The US, UN & Iraq III

hobit, The lesson is "why trust those bastards?" c.i.

The underpaying of the military at the bottom end has been going on for years, I think (I live in an area of many retired military, have heard this from them). When was it, earlier this year, that they also pared funds for vets and vet hospitals?

Hobit -- Did you also see the investigation (I read about it in the Village Voice) into the misuse of credit cards -- issuing cards to members of the military, stiffing them? Can't remember the details; will see if I can find.

Doesn't surprise me. The other way that one ends up in trouble when PCSing or deploying is by accepting "casual pay." Like any other dumb private (actuall, dumb specialist, I went in as an E-4, thanks to a degree) when I left AIT (tecnical training) at Ft. Sam Houston San Antonio, for Germany in February of 1990, I accepted the next months salary as "casual pay," since it would take that long for me to in-process and set up bank account at my new duty station. Well, March rolled around, and I had no pay. The Army's Financial Branch, instead of merely stopping payment on my February pay, re-collected an entire month's pay in March. they did the same in April, May and June. It would have been less frustrating had it been an unusual occurrance, but it happened to EVERYONE!!! Frotunately, since it was a common occurrance, my new friends in my new unit took care of me,as I was later to do with those who came after me. But the frustration of the fact that everyone knew the system was broken, but no one could fix it was maddenning. I did not recieve the three months back pay until I ETS'ed in July of 1995! Roughly five years later!
In addition, in the 1990's, service members in Germany had but two choices of banks: American Express,and the USAREUR federal credit union. Both were notorious for "creative banking." Both were the only financial institutions to recieve contracts to serve as banks on post for US military personnell and their families. We were not allowed to set up accounts with German banks without also haveing an account with one of the US banks on post. AMEX was famous for clearing checks two or three times, denying payment when funds were in the bank, or failing to register deposits. I bounced several checks when I had funds in the bak due to AMEX' mistakes,and had to piece together the paper trail to avoid getting an article 15. Again, this was not unique. It happened to everyone, but no one could do anything about it.
My final financial gripe is over the AAFES (Army/Air Force Exchange Service..i.e. the PX) version of a charge card, called the Defered Payment Program (DPP, we called it the "dumb privates program"). It was like a department store charge card system. Pretty much everyone applied for it, in order to acquire the neccessities (civilian clothing, military clothing, stereo ( ), etc...) especially since you knew you wouldn't get paid for your first three months. The DPP accounting was done at the AAFES headquarters in Dallas, TX. In order to proceed from one assignment to another (i.e. In order to leave Germany and PCS to Madigan, in my case) you had to have a stamp on your clearance paperwork saying that you didn't owe DPP any money . For some strange reason, the PX's computer was always well behind the soldier's actual statement, so even if you had payed off your DPP charges, you still ended up having to shell out green stuff to the DPP counter. Even with my statements in my hot little hand to show I was at zero balance, I still had to (re)pay something like fifty dollars. I never got that money back. In fact, in 1998, after I had been out of the Army for three years I had six-hundred dollars taken out of my income tax return supposedly to pay an old outstanding DPP balance. I didn't even bother to try and get that back. Okay, done ranting.

How people manage to dedicate themselves to military service for this country, in Germany and other locations outside the US, leaves a lot to be desired. I guess you gotta be a little crazy in the head or enjoy masochist treatment. c.i.

I'm glad our son left the US Air Force after twelves years service. I don't need to worry about how's he's treated by this administration. c.i.

By the time you realize this is normal, its too late. It isn't like you can just quit! I was stuck for five more years.

I thought our military was voluntary? c.i.

Hobitbob

You wouldn't be getting, or gotten GI educational benefits have you? The reason I asked you seem to be a professional student.

No, I went in to pay off student loans. Since I had a degree when I went in, I was ineligible for the GI Bill. I actually went in for reasons of what I thought were patriotism, but I suspect were really a 22 year bout of indigestion.

yes, one volunteers to enlist.One is then bound by the enlistment contract. You can get thrown out, but you can't quit.

hobit, Why didn't you apply for officer rank rather than a enlisted with your college degree? c.i.

