Although I still think John Kerry was not the best candidate for a presidential nominee (my 'I still think Kerry's a tosser'™ catchphrase), I have to express my disgust at how this current administration is allegedly treating Iraqi Veterans. Note that this is not related to any opinion regarding supporting or not supporting actions in Iraq or Afghanistan, this is a separate issue.

These three entries from fellow New York weblogger John Hoke's Asylum show a trend in the treatment of US soldiers that is anything but admirable. It is no surprise that enlistment numbers are barely reaching 50% of the numbers the US military machine needs to continue actions overseas, as mentioned on Warblogging.com's website.

The US government apparently has a 'stop-loss' program, which requires troops to stay in the service until their units are no longer deployed overseas, regardless of their enlistment status. The policy is meant to keep seasoned soldiers in theatre, and currently effects upwards of 7,000 to 10,000 soldiers in Iraq, although it could balloon to 40,000 if things do not change quickly. A member of the Arizona National Guard and seven other Army enlistees are challenging the military and the federal government because they were forced to remain on duty in the Middle East after their tours of military duty expired, tours which are, to the best of my knowledge, contractual agreements. Who wants to risk signing up for a year of duty out of patriotism if the contract may not be honored and instead you are kept in action indefinitely? It really makes one wonder how long the US Government can hold out before instigating The Draft to boost numbers, despite election promises that it won't happen.

The next story that comes from the pages of the Washington Times says that homeless shelters are already seeing an influx of homeless Iraqi Veterans. I find it morally outrageous that a government can let these vets fight for their country (regardless of your views of whether it's misguided patriotism or not) and then dump them like so much used garbage when they return. Can't this country learn from similar mistakes such as the treatment of Vietnam vets?

Apparently not.

Further along similar lines is the recent entry on John's weblog regarding a US soldier who lost his arm in a roadside bombing in Iraq, returned to the US and was released with no money to even get home from hospital and a bill from the military for his sacrifice! The account was made up as follows:

• $2,408.33 for 10 months of family separation pay that the Army erroneously paid Loria after he'd returned stateside as a patient at Walter Reed Hospital.
• $2,204.25 that Loria received for travel expenses from Fort Hood back to Walter Reed for a follow-up visit, after the travel paperwork submitted by Loria never reached the correct desk.
• $310 for missing items on his returned equipment inventory list.

Including taxes, the amount Loria owed totaled $6,255.50. The last line on the worksheet subtracted that total from his final Army payout and found $1,768.81 'due us'.

The last is surely the most anal - the charges for items not returned. The items detailed were apparently destroyed along with his arm! I guess by that premise Loria should in turn be able to bill the military for the loss of his arm then? I doubt it, probably because it's not in the contract, you know, that contract that the military seems to breach regularly by keeping soldiers in theatre after their tour is up.

As far as billing him for travel expenses because they (the military) misplaced the papers submitted by Loria, migod that is ridiculous. Let me rephrase this more clearly: they want to bill him for their error. Nice.

To give some idea of the organizational skills of the government, back on 29th June 2002 (about 2½ years ago) I sat an exam for a government job working for the MTA. I was initially required to pay US$50 to sit an exam to allow me to apply for government jobs, and then a further variable amount for each and every job I applied for (I think it was US$35 to apply for this paticular MTA job). Anyway I sat the exam despite the annoyance of having to pay cash just to apply for a job. On June 8th 2003 (almost a year later) I got my exam result; 95% (which placed me 173rd among the tens of thousands of people who sat the same exam nationally - well within the top 1% of applicants apparently). Ok so then what? I had to wait for them to notify me to come in for an interview ..and wait ..and wait.

A few days ago I received a letter dated December 2nd 2004, advising that I am being 'considered for probable permanent appointment' and that I have to report at X place at X time, which happened to be last week. Yup, after 2½ years they finally set up an appointment with one day notice and advise that if I can't make it I won't be considered again unless I send a letter advising I couldn't make the appointment, but since the appointment was the next day, this was impossible. Unfortunately this past week has also been my final week of classes and this coming week is my final exams at university, so there was no way I could go to the appointment even if I wanted to (class attendance is relevant to your final mark here). Charming huh?

Wait until you hear what the federal government is trying to pull on me, over two years after I stopped working for them at JFK International Airport. I won't write about it just yet until they respond to a letter I sent disagreeing with their sudden unfounded and unreasonable demands and threats, but if they ignore it, then you'll be hearing about it, as will the media and any legal advisors who can help.

Add all this stuff on top of the polical correctness entry I made recently, and you'll surely understand that my confidence in this government is being sorely shaken. An apt analogy I saw recently:
Q: Do you feel you can trust your government?
A: About as much as I trust the operator of a carnival ride.