we do today, despite the fact that college attendance in the civilian population has more than doubled in the last 46 years. Yes, the Army had its share of HS dropouts but this percentage was in line with the HS graduation rate across the country. In 1964, 39.91% of Army volunteers were HS dropouts but only 28.7% of Army draftees were. This compares with a 36% dropout rate for civilians at the time. Our 1964 entering Army cohort was pretty damn good and you can see a visual depiction of these men in the fine movie, "We Were Soldiers."

No strawman about it buddy , the draft would still be a lottery, ie; random, with the same standards we have today for entry, so nothing would change it somehow to be an increase in quality and to think we would get a better quality troop via a draft is just not realistic. I also do not understand how you make the correlation that by doing random selection and still using the same standards we use for those who make entry in the AVF that we will get a better product somehow, it does not really make sense to me. The education levels of todays AVF enlisted are actually higher than they were in the 60's. The only group that has had even a real problem with recruiting is the Army, we hardly need a draft to cover their needs however.
Sorry IRR, I do not agree, show me how a draft would make a better force vs the AVF? The only benefit would be that the burden would be spread out a bit, most of the recruits are blue collar or middle class right now, but if you read my other posts on that topic you will see that I have little faith that the elites will not find a way around that too. I also fear that since the training currently is so watered down in basic, especially in the Navy, Army and AF, that a Draft would force Pols to water it down even more and I even less faith in my Flag Officers to make training more suited for combat, again with the possible exception of the Marines.
I have posted prior how I think I could support a draft but I really doubt that they would ever go over well, so outside of huge crisis, like N. Korea or worse, I think the AVF is fine and if you want real improvement in the Military, AVF or Draft, start with the Officer Corps.

Also, where did you get the idea that I thought we would be taking anyone off the street? Never said that, I would re-read my exchanges with J again and the last part of your post, compare the HS grads of todays AVF with your Military in the 60's. (I would have just added this on to the last post but the bloody edit button is gone, so sigh...)

Eric,

The key benefit of Selective Service is that it greatly enhances the pool of people who will consider the military - either by receiving "Greetings for Uncle Sam" or by volunteering in an effort to maintain some control over their entry into the military.

The AVF currently relies on a very narrow sliver of the population to volunteer. Once you look beyond that small universe, there are many talented people who are not influenced by the military's education/adventure/benefits/service sales pitch.

I fail to see how an expansion of the pool of Americans we draw from would not improve the quality of our military. The current AVF is not geographically or educationally representative of the country it is drawn from.

Yes, while the Army may be the only service having overt recruiting challenges, the other services will also benefit from selective service. It is worth remembering that from 1948-1973, the Navy and USAF remained all volunteer and were able to bring in most personnel on a four year enlistment despite abysmal pay. Why? Because people facing selective service valued having some semblence of "control" in how they served and were willing to excahnge an additional two years of their life for this certainty.

The only reason that such a narrow "sliver" as you call it go in is because the poor cannot get in due to not having HS degrees, the rich do not want to do it and last time I checked, the middle and blue collar classes were hardly "slivers", I think they are still the majority last I checked. You want more participation by the elites? Sorry, they will and have alway found a way around service or barring that, a combat job in the service-Gore, Bush Jr., etc...as some recent examples (Sorry, UANG was a cop out in my view). So, unless it is something like everyone and I mean EVERYONE has to do a tour like the Israelis then I do not support it and if you really think that somehow the pool will be that much wider by a draft that is not TOTALLY COMPULSORY for ALL, then I do not see it as a political reality. If N. Korea kicks off, then we will have not choice but again, I fail to see how a draft will magically improve our quality, it might, just might narrow the culture gap a bit due to some being forced into the service but outside of that I see no benefit for quality.
You know, AWOL is a good book to read on this and while I agree with some of the views and ideals in it, again, I have ZERO faith in either my Political or Military Leaders to do the right thing by making training tougher, more combat oriented (sorry, the Army Support Training is a joke and the Navy and AF might as well be fat boy camps with the Co-Ed Boot Camps having more problems than they are worth) and base leadership on warfighting ability over politics. A draft would only make them more involved in the weeds and to be quite honest, would only make the pols and our "glorious" flags all to happy to please them by making training that much easier. You want to make it like the Israelis do it? I am with you, otherwise, sorry, it will not do a thing for us.