Wow---Indigestion for 22 years----quick learner.

This was in 1989, the middle of the Bush I drawdown. I had been in AFROTC before, and was one of many who lost contract status in the wake of this event. I wanted to fly right seat in the F-111, but in 1987 they weren't even able to offer people Missile Launch Crew slots (the bastion of everyone who couldn't get anything else!). I thought that I wanted to go to PA school, and spoke with both the Army and Air Force. The Air Force couldn't even guarantee that one would go into a specific field. Since I was already certified as an EMT-P, the Army was happy to give me a medic spot, make me an E-4, and give me a bonus. Who was I to complain? I made E-5 in two years, and came of active duty as an E-6. I left the guard as an E-6 Promotable in 1999. The Army had its benefits, including steering me toward my current academic specialty, medieval religious and intellectual history. I'm actually quite glad I never got to go to PA school.

Well, that was quite an education, and naive me, I am really appalled.

Back to the topic:


Iraq is battlefield for war vs. terror

August 24, 2003

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST


Among the more comical moments of a grim week was the sight of the president of the Security Council expressing his condemnation of the terrorist attack on the UN. He was the representative of Syria. Syria is a terrorist state. Syrians have flooded across the border into Iraq to take up arms with their beleaguered Baathist brethren. It would not be surprising to discover a Syrian connection to one or both of Tuesday's terrorist strikes in Baghdad and Jerusalem. But Syria happens to hold the presidency of the Security Council, so a fellow who's usually the apologist for terrorists gets to go on TV to represent the international community's determination to stand up to terrorism.

Well, that's the luck of the draw at the UN, where so far this year Libya, Iraq and Syria have found themselves heading up the Human Rights Commission, the Disarmament Committee and the Security Council. The UN's subscription to this charade may be necessary in New York, but what's tragic is that they seem to have conducted their affairs in Baghdad much the same way. Offers of increased U.S. military protection were turned down. Their old Iraqi security guards, all agents of Saddam's Secret Service there to spy on the UN, were allowed by the organization to carry on working at the compound. And sitting in the middle of an unprotected complex staffed by ex-Saddamite spies was Sergio Vieira de Mello, the individual most directly credited with midwifing East Timor into an independent democratic state. Osama bin Laden (or rather whoever makes his audiocassettes) and the Bali bombers have both cited East Timor as high up on their long list of grievances: the carving out, as they see it, of part of the territory of the world's largest Islamic nation to create a mainly Christian state. Now they've managed to kill the fellow responsible. Any way you look at it, that's quite a feather in their turbans.

But it doesn't really matter who's actually to blame--Baathist Iraqis or al-Qaida Saudis. As far as the world's press is concerned, the folks who are really to blame are the Americans. It's the Americans' fault because:

a) They made Iraq so insecure their own troops are getting picked off every day;

b) OK, fewer are being picked off than a few weeks back, but that's only because the Americans have made their own bases so secure that only soft targets like the UN are left;

c) OK, the UN's a soft target only because they turned down American protection, but the Americans should have had enough sense just to go ahead and install the concrete barriers and perimeter trenches anyway;

d) OK, if they'd done that, the beloved UN would have been further compromised by unduly close association with the hated Americans, which is probably what got them killed in the first place.

In other words, whatever happens, it's always evidence of American failure. That's the only ''root cause'' most of the West is interested in. Anyone who thinks Tuesday's events might strengthen the international community's resolve to resist terrorism is overlooking the fact that among the Europeans, the Canadians and New Zealanders, the British and Australian press, CNN and the New York Times and a large majority of the Democratic Party, the urge to surrender is palpable.

