A Soldier's Perspective

[update] So This Is Supporting the Troops?

[UPDATE] A few more issues have come to light on the veto of the Defense Spending Bill. The bill provided for a 3.5% increase in basic pay across the board for Soldiers. With the veto, the increase was lowered to 3.0%. That's only a difference of an average of about $20 per month, but that's two Taco Bell meals!!

The reason that Bush vetoed the bill seems like a legitimate one. The bill, as submitted, basically opened Iraq up to lawsuits and compensation against Iraq for the actions of Saddam Hussein's ruthlessness. This would slow the progress of Iraq reconstruction and ruin a lot of what we've worked for.

But, I can't help but ask the question: what does our law have to do with who can and cannot sue Iraq? Exactly who would be prevented from suing Iraq since only the U.S. is bound to our law? Most of the Saddam's victims were Iraq's Kurdish and Shi'ite population anyway. Even if the provision is taken out, it can't stop Iraqis from sueing their government for compensation. Only the Iraqi legislature can pass those laws. So, I ask again: is it really worth taking money from the troops fighting this war and ensuring freedom and protection in Iraq?

This is a good argument for why the line item veto is a good idea. However, line item vetoes should also be subject to being overridden by Congress the way they can vote to override a veto on an entire bill. This would make it just as fair. We keep saying that Iraq is now an autonomous nation so why are we concerned about lawsuits?

I hate to disagree with my Commander in Chief, but I call it as I see it. I don't drink Republican Kool-Aid. Unlike those out there that refuse to agree with Bush on ANYTHING because you're truly brainwashed into thinking he's evil.

The Army has had to suspend reenlistment bonuses for more than 20 job specialties because Congress has not passed legislation to fund the programs. Or, put another way, President Bush thinks Soldiers make enough money.

President Bush, to the surprise of Congress and the Defense Department, vetoed the fiscal 2008 Defense Authorization Act on Dec. 29 after months bargaining with House and Senate leaders.

In announcing the pocket veto, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said the president objected to a single provision of the legislation that would delay the reconstruction of Iraq, and expose the Iraqi government to unwarranted law suits in U.S. courts.

Now, I'm not a politician and maybe this SINGLE PROVISION has serious implications that I'm not aware of. Here's where the problem lies:

Section 1083 would establish unprecedented legal burdens on the allocation of Iraq's funds to where they are most needed. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, I have issued Executive Orders to shield from entanglement in lawsuits the assets of the DFI and the CBI. I have taken these steps both to uphold international legal obligations of the United States and to remove obstacles to the orderly reconstruction of Iraq. Section 1083 potentially would place these crucial protections of Iraq's core assets in immediate peril, by including a provision that might be misconstrued to supersede the protections I have put in place and to permit the judicial attachment of these funds. Iraq must not have its crucial reconstruction funds on judicial hold while lawyers argue and courts decide such legal assertions.

What does all that mean? That Soldiers won't get the bonuses they deserve.

Until a new version of the legislation is enacted, all new bonus agreements signed on, or after, Jan. 1 must include an addendum that stipulates the soldier’s eligibility for a future bonus.

However, the addendum also stipulates that the bonus is not guaranteed. Payments will not be made if the affected bonus program is not authorized in the final budget compromise.

If Congress fails to authorize a bonus, the soldier — officer or enlisted — still must meet the re-enlistment or service extension requirements of the contract.

Here's some irony for you: the officers' bonuses don't seem to be affected by this "shortage" of money. As a matter of fact, they've INCREASED. Who are all these Captains going to lead when the troops decide not to reenlist?