In the Tuesday, September 9th, NY Times, I read an article about removing a large number of troops from Iraq in early 2009. I agree that we need to remove troops, and that a slow and steady removal is the best policy. However, I question if removing such a large number of troops so quickly is truly beneficial.
This may sound crazy, but I can speak from experience. My sister is a member of the 1173rd Terminal Transportation Battalion, and last year when they released less than 3,000 troops from their stations in Kuwait, it actually extended my sister's deployment from 18 months to 24 months. Luckily, my sister has returned home safely from her third tour overseas in the past 7 years.
Removing troops is not always the answer. We are planning on bringing 8,000 troops back to their families, and those families will be blessed with an early reunion. However, how many families will be told that they will have to wait 6 to 8 months longer to see their loved ones?
This article, located on page A8, also mentions that, yes, there will be a decrease in troops in Iraq, but there will also be an increase of troops in Afghanistan. On the bright side, Bush promises to reduce the combat tours from 15 months to 12 months to ease the tensions of military families. Coming from a military family, I honestly do not believe this will do anything for the morale of families. Whether it is 15, 12 or even 6 months, it is not any easier. Everyday you wake up hoping that your don't get the dreaded knock on the door, and you pray everyday that you receive an e-mail just so you can sleep a little better. Every time your family members come home you ask yourself, how long will they be home this time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment