Bush administration angers U.S. soldiers

From USA Today Pg 3A, 7 Jan 2004:

"Rumsfeld defends new medal for war on terrorism -
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended a decision to award veterans of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the same decoration. Rumsfeld said the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal was recommended by the chiefs of the military services."

(Yeah right Don. Just like the sailors who 'requested' the 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' banner.)

"In the past, the U.S. military has recognized specific campaigns with separate ribbons & medals. Some soldiers who have served in both Afghanistan and Iraq have complained privately about the new medal."

Fellow DUers, as you may already know, U.S. Soldiers are given medals for various accomplishments during their service. Among the most coveted of these medals are those issued to soldiers that served in combat zones.
There's a running joke among enlisted soldiers that the military brass fly into combat zones, step from their planes, give a short speech, and then leave, thus earning the coveted award for having "serving in a combat zone".
Those that have actually served in the combat zones cherish the medals deeply. They get both the decorative medal, and the small bars/ribbons that collectively make up the 'salad bowl' worn by highly decorated soldiers.
There are basically two kinds of soldiers in the military: Those who went, and those who didn't. The ribbons make the distinction clear among the military ranks.
With the introduction of the new "Global War on Terrorism" medal, the Bush administration has denied some of the soldiers one of their basic sources of pride. Specifically, those that served in both Afghanistan AND Iraq have been denied the extra "bragging rights" that would go along with having two of the coveted combat awards.

Why did the Bush administration enact this change?
Surely, they knew of the military culture, the pride that goes along with the awards, and the potential for angering the soldiers.
Why then DID they make the change?

The answer is quite simple: Politics.
As usual, the Bush administration is playing politics. If Bill Clinton had enacted such a change, his right wing critics would have called him a traitor. They would SCREAM that he was demoralizing the troops. Not surprisingly, the right wingers are silent on this issue.

Instead, we have Bush playing politics, or more appropriately, covering his own a--. He's still desperately trying to tie his Iraqi invasion to our legitimate war on Osama Bin Laden, and the exporters of terrorism.
Bush told us that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, stockpiling chemical weapons, and preparing to use both against us.
As the one year anniversary of the Iraqi invasion approaches, those weapons have still not been found. No laboratories, no scientific information, no materials for testing or manufacturing those weapons.
The alleged Al-Qaeda/Iraq connection has turned out to be just another lie. The attempts to deceive us continue.
Bush hopes that by merging the two wars into a single operation, by offering only one medal to the participants, will help fool us into believing that there was a connection.
Instead, Bush's action has stripped some of the soldiers of the added pride that a second, distinct combat award would have provided.
I don't think the soldiers are asking too much to have BOTH of their sacrifices acknowledged.
I think their pride is far more important than Bush's CYA plan.
End the nonsense Bush. Issue TWO distinct medals, and stop playing politics.

one war, one ribbon, one set of numbers

I was looking at pictures of Arlington and that's what the markers said. I believe that those who died in Afghanistan get "Operation Enduring Freedom" on their tombstones. It has a nice, meaningless ring to it.

How about an extra 20K in the serviceman/woman's bank account and a MAC flight ticket home from the nearest air field?


DEAN LEADS THE WAY!

"Report says troops are cool to bonus plan to re-enlist.
The army's offer of up to $10,000 for soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait to re-enlist isn't popular so far, the associated press reported. It based its conclusion on interviews with nearly two dozen soldiers in Iraq.
Some cited the monotonous routine of a lonely life thousands of miles from loved ones. Others cited the fear of an early death."

Nothing speaks more about the morale of the troops, then their refusal to re-enlist, especially as they turn down ten thousand dollar bonus' to do so.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

I'm sure he has no fucking idea how important it is to be awarded a medal for your commitment.

I wonder how many awards were presented to Dubya before he went AWOL?

Surely, they knew of the military culture, the pride that goes along with the awards, and the potential for angering the soldiers.

With the exception of Powell, who in this administration knows about military pride? Really, * had so much pride, he went AWOL! Since Powell is such a good "suck butt", he will keep his mouth shut like a good little boy.

No wonder Iraq and Afghanistan are such a mess. They take away medals, cut benefits to veterans and try to buy a soldier who is away from his family for 10 grand. Their knowledge is amazing!

For the most part, it's a propaganda tool being used on the soldiers to aid in hiding the fact that the Iraq invasion was a diversion and had nothing to do with fighting a "war on terrorism"