Commander-In-Chief's Bait-And-Switch

Commander-In-Chief's Bait-And-Switch
VIEW FROM THE LEFT
- Harley Sorensen, Special to SF Gate
Monday, September 20, 2004
The thing that rankles me most about George W. Bush these days is the way he lies to our troops.

When you're in that American-made cesspool called Iraq, and you've been told your tour of duty ends on April 12, it's an out-and-out breach of contract to be suddenly told you can't go home until September.

I use the April 12 date because that's the day the family on television said they expected their reservist son home.

His remains were shipped home in a box after he was killed on April 29.

That's bad enough, but then Bush has the temerity to accuse critics of his war of damaging troop morale.

That must be his macabre idea of a joke. What could possibly be more damaging to morale than to be told you're going home and then have your tour of duty extended?

What could be more damaging to the morale of the surviving troops than to see their buddy killed after his official go-home date?

A good percentage of our troops in Iraq today are victims of Bush's bait-and-switch tactics. We like to boast of our all-volunteer military, but there's nothing voluntary about being yanked away from your family and your job months or years after you thought you had completed your military obligation.

Yet, that's what's happening.

It's being called a "backdoor draft." Bush doesn't have the political courage to call for a regular draft before the Nov. 2 elections, so he's taking advantage of our reservists and National Guardsmen until then. Here's an example, as reported by Dick Foster in the Rocky Mountain News last Thursday:

"Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum -- re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.

"Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity."

The Bush people tell us that patriotic young Americans are flocking to enlistment stations to sign up, yet they can't seem to field enough troops without screwing the reservists.

Something's wrong with this picture.

They'd like to blame it on former President Bill Clinton, who did reduce the size of our bloated military behemoth, but Clinton's been gone for almost four years now. It's time for Bush and his fellow Republicans to take responsibility.

Let us put it in perspective. Our participation in World War II, from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day, was just slightly over 44 months. George Bush has been president slightly longer than that.

If our troop strength isn't what it should be, who's to blame? A former president? The Democratic minority in Congress? Or our tell-it-like-it-ain't president, George W. Bush?

Our war against the Iraqi people is George W. Bush's baby. The United Nations never authorized a war. The Security Council simply warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it didn't play ball. Parents warn their children of "serious consequences"? Phrases like that can mean anything.

George W. Bush interpreted it to mean "all-out war by the United States."

Say what?

Congress, based on faulty intelligence and polls showing public support for a war, did give Bush the authority he needed to go to war if necessary to "defend the national security of the United States" and to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Bush wasn't ordered to take us to war. He had a choice. He chose war. It's his war. He alone has the responsibility for what has become of Iraq. He has the blood of 1,025 American troops on his hands. He swims in the blood of countless Iraqis.

It was his action that ended with the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure. It was his action that turned scores of blinded-with-anger anti-American terrorists into armies of terrorists.

And yet we are not in control of Iraq. Our troops have been ordered to hunker down, to keep as low a profile as possible until after the elections., Bush has ordered our troops to try to avoid getting killed between now and Nov. 2. -- not for strategic reasons or humanitarian reasons, but for personal political gain

We do not control one city in Iraq. In Afghanistan, in what started out as a bona fide war against terrorism, we are, for the most part, hunkered down in the capitol city of Kabul. We control part of Kabul. Warlords control the rest of Afghanistan. The heroin poppy trade is bigger than ever.

This is what George W. Bush has brought us. At best, a stand-off in Afghanistan. A certain defeat in Iraq. (Our intelligence people reported in July that the best we can hope for there is a continuation of the chaos that now exists.)

And yet half of America celebrates George W. Bush as a great leader. "He makes decisions," they tell us (never mind that he makes mostly bad decisions). "He's a leader," they say, apparently unaware that the Pied Piper of Hamelin also was a leader.

Bottom line, "He's one of us," they say. But he isn't ... not unless you and I were pampered all of our lives and reared to believe we are better than other people.

We have dwelled lately on Bush's past. That might be interesting, but the statute of limitations has run out. Let us dwell, please let us dwell, on what the man is today.

He isn't much. His sins of the past few years greatly outweigh the sins of his youth. The Bush of 2002 is far more important than the Bush of 1972. Can we focus, please?

Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. His column appears Mondays. E-mail him at harleysorensen@yahoo.com.


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/09/20/hsorensen.DTL
©2004 SF Gate