It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Wisconsin soldier sisters won't return to Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:03 PM
I found this snippett as part of my News @ Netscape account.

The part I found most interesting was this:

``Both commanders asked Rachel and Charity not to return, not because these soldiers are not valid members of their units, but because they are,'' Maj. Gen. Al Wilkening said in a statement."

My question the situation in Iraq getting to be so bad that leaders would rather have their competent soldiers off the battlefield to avoid loss of qualified personell? Makes you wonder if the commanders are beginning to believe that the soldiers in Iraq are being used as fodder for a higher purpose when they'd rather save their good soldiers for a rainy day than re-deploy them in Iraq.

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:29 PM
if you sent all your full time soldiers to iraq, and they came back dead, you would have lost quality soldiers, and years of service and dedication it took to create them. now if you send reservists and those that serve for limited time, they still have a certain amount of quality of being a soldier, but in military minds you're not losing a soldier whom you have invested greatly in.

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:49 PM

Under Pentagon policy, when a soldier is killed while serving in a hostile area, other family members in the military may request a non-combat assignment.

Their sister died earlier this month in Baghdad.
What's wrong with them not going back?


posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 03:54 PM
I'm not contending that they should go back. War tears families up enough so I understand why they chose not to return. My only comment had to do with the fact that their commanding officers requested that they not return and when asked why said that they were too valuable to return to combat in Iraq.

I would figure that competent soldiers form a more effective fighting force than do green recruits. That's why I don't get why the commanders didn't say something like: 'we'd like to have quality soldiers like Rachel and Charity fighting with us here in Iraq, but we can understand why they have chosen not to return.'

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 04:13 PM
Not everyone in the world has a team of lawyers and speech writers writing what they say. Sometimes people speak without thinking about how everyone will parse the words in the future. What if he was just trying to make the women feel better about staying home, trying to make them understand it was ok?

Yes, maybe you're right. Maybe he was insinuating that all the good people should stay away from fighting and the dumb, unskilled people should be the ones fighting and dieing. Yea, I'm sure that was it.

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 05:28 PM
Adorable sarcasm Variable, but if you took my post as a slam on the oratory prowess of the quoted officer, you missed the point.

I have read many instances of commanding officers wishing that they had more combat seasoned fighters in their ranks. This is the first time I've heard someone say that it's better for capable folks to be out of the main theater of combat. I just found that interesting. Sheesh.

Also, you'll note that the guy quoted was a Maj. General. Not likely to be a dolt. One does not attain such a rank without knowing how to choose one's words.

[Edited on 27-4-2004 by chaosrain]

posted on Apr, 27 2004 @ 05:40 PM
--"Also, you'll note that the guy quoted was a Maj. General. Not likely to be a dolt. One does not attain such a rank without knowing how to choose one's words."

Thats not really true. Look at Bush. Hes the current occupant of the White House and he isnt exactly Winston Churchill or an MLK. More like a Winny the Pooh...

posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 10:59 AM
Fair enough. Bush isn't exactly the brightest candle on the cake. But even as he misspeaks, he tends to try to stay with the message, not contradict it.


log in