A friend posted an email to an email group that I belong to. She'd written it to the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I asked Yvonne if I could repost her letter on my blog because I thought it well written and, for one like me whose knowledge of the military lifestyle is fairly superficial, illuminating. Now I know only 3 or 4 people read this blog but I said I'd keep her name somewhat obscured. Fact is, people in the military are being punished for expressing their political views. As she said in the subject ine of the email, trying to be funny, "I'll probably be court-marshalled."

Yvonne J writes:
 
Paul Krugman,
 
Thank you for writing that article (NYT 11/11/03).  I am an Army Wife; my husband and I met while activated Reservists for Desert Storm at Fort Benning. I have seen the military from the view of Reserves and Active Duty, peace and war, soldier and spouse, barracks life and apartments and on-post housing, enlisted and officer (my husband now, not me), before college and after, as a socially shy newbie and an extremely active volunteer, and with my husband living in all sections of the US but now he's deployed in Iraq.  In addition, I have been very fortunate to see a tiny portion of planning at the DA (Department of the Army) level, and once had the wonderful treat of attending a Congressional Reception with NMFA (National Military Family Association) and an Afternoon Tea at Quarters One with AFTB (Army Family Team Building) in the home of the Shinsekis.  I explain that to show my perspective on the Army so you have a better idea who is responding to you.
 
In your column you wrote, "The question is whether the military will start to feel taken for granted." In one sense it is a moot question because the soldiers in the military, at least at the levels I've seen, have always felt undervalued for their contributions and experience.  But in the past months I have seen the beginning of what will soon be a potentially devastating situation for the US because NONE of the soldiers I know are planning to continue beyond their current obligated term because of the Iraq situation. 
 
My husband (also named Paul) and I had worked hard to rise from lower enlisted without college education to both of us getting Bachelor's Degrees, and he is now a Captain with a Master's.  We are extremely grateful to the Army for providing opportunities that, extremely challenging as they were to obtain and achieve, allowed us to reach certain major goals.  Our plan has always been to stay in till and beyond retirement, even though he could be paid much more in the civilian world, out of respect and pride for the Army and the US plus for our enjoyment of the military community lifestyle. 
 
But no more.  Paul has been deployed seven months and, a nurse anesthetist, has been involved in just four surgeries that whole time.  His military and medical skills are rotting along with those in his unit and hundreds of other medical personnel on deployment.  Yesterday I chatted at the post office with an infantry soldier recently returned who said even his skills declined dramatically while deployed, so many thousands of soldiers are simply decaying and are justifiably extremely angry -- and politically muted.  They have been sent overseas with no mission, no purpose, no acknowledgement, and no hope of a timely return.  Paul has not even been able to get mid-tour leave because of the "medical necessity" of having him there in case of need for surgery. 
 
What's worse is because his unit isn't really attached to anyone but is rather the asset to many battalions and divisions, the responsibility of none, they have been tossed about between commands, given rules they must abide by and little else.  Only very recently have they even gotten working equipment and comfortable housing (for 4.5 months through spring and summer they were packed in dust-filled tents with no AC - even the surgical area was filled with dust).
 
But the worst part, the unforgivable part, is that the entire chain up through the General Surgeon and the Secretary of the Army (as I recall) knows about this, sees the immense cost of keeping unnecessary soldiers in Iraq while having to pay exorbitant amounts to fill their slots back home, and still no one will "be the one" to make and act on a decision.  My home currently is Fort Stewart, and as you may recall last month the issue of access to medical care here was proven to be horrendous.  The solution is to farm out soldiers on medical hold to other posts and bring in civilian contractors, yet not bring back the soldiers who are supposed to do that job and are not doing anything else. Ironically, I regularly have to pick up Paul's interoffice mail at the hospital in his inbox.  Housing is now critical in the area, so there really isn't room to bring in more medical providers.
 
Nothing I have written here is news to anyone now because of the expose on Fort Stewart.  Other soldiers' spouses have written to politicians, the press, and those in military command to no avail.  While none of us likes our soldiers to be deployed, we did "sign up" for that likelihood and happily do what we need to do to make it work.  What so very, very many of us object to is that they are deployed for no reason, are very much POW's without armed guards, and they are sitting ducks for any retribution from the native inhabitants of the occupied country.  Their only purpose seems to be to increase the ego and profits of Bush and friends.  And as long as that profit remains possible to obtain, the soldiers will likely remain in country to "justify" the defense contracts rather than to serve a military or political purpose.
 
So yes, they do feel taken for granted and abused.  In the coming months and years, while recruitment may be good (perhaps due to lowered enlistment standards and/or higher bonuses), retention will drastically decline.  As the soldiers leave with them goes the knowledge and experience base of the Army.  One officer I know has 18 years of Army service - is therefore very close to the golden retirement - but is getting out as soon as possible anyway.  With these people fleeing service bitterly training of new soldiers by those who do remain will be less adequate, diminished, weaker, so the military itself will be weaker.  The effect may not show for a year or two or maybe more due to the terms of service obligation, and the numbers may never reflect it unless there is closer evaluation of the statistics, but it seems certain to happen.  And while they are muted now by militarily-enforced political forces, those soldiers will not be once they are again civilians. 
 
Again, I thank you for discussing this subject boldly.  For the same militarily-enforced political reasons I strongly ask you not to publish any of this without discussing it with me first.  A very huge part of me wants to see every word of this in nationwide print - even anonymously (names changed, etc) - to express the importance of what is happening and the effect it will have on the Department of Defense/Offense and therefore the true security of this country.  But the need to be mute makes me extremely cautious.  I write this now only because the press has fortunately revealed this already, making me a small voice in a crowd instead of the lone voice on a podium.
 
And thank you for reading this, for allowing me a venue to express my perspective.  May you have a wonderful day!