davester wrote:
[quote=SDGuy]
This part of the thread is veering a bit off-topic, but I find it interesting (and ironic) that the Baby Boomers got their panties in a twist over the possibility of being forced to spend a year in combat, and now that same generation is running things and seems to have no qualms over or even recognize that there are folks of the Millennial and Gen X generations who have VOLUNTARILY been at war for ten years now...
That's not entirely accurate. Many combat troops currently in the field signed up for national guard duty whose mission has historically has not included foreign deployments They have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan due to the lack of manpower available in army and air force units and forced to keep returning involuntarily through the stop-loss policy (which has also been used to force repeat combat tours by army troops. Those troops are not voluntarily in combat. Stop-loss has been referred to as the "backdoor draft".
The decision to use National Guard troops had nothing to do with manpower. It was a political decision that was made to increase support for the deployed troops. Communities notice when the guard deploys. We learned our lesson about this in Vietnam.
I was put on stop loss - I was active duty - when Clinton had his little Kosovo adventure...I had to carry a pager 24/7...