Once again, the writers of The National Review are exposing their neocon-loving, war-mongering, nation-building, soldier-hating selves for all to see. It would be funny if it didn't have such tragic consequences. This time, it is Mark Steyn (a guy who, btw, thinks that all secular social-democratic states will be extinct in his lifetime) , in response to a Washington Post article describing John Murtha's plan to give Army troops who have already served in Iraq two years at home before an additional reployment, making this breathtakingly insensitive remark in the NR's blogsite "The Corner":
"Everybody appreciates that overseas services is tough on troops’ families but what army has ever mandated "two years at home" between deployments in an ongoing war?"
Gee, Mark. That only seems fair, considering that the Pentagon has recently declared open season on the National Guard, now saying that those reserve troops-not even the full time military-are on tap to serve far longer than their original 24-month deployment limit. Huh. Funny how I didn't see smoke coming out of your ears when we broke our contract with our citizen soldiers on that little point. But then, what's a few more months or years in a quagmire, right?
It's also damned decent of you, Mark, to acknowledge that overseas' deployment is "tough" on families. Stand-up thing to do, acknowledge their sacrifice and then throw it back in their faces. I bet it's also VERY easy to back the Pentagon's assumption that a soldier is nothing more than a means to an end when you can mark your own personal sacrifice in tax breaks and a magnetic ribbon on your SUV that says, "Support Our Troops."