About two years ago I was a CO of a HQ company on Camp Lejeune. I had close to 650 Marines in this company, way over T/O. I had a medical Platoon filled with those cases that were not severe enough for the WW Bn on base. When I did get over to the WWB to visit a Amrine from my old platoon that was wounded in Iraq, I was not struck with a sense that it was filled with malingerers such as the article mentions. It was manned by combat casualties that needed more care than could be provided by the parent commands. I think the issue is not the WW units but the personnel used to staff and command them. I have no evidence or studies to back that up but I can't imagine you would send your stellar leaders to that billet or that a good leader would volunteer for it.

As for the Admiral... I think he needs to put down Gen. Smedley Butler's book, "War is a Racket." And then sign off.

Tom, please contact me to discuss this in detail if you like. For others on the blog, some things to consider about the Army Warrior Transition Units:

--84% of the Soldiers in Warrior Transition Units have deployed.
--We don't "dump" Soldiers into Warrior Transition Units. The are entry criteria are: minimum of 6 months rehabilitation and complex conditions that require case management. Unit commanders nominate and a general officer approves all entries. The Army implemented this policy in July 2008.
--To give you a sense of the population, 21% of our Soldiers in Warrior Transition Units have non-PTSD behavioral heath conditions, often in addition to others conditions. By comparison, 22% are being treated for PTSD. 63% have an orthopedic condition, the most prevalent condition. Soldiers average about 2 conditions each.
--Approximately 10% of Warrior Transition Unit Soldiers have received a Purple Heart. Approximately 75% are recovering from condtions that resulted from multiple deployments. Others have non-deployment related conditions that range from motor vehicle accidents to serious diseases like cancer.
--Medication management is a challenge. We are continuing to adjust our program and offer alternative therapies for our Soldiers. There are many other initiatives in the works as well.
--We survey our Soldiers in every Warrior Transition Unit every quarter. We have an 80% satisifaction rate, but from their responses learn a lot about how to improve our program. Their NCO leadership and nurse case managers consistently get above 90% approval ratings.
--As an aside, the law (HIPPA) prohibits recruiters from accessing the medical records of potential recruits to verify previous behavioral health issues.

BGen CHEEK - It is always good to here from the horse's mouth. But I must also confess to harboring a sneaking hunch that we have been given a description on how it is supposed to work by regulations, followed by statistical data.

The fact is, we keep hearing these stories, stories I've personally heard, and from my distant past 28 plus years as both a combat wounded patient and a field grade commander, I smell smoke and where there is smoke; there is fire?

I respectfully would ask how often unannounced inspections both up front and surreptitious are conducted to measure that guidelines are being followed? After all, we heard much the same thing about Walter Reed earlier on until congress forced the issue and SecDef Gates intervened.

Mooj Killer said, “I think the issue is not the WW units but the personnel used to staff and command them. I have no evidence or studies to back that up but I can't imagine you would send your stellar leaders to that billet or that a good leader would volunteer for it.”

WWBN-E is not filled with malingerers. It is filled with injured Marines who come there hoping to heal and go back to the front with their units. Mooj Killer is correct when he says that the issue is caused by the personnel used to staff and command these units. He doesn’t have evidence, but I DO have evidence. Sadly, many military leaders with stellar careers have been deliberately looking the other way when given the chance to view the evidence. If you want a study or an investigation with true results, you need to go outside the military and you need to offer the wounded warriors entry into a witness protection program. Everyone is scared to say what’s really going on because they’ve seen what happens to the few willing to stand up and speak out.

HARRIET0352 - This is good that the Corps' administered program is not being used to dump undesirables among the worthy. Just as importantly however, you have raised, and seconded another troubling issue, of the less than stellar staff looking-out and advocating for those trying to rehabilitate. Can you elaborate and give specific examples, perhaps some shame shined down . . . say Camp Lejeune way, might spark someone’s interest? Perhaps I could even drop a dime?

