Why aren't we taking better care of our soldiers' families?

It seems sacrifice is only for the military--and the soldiers' families. Over at my other site, one of our longtime members is facing her husband's THIRD deployment. Her description of family life on the base brought tears to my eyes.

One day I found myself standing in an on-post post office cuddled up in my arms like a lover was a priority mail box covered in priority mail tape. I looked down and up the line and I saw myself repeated. Over a half dozen other women of various shapes and sizes and colours all standing in line cuddling thier boxes as if it were the man they were sending it too. Box sizes were different, we were different and yet we were the same. The woman beside me had completely wrapped her box in tape. She told me the last package hadn't faired well. I almost burst into tears at that moment. I could see it in all thier eyes. All these strangers and yet here we were all feeling just the same thing in our hearts. All of us trying to transfer the last bit of love we could into those boxes before we handed the to the postal clerks to be weighed and charges outrageous amounts of shipping. It was a longing we shared. This was how we felt close to the men we loved. This was our intamacy, our contact. We were touching the box and at some point not to be predicted he would touch the box. It was a solemn unity that held more sadness and yet more strength than I think I had ever felt in my life.

I don't know how this gal feels about the war, and I'm not going to bring it up with her; at my site, we are about supporting each other as we try to make our houses homes, regardless of political affiliation. She accepts that this is the life she married into with her eyes open. I don't want anyone to read anything into what she's written; take it at face value, and I beg you not to comment on that thread if you can't be supportive and somewhat apolitical.

But what made me decide to write over here was a follow-up comment from another military wife, who told me about Fisher House, an organization that helps military families in a number of ways. It pays for families to stay close by when a wounded solider is getting treatment. It pays for supplies for wounded soliders. It's building a rehab center for wounded soldiers. And it's paying for--and this is the bit that really gets me--food and rent for military families, because for all of the trillions of dollars we've spent on this war, we don't pay our people enough to take care of their families. None of this is news to Kossacks, but still.

Haven't they sacrificed enough? If we're going to have a war--and Iraq wasn't a war we should have taken on--but if we're going to have a war, shouldn't everyone in the country be involved, either serving or sacrificing SOMETHING? Instead, it's all on the soldiers and their families. The administration insists on tax cuts during wartime and tells us that the best thing we can do is go shopping--while the soldiers are sent off without training and armor, are housed in mold-infested facilities when they're wounded, and sent back to Iraq even when they're too injured to wear body armor.

Enough.

•  tips

  for victory, whatever that is.

  by LynnS on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 03:50:07 PM PDT

•  I Understand Everything You've Said

  It just makes no sense to me. None. Of course our government ought to take care of our own, but alas I don't see that is going to ever happen.

  I think it is time for the public sector to step in. Are you telling me a place like McDonalds, Motel 6, and American Airlines (just to name three) couldn't come together and offer their services to the family members of our brave citizens and their familes?

  Heck, I am sitting here watching Iraq for Sale. Haliburton overcharged $1.8 billion for food. Billed the government $250,000 to lease, not buy, Ford SUVs. Charged $100 to do one load of cloths.  And their workers drive empty trucks around so they could bill the government.

  It brings a tear to my eye.

  by webranding on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 03:56:45 PM PDT

  •  When I read this

    knowing that in one year Dick Cheney's Halliburton stock options increased in value more than 3000%, I just want to vomit or throw things or scream. Frankly, I would like to see a stringent war profiteering  law passed and these companies who are getting rich while our soldiers (and Iraqi civilians) die pay for soldiers to get decent treatment and their families to at least live with dignity. Cheney will  probably be a billionaire by the time he leaves office and every penny should be confiscated. I'd like to see him sent to prison, where he can't use it anyway.

    by anastasia p on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:06:25 PM PDT

•  errr ... check your title, Lynn n/t

  by tvb on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:11:00 PM PDT

  •  d'oh.

    Thanks. That is like my #1 typing transposition, that and "studnet". :)

    by LynnS on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:23:32 PM PDT

    •  I checked out your site

      It's pretty neat!  Sort of a cool cross between MotherTalkers, Dave's Garden and How to Clean Anything.

      by fabooj on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:57:33 PM PDT

      •  thanks!

        We're not as political as MT, though I used to write about politics all the time. During the 2004 election season too many people were getting hurt, and I've gotten very careful how I phrase things there. My site isn't about leftist homemakers or Democratic homemakers; my site is for all homemakers. I wanted homemakers to see that we often have more in common, as people performing traditionally female unpaid labor, with each other than with people in our religious or political affinities. I especially wanted more conservative homemakers to see that liberal women could share similar values when it comes to home, though perhaps for very different reasons. We all took different roads, but we ended up in the same place.

        by LynnS on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:14:41 PM PDT

•  These are Quick Stats from Memory

  and a little quick online research.