At the moment, there's only one hyperpower (the United States), one great power (the United Kingdom) and one regional power (Australia) that are serious about the threat of Islamist terrorism. There's also Israel, of course, but Israel's disinclination to have its bus passengers blown to smithereens is seen as evidence of its ''obstinacy'' and unwillingness to get the ''peace process'' back ''on track.'' What a difference it would make if one or two other G-7 nations were to get serious about the battle and be a reliable vote in international councils. But who? France? It's all business to them, unless al-Qaida are careless enough to blow up the Eiffel Tower. Canada? Canadians get blown up in Bali, murdered in Iran, tortured in Saudi Arabia, die in the rubble of the UN building in Baghdad--and their government shrugs. Belgium? They'd rather issue a warrant for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld than Chemical Ali.

And so on Tuesday, up against an enemy unable to do anything more than self-detonate outside an unprotected facility and take a few Brazilian civil servants and Canadian aid workers with him, the global community sent out a Syrian ambassador to read out some boilerplate and then retreated into passivity and introspection and finger-pointing at Washington. This is the weirdly uneven playing field on which the great game is now fought. Islamic terrorism is militarily weak but ideologically confident. The West is militarily strong but ideologically insecure. We don't really believe we can win, not in the long run. The suicide bomber is a symbol of weakness, of a culture so comprehensively failed that what ought to be its greatest resource--its people--is instead as disposable as a firecracker. But in our self-doubt the enemy's weakness becomes his strength. We simply can't comprehend a man like Raed Abdel Mask, pictured in the press last week with a big smile, a check shirt and two cute little moppets, a boy and a girl, in his arms. His wife is five months pregnant with their third child. On Tuesday night, big smiling Raed strapped an 11-pound bomb packed with nails and shrapnel to his chest and boarded the No. 2 bus in Jerusalem.

The terrorists watch CNN and the BBC and, understandably, they figure that in Iraq America, Britain, the UN and all the rest will do what most people do when they run up against someone deranged: back out of the room slowly. They're wrong. There's no choice. You kill it here, or the next generation of suicide bombers will be on buses in Rotterdam, Manchester, Lyons, and blowing up the UN building in Manhattan. This is the battlefield.

All of this leading me to one of the things I contemplate almost daily. What the hell are we really doing in Iraq? This isn't even Wag the Dog - this is turning into a nightmare.

What is the definition of the freedom and liberties talked about by the dwindling Bush cabal? Have they ever spelled out real objectives? My grandsons can make a speech declaring their town safe for democracy - which I'm beginning to believe is the only part of the Bush stump speech he can now remember. And it's meaningless.

The war against terrorism? Realistically, we've always had a version. It's inconceivable to me that any reading, thinking adult thinks this can really be done. Take the little matter of our coastlines, for instance. Where is all the cargo inspecion, ship inspection to determine what is in holds, or hidden in cabins? At the airports...the administration has reduced the number of screeners by 6000 (budget, you know), and cargo isn't inspected? This gives me a real sense of security.

But in places like Iraq...is the definition of freedom the cramming down Iraqis' throats the American thinking of it? The hand-picked by Americans Iraqi Council is losing credibility. The utilities are still not functioning, security is minimal, and worse and worse things are happening. Now this is real freedom for the Iraqis, who never asked us in the first place. We really don't belong there, except as advisers, because the truth is, we're trying to annex the country under the guise of bringing them American democracy. And democracy under Ashcroft is not gaining.

By the way, what's happening at Guantanamo? Another shining example of the way we do business and bring light and justice.

Yes.

Thanks for this perspective, perception.

That terrorists are not blowing up buses in Rotterdam, Manchester, Lyons etc is not indicative of a lack of motivation as much as it is a lack of means.

It's too late to preclude their desire to do so.

Craven--
I am sort of asserting they aren't blowing up the US, UK and other Western locales because we took it to them in the ME, per the point of perception's article--

They may very well desire to do so--but have their hands busy fighting off "Immigration" investigations, and finding capital to fund their work since their main tits have been cut off... (What graphic terms come to mind...)

I think lack of bombings in the US and UK is testament to very effective national security work. I would like to say, "Yay."