BG Cheek, I have not done the research on all areas mentioned in your statistics. I must take exception to the 80% satisfaction rate and the 90% approval ratings you mentioned. I will direct you to a blog that explains my position. I’m sure you will find all of the entries interesting, but the one that focuses specifically on satisfaction surveys can be found here: http://www.fellednot.com/apps/blog/show/3650358-are-we-entitled-to-our-own-opinion-

after having seen a NE USA WTU with BIG problems....I concur with "where there is smoke there is fire"....break break...let's all just admit that we went to war with the Army we had, not with the Army we needed.....and have been playing band-aid catch up ever since.....we simply didn't know what we didn't know, we didn't admit it to ourselves nor were we even self-aware enough to admit it, and are now doing the best we can to keep our collective heads above water.....(pardon all the cliches, but they are applicable)......ideally, 10-15 years from now when we are "sort of" back to normal (in terms of the Afghan and Iraq efforts), we will have learned from our past, made the strategy/policy/resource adjustments, and be better off to address the unknowns we will face in the future....

While I am heartened to see a General Officer take such a personal interest in this issue, I am not convinced that the selective use of favorable statistics can mitigate the grave concerns many have with the WTU concept or its implications for wounded personnel.

At the risk of sounding too blunt, the WTU concept has had almost 3 years to get its act together. Despite the time and inordinate personnel resources dumped into the WTU experiment, it has has failed to show a sufficient return on Investment (ROI) or justify its large (and growing) budget.

We have a steady stream of documented WTU calamities: Ft. Stewart, Ft. Bragg, Walter Reed (x2), Ft. Carson and Ft. Benning - and these are just the ones we know about because they attracted national media attention. I can only imagine what else is taking place without any outside attention whatsoever.

To expand on a previous point, there is no evidence to suggest that the WTU concept has assisted in soldiers' recovery or rehabilitation. In fact, there is evidence that the attitude of the cadre and their ignorance of medicine and mental health may adversely impact the well being of patients. To reiterate, underutilized combat arms personnel have no business being assigned to medical centers to "command" grieviously injured soldiers whose sole "duty" is to heal.

The cadre could best be utilized in filling the gaping holes in our institutional Army. As General Dempsey's recent letter to GEN Casey documents, TRADOC is suffering an acute shortage of NCOs and officers to train soldiers, develop doctrine and refine lesson learned. The WTU cadre are needed to perform these tasks that only personnel with their skills can accomplish. Infantry and Artillery personnel are not required at medical centers to perform tasks the Army Medical Department carried out with honor prior to 2007.

The structural deficiencies of the WTU concept are well documented in a piece that appeared in the December 2009 issue of CNS Spectrums titled, "Crisis in Army Psychopharmacology and Mental Health Care at Ft. Hood." For this article, the authors surveyed 310 WTU cadre (non medical) and revealed that a significant subset are not confident that PTSD is a "real illness". On a 1-10 scale (1 - little or no confidence; 10 - extremely confident), 18% of WTU cadre answered with a "1" - little or no confidence that PTSD is a "real illness." In the same survey of 310 WTU cadre, 41% of them reported that they believed that "more than 50% of soldiers claiming PTSD are faking or exaggerating"! Tell me again what these ignorant cadre are doing in medical centers wearing the MEDCOM patch??? What value do they bring? How does placing wounded and tormented soldiers under the command of cadre who doubt their diagnosis aid their healing?

While BG Cheek cites the role of Nurse Case Managers in his reply, this arrangement is problematic as well. There is documented tension between the Nurse Case Managers and the cadre. In the December 2009 CNS Spectrums article, 138 WTU Nurse Case managers were surveyed. On a scale of 1-10 (1-little or no confidence; 10 - extremely confident), 75% of the surveyed nurses rated their "confidence in the knowledge and ability of WTU cadre to recognize and monitor mental illness and their treatments in soldiers" at a "5" or less

The WTU idea was ill-conceived and is a failure. Unfortunately, the current Army Chief of Staff, GEN George Casey, treats the decisions of his predecessor similar to "papal infallibility." Instead we continue to misallocate critical resources and impede healing because senior leaders are unwilling to say "we made a mistake."