  Halliburton
  Went from a stock value of under $9 in 2001 to $32.06 today.

  Allied Technologies
  Went from revenue of under $1 billion in 2001 to almost $5 billion today.

  CACI
  Stock price of $13 in 2001. More than $47 dollars today and it spilt.

  by webranding on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:14:24 PM PDT

•  the military...

  is a large and poorly organized bureaucracy, with no ability to do what they're tasked to do, in war or in care of the wounded.  The talent is all at the bottom. They don't have enough money and they don't use their money wisely. They are hiring contract-psychologists at ten grand a month to do psychiatric evaluations and make treatment recommendations and they're just anyone with a license, no training regarding the military and military problems, and no oversight, and they usually work only a month at a time, it's like a vacation job.  And they make recommendations that don't exist, cause they don't know what exists and what's available, and there is no accountability, it's a new batch every month.  And transport has to follow rules, which they are strict about, so it can cost a lot to transport someone in the required manner, and take a long time waiting for the transport.  It's a big mess, and even with congress getting involved, there just isn't the manpower or the talent on the organizational side to fix things, not to mention what it would really cost.   The Bush group knew all about it, they were just hoping no one would notice. I think he might have prayed that no one would notice.  

  by anna shane on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:18:04 PM PDT

  •  Well, I Agree With Much Of What You Said

    The military is very good at doing one thing, killing people. But not so much with the other stuff.

    And until we find a way for this to change things are only going to get worse.

    And you are right about the talent pool. It is pretty swallow. I mean not a lot of people with the education and skill set is going to work for $50,000 when they can double or triple that in the public sector.

    by webranding on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:22:33 PM PDT

    •  this one's hopeless

      our military will always be short-changed, because the pro-military people want more weapons and don't care about troops (too poor, too lower middle class), and the others care about troops but don't envision going to war all the time. Only countries like North Korea and Israel put there all into their militaries.  I like our way better, except for who thought we'd ever elect a Bush and get a 9/11 on his moron watch? That was world wide bad luck, or very planned by bin Laden.  The military lumbers along just fine as long as it's not asked to do the impossible.  

      by anna shane on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:47:13 PM PDT

  •  And then everyone is shocked...

    ...shocked, I tell you!...when it turns out that conditions and care for many patients at Walter Reed sucks.

    by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:27:43 PM PDT

    •  crocodile shocked

      There isn't so much talent in the private sector either, but bad businesses either go bust or steal while the military can't go bust, and they can only be stolen from.  The generals knew all about the conditions, that's part of being in the military, that kind of thing is retro-acceptable. They have not kept up with the better standard of living.   The generals were shocked that they were held accountable for not 'coddling' their wounded, hero, soldiers. Hey, no one ever coddled them!! Ain't the same culture.  Real men don't need sheets.  Real men laugh at rats. Only Nancy boys whine about sewage running through the halls. Those guys who lost their jobs are all scratching their heads, going, hey, what'd I do.

      by anna shane on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:40:25 PM PDT

      •  Sage observations

        Although I beg to differ a little.  I think in the "good old days," soldiers were more tolerant of bad conditions while in combat, but I also think that, even then, once they had given an arm or a leg or an eye for the cause, they felt it was time the military treated them with some R-E-S-P-E-C-T.  After all, they were out of it; no reason to worry about them going "soft" at that point.

        Today my impression is that the troops are still reasonably tolerant of bad living conditions on the ground...or at least they adjust, once they absorb the fact that their recruiter wasn't totally up front with them about how grand military life was going to be. "We are out here in the middle of nowhere. We have buildings and power, but we have no AFFES (Army Air Force Exchange Service, we go where you go, yeh right)." But, like their counterparts in the good old days, they expect better when they get injured badly enough to be sent home. And their standard of "better" is a lot higher than it was in the good old days.

        by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:59:56 PM PDT

        •  nah

          they were very used to giving respect not asking for it.  Unless you mean the standard of better is way way better.  Plus huge difference between officer corp and regular grunts.  And there are twenty-year regular grunts, who don't expect much.  They're some very nice people, but rather undemanding.  

          by anna shane on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:03:02 PM PDT

          •  I think so

            It is hard to say much of anything about "the military" that has broad application...the military is not a monolith.  When I think of "the troops," generally I am thinking of the regular grunts, on the ground, and not in it as a career.

            by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:31:19 PM PDT

          •  Another factor is 9/11

            A lot of people volunteered after 9/11 that would not normally have considered military service, and with a sense of "defending their country" that was far more immediate and tangible than anything we've seen since Pearl Harbor. I think that also plays into attitudes and expectations that are a departure with the norms of the past 50 years.

