A certain blowhard with a big megaphone on right wing talk radio recently caused another stir by criticizing soldiers returning from Iraq for opposing the continued occupation.
It would seem, though, that many of those who return from Iraq, both civilian and military, are opposed to the continuing involvement.
I will admit that my sample size is small - 1 Iowa National Guard and 1 civilian civil engineering consultant. But I trust those two folks. In fact, the National Guard soldier also happens to be my state representative. He was one of those who was informed by family and friends that his tour was extended after the Pentagon announced it before informing the soldiers. Way to go, DoD. Support the Troops, you bet.
More to say from my representative when we continue......
Now, to be fair, Representative Zirkelbach (D-Monticello) opposed the military involvement in Iraq from the first:
(The following quotes are from an article in the Anamosa Journal_Eureka, dated August 23, 2007)
"I thought Iraq was a mistake from day one. Part of the reason is because we already had a war going on in Afghanistan," Ray said and added that there is a misconception that Iraq was related to the 9/11 attacks.
But Ray also says that many soldiers have changed their minds after serving in Iraq.
Representative Zirkelbach endorses a partition plan, because in his view the religious and ethnic divisions are too deep and the leaders of those factions don't have the will to reconcile:
"There need to be three different countries: One each for the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites," he suggested. "Iraq has never really gotten to form it’s own government."
So what does this real citizen soldier/legislator want the American people to do?
Ray said the American people need to stand up and speak out against the war.
"If so many people are against the war, why aren’t they speaking out?" he asked. "There is no decent (sic) against this war."
There you have it, a real soldier, a real leader - Stand Up, Speak Out. I know people in this community have been doing it, but now it is more important than ever since the so-called top tier Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination are unwilling to commit to withdrawing from Iraq by the end of their term (should they be elected). It's time to take a look at who is committed to ending the occupation. I know those who are not committed to do that within their first term (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) are already losing support of Iraq veterans. Let's keep that in mind for the dynamics of the Iowa Caucuses, where a huge percentage of participants will know at least one returned Iowa National Guardsman.
Oh, and what about supporting our troops? Well, this Iowa national Guard unit was activated for nearly two years, and served 16 months in Iraq. But "nearly" is a key word here. Since they missed the fulfilling the qualification period by five days, they won't be getting full GI benefits. Some folks think the Pentagon was sharpshooting the rule as a cost saving measure. Here's an excerpt of the Journal-Eureka article where Rep. Zirkelbach discussed that:
Since the military kept the 133rd on active duty for less than two years, it is not required to pay the soldiers full GI Bill benefits.
"I don’t care if this is going to hurt me politically. We need to get down to the truth. We served almost two years, and we aren’t going to get the benefits that some soldiers who have never been to a war zone get. It seems that they purposely cut us off five days short," he speculated. "It creates distrust."
As it stands, the men and women in the 133rd will get partially GI Bill benefits and full VA benefits. Ray is hopeful that the US government will review this policy and given the 133rd full GI Bill benefits.
Five day? It certainly looks like sharpshooting. I guess supporting the troops doesn't count when you can cut them off in time to save some money.