I would love to give you specific examples. I have an arsenal of documentation to back up specifics that have taken place over the past year, however my particular case has been going on for over 18 months. I spent the first 4 or 5 months trusting the system and fully expecting the Marines to take care of their own, something they proudly proclaim to do along with a shout "Semper Fidelis". Unfortunately, I did not document as much during the first few months, but once I realized there were huge problems, I did pay attention and document. I made sure I had sound information. I presented it to a retired colonel who agreed I had solid information and helped me to bring these facts to the attention of people who needed to be informed. In my naivity, I honestly thought the problem was coming from one man, and that as soon as everyone found out about this man's actions, he would be dealt with accordingly. The shocking part was finding that everyone looked the other way. Even more shocking, to find that things began to get worse.....with obvious retaliation. That just made me more determined to move forward. I've dealt with many individuals in very high positions both inside and outside of the USMC. The more I pushed, the worse things got. If they are reading this comment section, they are likely sweating profusely waiting for me to name them outright, or they are busy planning their next step in discrediting me and my Marine. I feel like I am living in the middle of a John Gresham novel, unable to trust anyone, and am becoming more and more disillusioned with our military and our lawmakers. I find it appalling that so many people would not only look the other way, but try to set my Marine up for a fall to discredit him so I will go away. There has to be someone with enough power and credibility who is wiling to take a stand and get these issues out in the open, but for now, I only see people looking the other way, with enough power to make sure that my voice is never heard. I'd love to name names but I wonder how quickly my Marine's situation would become worse. People should lose their jobs, but sadly, I know they won't. It's so much easier to discredit an "ignorant" civilian than to change an entire system. What keeps me from running to what appears to be the only door left unopened and use the media?? My Marine. His life is far more important than any of this and I don't want to see the military put one more nail in his coffin. As it stands now, it may already be too late to help him.

IRR said, “it's inconceivable that we would divert these critical officers to major medical centers when they have no medical training or experience.”

Exactly! The military does not need to run the unit for wounded warriors. These men should lead victory units. Leadership is so afraid that one of the wounded warriors might sneak their way out of their obligation. The wounded will heal much more quickly in a place where trained professionals with compassion want to help them recover. Most wounded warriors want to go back to their units. Sadly, by the time they have wasted away with no purpose, and no real treatment, and been devastated by the boot camp mentality of the unit’s leadership, all they want to do is go home. They have lost interest in serving, and in living altogether. (hint - suicide rate)

I also agree that the wounded warrior needs to be assigned to a medical center nearest their HOME OF RECORD! That’s a no brainer for all the reasons stated. It is my belief, however, that these units DO NOT WANT family involvement. I just spent 18 months, climbing up the proverbial side of Mt. Everest, barefoot, in a blinding storm, trying to get involved in my warrior’s recovery. I believe more time was spent keeping me out of the picture than time has been spent to plan strategy for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

I too thought that we had given him an Undesirable Discharge.

We do currently have a great system for allowing LEGAL aliens to join the military and they get the added incentive for a streamlined path to citizenship. I think that is awesome and I have had over 10 Marines who were able to become citizens this way. Here is just one example and this Marine is a true stud.

http://vacouncilofchurches.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=159&Itemid=44

But as for units comprised entirely of immigrants... not a good thing at all.

The Romans did that, and rewarded these new recruits with citizenship. Before they knew it Romans decided to let the "barbarians" have the honor of defending the empire, stopped volunteering, and in the 4th century AD the "barbarians" took the city and Rome fell.

Like Mooj Killer said, it is a good idea and helps, but no thanks to a Foreign Legion, we have something pretty close to the ideals of that anyway in history and discipline, called the USMC. I do think we should open it up to recruiting more from overseas though, if they can speak English, sign up for 4 years and they get citizenship and the Vet Pckg when they are done.

One, we are a nation of Immigrants
Two, we are not Rome
Three, we would never do it on that scale
I think, to our detriment, you will see the caste system we slowly see developing now become even more evident in the future.

SoldiersDiary,

Good comments. I just want to clarify what I mean by Home of Record patient regulation. I'm not talking about sending severely wounded personnel willy-nilly to any hospital near their home. I am talking about getting them to the nearest military medical center - regardless of service - that has the resources to mee their needs. Example: your hypothetical wounded soldier from West Virginia who is assigned to Ft. Hood, TX. This patient should ideally be at Walter Reed or Bethesda. In reality, many injured personnel are sent to a WTU at the location of their former unit - thousands of miles from home without adequate support services.

I recognize that we can't have a military medical facility in every state. We can and must do better. Getting our native Californians back to Balboa Naval Medical Center for recovery rather than Ft. Stewart is a step in the right direction. These were pretty common sense policies from prior conflicts that we discarded in 2003. Get the injured as close to home and let them heal.

Why does today's Army insist on exerting so much control over its people? I mean, if we were willing to assign our wounded troopers to Navy facilities in 1969 to get them close to home, why can't we do that today?

I took the time to read every entry posted and found them all to be thought provoking and valid - even "The Admiral" when he commented on governmental corruption. Since this is a Foreign Policy publication and I am studying Diplomacy & Conflict Resolution at George Mason Univ (courtesy of BG Gary Cheek and Mr. Frank Bryceland), please allow me to initiate my entry from a FP standpoint & I will continue to offer my insight on the WTU issue.

Since I am pressed for time (working on a paper for school right now) I will be as brief and succinct as possible - and hopefully not offend anyone. As I mentioned, I respect what everyone had to offer, especially the honorable Marine's mother. God Bless, you Ma'am - I have a good understanding of how you feel because my (last) Husband was with CAG and 7th Special Forces (A True Warrior) and tragically did not survive his injuries. So, undoubtedly, my heart goes out to you and your brave son.

I personally believe the most pressing & relevant concern/question should be why our forces are increasingly (and unnecessarily) involved in so many conflicts, wars, "humanitarian assistance" missions, natural disaster/crisis relief, insurgencies, ad nauseum? There was a brilliant piece in the Marine Times written by a Gunnery Sgt who was just plain fed up with Washington (i.e. the Presidents and their Cronies) putting our Forces at risk and stretching them so thin that the effects of this are extremely detrimental (and numerous) and we will suffer for decades,

I say "why don't these people who fan the flames of war go on missions (like my Husband and his Teammates did) and look at the enemy in the face and kill them (or train them depending on the situation?) I'm not speaking of the few civilian officials who actually go to Afghanistan/Iraq to visit the troops (it's kind of them to do this).... I'm speaking of the ones who make decisions that send our forces into harm's way and have not never stepped foot in a combat/war zone or an out-lying camp to see the the absolute hardship and deprivation, especially in mountainous, treacherous and challenging terrain. I have about 2,800 photos of my Husband with all his gear (SF Commo guys carry a LOT) and he's in the mountains full of snow. Have you ever just tried walking on a slick, ice/snow covered sidewalk?? Well, imagine what our Forces in A'stan are going through fighting in extreme conditions. And yes, they DO engage in firefights in the winter-time, just not as many.

Well, my point is...who is going to keep us out of these wars - and bring some sanity to America's Foreign Policy - so that we don't have SO MANY wounded, hurt, ill, incapacitated Soldiers/Marines to take care of??

Yes, this is a highly complex question since we all know that American/Western interests are selfish - we always want what someone else has and this causes problems (quite simply). However, this is where the State Department and numerous agencies and organizations (NATO, EU, OSCE, UN, even all the world-wide Intelligence Agencies, etc.....) should be SO MUCH more proactive, less territorial and selfish, and just DO THE RIGHT THING. It should not be so difficult when you have the Soldiers'/Marines' best interests at heart.

