Letters to the Editor
-
Anonymous - Active duty officer
However, in the context of Webb's legislation, it's time to start talking about mandating a certain amount of inter-deployment time not for the sake of the soldiers mental health nor for their families -- although these would be salutory and important effects of its adoption. The point is that Webb's legislation should be adopted in order to protect the military's ability to safeguard the country.
That's an argument that undercuts the "strong on national defense" tough-guy types, who will have to admit that we must be ready to meet a host of threats, while achieving the desired effect of giving our soldiers and Marines a break.
These aren't separate arguments. They are the same. Presumably, the reason why such breaks are necessary for military readiness is because troops can't endure the strain of fighting this long without them. I didn't cast the argument purely as some humanitarian case -- that it would be nice to give our troops a break - but rather as its being necessary to relieve the strain on the military and its troops.
From my perspective as an active duty officer, it's a hard sell to come into the boss and say "my guys need a break"; however, if I say "they'll be better able to conduct the next mission if . . .", maybe we can get somewhere.
Again, this is just word play. Why would you be able to conduct a better mission with breaks?
You shouldn't focus so much on calling out your ideological enemies when the long term health of the military (and its individual members) is what's really at stake.
The reason the long-term health of the military - and our country - is at stake is precisely because of these individuals. A failure to "call them out" means not only that the current policies continue, but new ones begin as well. I think I'll stick to what I'm doing.