It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: U.S. Army Breaks Promise made to Troops; Rumsfeld says U.S Death Toll Higher than he Expected

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:53 AM
link   
The Department of Defense has decided to break a promise made to U.S. troops serving in Iraq, that would have allowed them to return home. Almost 21,000 U.S. soldiers will be staying longer than the 12 month tour of duty that the DOD promised. Due to the recent increase of resistance in Iraq, the decision was made to keep soldiers of the 1st Armored Division and 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment on active tour of duty for an additional three months.

In related news, Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld said today following the announcement of that soldiers will be having an extended tour of duty, that the death toll of U.S. soldiers in Iraq during recent fighting this month is higher than he expected.
 

Rumsfeld Says U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Higher Than He Expected

Despite Promise of 12-Month Limit, 21,000 U.S. Soldiers Will Stay in Iraq Longer
The decision, which has not been announced publicly, breaks the Army's pledge to soldiers and their families that assignments in Iraq would not exceed one year. The affected soldiers already have been in Iraq for a year.
The decision comes at a particularly delicate moment. April has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since they set foot in the country in March 2003. The number of wounded also has skyrocketed.

The advantage of keeping soldiers of the 1st Armored and the 2nd Armored Cavalry in Iraq for an extra three months - rather than bringing in an equivalent number from elsewhere - is that these soldiers have unmatched combat experience in Iraq and familiarity with insurgents' tactics.

The Army is so stretched by its commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and elsewhere that it has few, if any, forces immediately available to substitute in Iraq for the 1st Armored or 2nd Armored Cavalry.

Also, these units have been heavily involved in one of the most important U.S. military missions there: training thousands of Iraqi security forces. Those Iraqi army and civil defense corps members are central to the Pentagon's plan for eventually turning over military control to the Iraqis and pulling out U.S. troops.

Rumsfeld described a decision to keep some 20,000 troops inside Iraq longer than originally planned, telling reporters at the Pentagon: "I certainly would not have estimated that we would have had the number of individuals lost that we have had lost in the last week."

Halfway through April, the month already is the deadliest of the war for the United States, with 88 U.S. soldiers killed in a surge of violence coming from multiple insurgent factions inside the country. Hundreds of Iraqis have been killed.


I can understand the government's decision and advantages of keeping the troops in Iraq, however I don't believe the welfare, health, and emotional well-being of our soldiers are being fully considered. It is hard enough for our troops to be away from their families for such long periods of time, but when a promise is broken, it also affects the morale of the soldiers forced to remain in Iraq.


[Edited on 4-15-2004 by worldwatcher]




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Yep...I was just about to post something on this too. They're evenly brazenly calling it a "broken promise" (which of course it is) as though they do not fear that this will result in any change in public perceptions of this insane war.

Vietnam II---WWWIII---here we come!



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
I can understand the government's decision and advantages of keeping the troops in Iraq, however I don't believe the welfare, health, and emotional well-being of our soldiers are being fully considered. It is hard enough for our troops to be away from their families for such long periods of time, but when a promise is broken, it also affects the morale of the soldiers forced to remain in Iraq.






They are being considered. It is easier to extend someone's tour in country than to rush someone else through the training. I think that it is safer as well.

As bad as you should feel for them, this is part of the deal when you sign up in the military.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I'll bet there are some pissed off soldiers, not to mention their families.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Yeah, I imagine this just breaks their back.

But it isn't anything new either. This occurred in WWII for sure...and in Viet Nam (and probably Korea and WWI if I knew more).



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
I'll bet there are some pissed off soldiers, not to mention their families.


no $hit. I would be pissed off to if I had to stay in that hell hole more than I had to.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Fool. They arent staying longer then they have to, and its not a broken promise.

It is very clear upon enlistment that the DoD can extend any tour, even beyond the initial term of your enlistment, as long as they care to. Also, the DoD was already prohibiting soliders from checking out if their end of tour date corresponded to their end of enlistment date, requiring that they stay for 3 months decompression.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Yeah, but telling people they get to go home, then shattering their hope and morale is pure #, IMO. Imagine if it were you. I know I'd be pretty angry. They never should've told them anything. At least then, it wouldn't seem so bad. It's kind of like a kid waiting a year for Xmas, then you tell them just before Xmas that Xmas isn't coming.


[Edited on 4-15-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
In war, there is no such thing as a promise



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   
*bump* story has been updated.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Oh but its ok, i just heard on FOX that these soldiers were getting an extra $1000 a month bonus.
I would be willing to bet that the average grunt over there would tell ol' Rummy where to stick that $1000.
My guess is this is only temporary tho. I dont think we are far off from another 'terrorist' attack, martial law, and some sort of draft/mandatory service, not neccesarily in that order.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   
A good friend of mine just volunteered to go to Irag. They are mobilizing as we speak. He will be relieving forces that have been there for their tour. He's going because it's his duty and joined the armed forces on his own and was not forced just like everyone else who is in the armed forces. They know what they were getting into when they joined. Their are no free college rides.



posted on Apr, 20 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by I See You
A good friend of mine just volunteered to go to Irag. They are mobilizing as we speak. He will be relieving forces that have been there for their tour. He's going because it's his duty and joined the armed forces on his own and was not forced just like everyone else who is in the armed forces. They know what they were getting into when they joined. Their are no free college rides.

My guess is, he'll probably regret his decision.




top topics



 
0

log in

join