A few examples: Foreign Relations Council and any other entity that decides to give billions of dollars to Israel in foreign aid. Quite simply...STOP DOING IT. This is one GREAT reason that Sept 11 happened. UBL stated numerous time throughout one of his speeches a few years ago that what angers the Arab/Muslim world is that the U.S. is such a big supporter of Israel. Yes, this opens a can of worms, but it is a fact - I know everyone is busy, but take a moment just to google some credible (and international) sources and just read a bit on this. Do you know HOW MUCH HEARTACHE this will save us all (if we cut their foreign aid?) Imagine how we could spend that money? Just for starters: Schools for girls in Afghanistan (Please read "Three Cups of Tea and "Stones Into Schools")

The Legal Community (ESPECIALLY the JAG): Stop with the asinine ROE's that are endangering, hurting, and getting some of our Forces killed. Yes, I get it with COIN and DIME - but these Law Makers are so out of touch with reality that it is extremely HARMFUL and DEBILITATING.

My best friends husband (SF) was the lead man going through a door in search of an HVT and as soon as he entered, he was shot and did not survive his wounds. He did manage to kill the ones who did this though before he lost too much blood. Why did he have to die?? Because he had been told by his Team Leader and Team SGT not to put charges on the door - because when it blew in - it might injure someone on the other side !!! A very good man lost his life that day and a wonderful woman lost her husband. God forbid you kill the enemy - the Afghan Coward was hiding behind a woman. I seethe when I think of this and all the other abominable things I hear and read about. Oh yes, when I was working in the WTB I heard many accounts (by Purple Heart Warriors) like they were told not to shoot Iraqi insurgents (that they were watching) placing IED's in the ground. Someone seriously needs to hold these law-makers accountable for many unnecessary deaths and INJURIES of our Forces.

The Military Industrial Complex: Please, someone, keep them in check. They are mostly making Billions off of our Marines' and Soldiers' lives. There is a German saying "For every two who fight, there is a third who laughs." I could elaborate greatly on this but I have gone on too long already. I think most of you all know where I'd go with this anyway.

The Political Machine: Why don't we hold certain groups/individuals accountable for getting us into all this trouble? Why don't Americans take a scrutinizing look at not just "who is in charge, but who is influencing and manipulating those who we think are in charge? I mean groups like the Bilderbergs, the Neo-Cons, international financiers, statesmen, and the power & war mongers of the world?? If Americans (the Free World for that matter) kept these individuals in check, we probably would not have our forces in so many conflicts around the world. Where is State Dept, and what are they doing?? What are the "Diplomats" doing??" Obviously someone is asleep at the wheel or our fighting forces would not be so sorely strained in so many conflicts. Did you know that just our Special Forces are in 47 countries around the world? GEN Michael Repass just stated this recently in a news article. Which brings me to:

The Generals and Leaders: Of the ones who I have personally met through an extremely difficult situation, I found them to all be exceedingly kind and patient with me...and sadly, I can be difficult.

GEN Gary Cheek still keeps in touch with me via email just to see how I am doing and wrote many emails to me to help me through a bad time. He and Mr. Frank Bryceland are the main reason I am in Grad school at GMU. GEN Peter Chiarelli answered more than a few of my emails - especially one where I pleaded about something. GEN Repass took the time to write me a letter of recommendation, Mr. Jim Gunlicks, and GEN Mulholland are also extremely kind and thoughtful men. GEN Huntoon is another gentleman who helped me. Please, I am not naming all these gentlemen to "name drop" I just want to convey that when you really need help and you ask for it, top leadership in the Army will do anything to help you - as busy as they are. (My problems were multi-faceted and - yes - it took all these gentlemen for me to wade through layers of bureaucracy) - but my situation has gone on for more than a year and is just about over...thank God.

Holistic/Alternative Medicine and Therapy: The medical professionals (military & civilian) should team up on this one. There are so many other things we can be doing with our (truly wounded) Warriors other than conventional medicine/treatments. Unfortunately this will be an uphill battle because the drug companies, the FDA, Insurance companies, etc.. will fight this because it is less money in their pockets. (I'm trying to keep all this short).