            by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 06:35:31 PM PDT

            •  mostly though

              it's the no draft, most people join for opportunities, training and the educational benefit, they're just trying to get ahead.  They're largely from similar economic backgrounds.  So the very rich (like Barbara Bush, did you read Rich today) they're better off even if it kills them.  

              by anna shane on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 11:11:01 AM PDT

              •  Yes

                ...although it can be very non-PC to point out that most of the people who join the military are not driven primarily by patriotic zeal.  I think a good number of them like the idea that they are serving their country, but I don't think that's the typical prime mover.

                by Free Spirit on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 01:03:13 PM PDT

•  Glorifying warriors while treating

  all but the highest ranking officers like disposable cannon fodder is the historical norm. I suspect it goes back to deeply ingrained cultural traditions of thinking that people of the upper classes had some sort of god-given superiority. I don't expect that overcoming this will be a battle that will be won either easily or quickly.

  by peraspera on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:21:45 PM PDT

•  It all stinks, doesn't it?

  I feel great empathy for military families.  Some of their stories are every bit as heartbreaking as those of the soldiers...the more so when you realize that they didn't always choose to pay this price.  The choice was sometimes made for them, sometimes even against their wishes and pleas, and the only reason they are paying the price is that they love the person who made the choice.

  If you won't hate me for horning in on the action here, I would also like to recommend another site for those who would also like to help individual soldiers with their individual needs...and thereby help families who are often strapped to meet them themselves:

  http://www.anysoldier.com

  Warning: This site is addictive. But in a good way.

  by Free Spirit on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:25:08 PM PDT

  •  To support the unit of dkos member

    silvercedes' husband.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by operculum on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 04:42:07 PM PDT

•  Started downwards with Nixon

  During the VietNam war Nixon's administration started the dissing of military families by denying them some of the medical care promised at enlistment. Mainly this was because all of the wounded soldiers coming back were taking more space and care than originally planned for and that was a quick way to save money. This only continued as the republican administrations rolled on. Actually during the Clinton years the VA Hospitals started becoming a positive force for change in American hospital care but that was lost as soon as Bush started cutting VA funds again.

  by OHdog on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:11:02 PM PDT

  •  And IMHO That Is Exactly

    what happened and it is happening again. We just didn't plan to have this many wounded soliders returning with the type of wounds they had.

    You know the war was only going to take a couple weeks.

    by webranding on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:15:45 PM PDT

•  And of course there are other indignities

  Soldiers at the front report that packages don't reach them, and some of the "goodies," like batteries, phone cards, etc., are sloughed off in the system by REMF's (rear echelon **'s). When was the last time you heard about a postal inspector cracking down on the in-ranks Milo Minderbinders? Rhetorical question, of course.

  by jfdunphy on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:21:13 PM PDT

  •  And Of Course That Sucks

    But it begs the question. Why do family members have to provide things like batteries and phone cards. A few days ago I sent a care package to a women where she was asking for the most basic things.

    And one of them blew my mind. She was "quality" tampoons. Now I am a guy, but betting tampoons are a pretty darn personal thing where I bet most women don't get the generic brand.

    by webranding on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 05:27:02 PM PDT

    •  Not really sure on that but

      the reason that things have to be shipped is that they are not "basic issue" items, meaning that Uncle Sam will give you the basics of what you need to do your job, up to a point. So, once you have your basic issue, and you rip your uniform (as opposed to wear it out with normal wear-and-tear) then you have to pay for it out of your own paycheck.
        With more women in the combat zone, it's only natural that there should be more of a need for women's products. VFW and American Legion, among others, have been shipping "care packages" for a long time, and this is just another item to foward to the troops, as a way of showing tha people care about their needs.
         

      by jfdunphy on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 07:24:30 PM PDT

      •  True, but ...

        ... as a woman, tampons are a basic necessity.

        Screw forwarding people items.  If I were a troop, the number one way for the US to show it cares about me is for people not to have to forward me tampons.

        There's also hygiene and health issues involved.  Tampons are related to toxic shock syndrome, and so you're not supposed to use any that are heavier than you need to.  At the same time, however, not having decent tampons is guarenteed to create a massive mess, especially if you don't have access to a laundry facility nearby.

        by lemming22 on Sat Mar 17, 2007 at 08:15:42 PM PDT

        •  The subject is out of my are of expertise ...

          All I can say is, when you're out in the field, all of the conveniences of modern living are gone, and if you don't have it in your backpack, you're going to have to wait to get it. Which means you depend on truck convoys, airlifts/drops, etc., and depending on where you are, it may be 10, 20 or 60 days before you see resupply.

          by jfdunphy on Sun Mar 18, 2007 at 06:28:39 AM PDT