Who had the idea of the small Battalion groups that are effective and flexible? This sounds exactly like Special Operations and units which are being trained in COIN and Irregular warfare. GREAT IDEA !! But, sadly, there are not enough men (sorry ladies there are some places we just do not belong) to go around to do these kind of missions. It has to do with the moral fabric of our nations...look at the "raw material" the recruiters are dealing with. I don't have to wax on about this because some of you all are the experts on this dilemma. I feel I can have a bit of a say in this because I try to do my part by working as a Role Player with the Special Forces exercise, "Robin Sage." I can only say that it really does take special men to conduct these types of missions and fight in this type of Persistent Conflict/Engagement because, increasingly, they are also expected to be Diplomats, Trainers, and Educators - in addition to surviving in harsh, inhospitable and deadly environments. Which leads me to:

The National Service Act: AWESOME IDEA but most Americans are apathetic, lazy, self-gratifying, and could care less about what our Forces are experiencing because they are too busy watching "Desperate Housewives", chomping on Cheez Its and Hotdogs, and guzzling beer. I really think the idea of having more legal Immigrants, these "political refugees," and even "Illegal" immigrants or those who seek to come to America (and are not criminals in their own country), should be allowed to serve in our military. Many times, their work ethic is better and they are extremely hard-working. I have direct experience with this since I lived in England, Turkey, Germany, and have traveled throughout Latin America. Over the years I have met a number of Soldiers and Officers in foreign military services and they are quite motivated and intelligent. Heck, you'd have a lot of Translators and Interpreters this way also (with those who have good language skills). Let us see how long (how many decades) it will take for State Dept to figure out how to do this. This is another BIG problem, we are this lumbering giant tripping over our own feet many times. If we boosted the numbers of our forces in this manner, we would not be stretched so than and would not have to deal with STRESS in the Forces, Family problems, ETC......

Oh yes, Harriet? (The brave Marines Mom) the WTB that I was at had a Family Program. I was the FRSA Family Readiness Support Assistant and I can say that I did my VERY BEST attempting to involve the Soldiers and their Family Members whether it was a Mom, Fiance, Wife, or Brother of a Wounded Warrior. I really did go out of my way - and I ended up getting myself in trouble because I didn't always do things "The Army Way." But I never did anything illegal or wrong, I just did too much, believe it or not. Anyway, the Army really does try its BEST to do as much for Families as they can - I suppose you just have to trust me on this one. Please contact me and I will even try to help you however I can (cmoralez@gmu.edu). My (late) Husband, SSG Christopher Piper was a Marine Corps Scout Sniper in Beirut, Lebanon ( this was way before I met him). So Marines are TOP NOTCH in my book.

Ok, now the WTB issues: I knew there were Soldiers (male and female) that were staying there as long as humanly possible - I tended to avoid these individuals because the money spent on them could certainly have gone to help the truly combat injured Soldiers. However, there were MANY, MANY Soldiers who greatly benefited from the Warrior Transition Battalion. I could relate a number of stories to you! Please, do not consider them a failure. Because some people, officers, medical personnel did not always make the best decisions (in many various cases) is no reason to label the WTU's as failures. Yes, there are some issues, but they are mostly not systemic (in my opinion). From what I noticed, the "malinger" type issues were most problematic. Here, I would not blame leadership in the sense that the Army can only deal with so much. For example: so many people wearing the Army uniform should not even be in it. My Husband broke his wrists once and even when he had his casts on, he ran the 2 mile run and still beat every other guy in his squadron. He would not stay home or take his pain meds either. He insisted on going to work because he could still use his fingertips (his casts covered his forearms up to his knuckles). He was an 18 E (Communications expert) so he dealt with radios, antennas, buttons and switches. This is the kind of man he was...he could still use his fingertips. Yesterday (June 16) made exactly 5 years that he had his life taken from him.

So, I think it's kind of interesting (curious) that I would be writing this type of account to a bunch of people I don't even know. However, "Foreign Policy" is one of my most PREFERRED publications since I love reading about International Affairs and so I thank everyone of you (just in case you took the time to read my account). If you feel like emailing me, I'm at: cmoralez@gmu.edu

or conniemoralez@yahoo.com

WJA,

While Mr. Koch is more than capable of defending himself, it is important to understand that he had no "direct line" authority over the individual servces' WTU programs. These nightmares with their Orwellian terminology are inventions of the services not DOD.