Operation Hero Miles

November 7, 2003 8:21 AM

In September, soldiers stationed in Iraq began to be granted two-weeks of leave so they could come home and see their families. There's just one catch - the military flies them to one of three US Airports (Baltimore, Dallas or Atlanta) for free, but then the soldier must pay his own way home. The 87 Billion package passed October 17th does contain 55 million in funding to pay for these R&R trips, but that money won't become available for several weeks. In the meantime, more than 470 solders are arriving each day in the US, and they must find ways to pay for their travel home.

Support Operation Hero Miles - donate your Frequent Flyer miles so a soldier can get home.
::via snopes::
posted by anastasiav (87 comments total)

Define "hero"
posted by Outlawyr at 8:25 AM on November 7, 2003

Why doesn't John Travolta just fly them home?
posted by ColdChef at 8:29 AM on November 7, 2003

I'd like to see a break down of how the miles are distributed first. For every mile I donate how many are going to the troops? Since they already know that there won't be enough miles to go around what will the mechanism be for selecting which troops get to go? I'd hate to find out that because of the selection process only generals and colonels get the awards or that any politician or other government official somehow profits at all from this.
posted by substrate at 8:36 AM on November 7, 2003

Sorry, but I'm already "donating" to the 87 billion dollars, as well as years of previous "donations" to the Black Budget, which could have covered these trips for the cost of a couple pentagon hammers. [/only slight hyperbole]

I realize that's no reason to take it out on the soldiers, but if this is how they're treated, maybe they shouldn't bother to pay their way back.
posted by soyjoy at 8:41 AM on November 7, 2003

Maybe some of these folks would contribute their frequent flier miles: Report: Pentagon Officials Fly in Style

Or Naval Aviator Action Figure Herio Bush could just land them on an aircraft carrier near their homes...complete with "Mission Accomplished" banner.

/me ponders how many plane tickets or hospital beds Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo op might have purchased.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 8:48 AM on November 7, 2003

Let me be the first to suggest companies like Halliburton kick in here.

For thr record: I don't think the soldiers and their families should be punished. Geeze, I'm not that big a pinko-commie! :)
posted by LouReedsSon at 8:51 AM on November 7, 2003

Why don't the airlines just donate their empty seats?
posted by jpoulos at 8:53 AM on November 7, 2003

I think this is a terrific idea, though substrate's concern is probably valid.

I realize that's no reason to take it out on the soldiers, but if this is how they're treated, maybe they shouldn't bother to pay their way back.

Riiight. "Bush's government treats me like shit; therefore, I won't bother to try and see my kids for the first time many months."
posted by orange swan at 8:53 AM on November 7, 2003

One concept that seems to have been lost since trade unions have fallen from power has been the long-term destructiveness of some forms of charitable giving.

For instance... my (retired) grandmother volunteers full time at a food bank. Nice thing to do, right? Well her intentions are right on (just like the intentions of most people donating their miles)... but what any old unionist would tell you is that you're voluntarily taxing yourself for something that should be taken care of by a more general (and egalitarian) taxation.

When my middle class grandmother volunteers at the food bank (a place whose very existence is an admission that we're not taking care of feeding our people), all she's doing is insuring that the tax burden is shifted to a small pool of compassionate people from the larger pool of responsible people. (In the course of doing this, she's also taking what should be a paying job from someone... something that I'm not sure is the case in the situation we were discussing).

I'd like to see this notion become more popular again.
posted by cadastral at 8:56 AM on November 7, 2003

orange swan - I think soyjoy meant that they shouldn't pay their way back to Iraq after they see their kids for the first time in many months.
posted by Turd Ferguson at 8:56 AM on November 7, 2003

Man, I hope Tom Brokaw doesn't read this thread.

*heads out to Victory Garden, screen door slams*
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:57 AM on November 7, 2003

Define "hero"

Fuck. You.

Sorry for the impolite response, but these soldiers are doing their duty. If you think the enlisted men and women should sit in the airport, abandoned by the same government that ordered them to engage in a war for profit, with all due respect you need to rethink your position.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:00 AM on November 7, 2003

On preview, T. Ferguson beat me to explaining soyjoy's comment.

(And imagine if every enlisted person had pulled an aWol and not shown up for this farce in the first place.)
posted by NorthernLite at 9:02 AM on November 7, 2003

Wah ! So I guess given that soldier that goes home isn't going to fight, he/she is not as a valuable asset as a soldier that is going to fight zone ; so he should pay for the travel home when in USA. Wow thanks a lot, so I guess soldiers not going into a fight zone should pay their trip to their assigned zone outside USA. Friggin brilliant, I tought such considerations were reserved to cattle market economies.

Obviously any day of leave is important to the soldier , so I guess train or coach isn't an option: well, add a couple days to the leave and subsidize less expensive (I guess less expensive but I don't have the data) train and coach, or organize bus loads with private companies. I mean there's no need to give miles that will be assigned God-knows-how.

On the Define Hero : I hate the very concept of heroism : soldiers are -doing their duty- and that's all. There's no 1st class or 2nd class soldier , heroic or unheroic soldier. Leave the door open to "he's an hero" idea and instantly the others are "just doing their duty" , as if doing the duty is less important. Like remember the firefighters of 9/11 ? They instantly become National Heros , but I don't remember as much praising for them or for firefighters generally speaking before 9/11 ; expecially when it comes to cutting their budgets, heros are soon forgotten.
posted by elpapacito at 9:07 AM on November 7, 2003

Oops. Turd Ferguson, I suspect you're right. Apologies to soyjoy.
posted by orange swan at 9:10 AM on November 7, 2003

You know something is wrong with the American military when it starts treating its soldiers as shabbily as Canada treats its own.

(We might fly our kids home, unlike the Yanks, but we also put them into crash-prone helicopters, rusting-out ships, and don't have enough bullets to go around.)
posted by five fresh fish at 9:11 AM on November 7, 2003

Didn't the US government bail out the airlines after 9/11? You'd think the airlines could do their bit to repay that favor.
posted by fletchmuy at 9:14 AM on November 7, 2003

I'd like to see a break down of how the miles are distributed first.

Some of the info you want may be on this page "tickets will usually be made available to those with the greatest need or the most severe financial burden, or at random" or in the FAQ.

You could also try contacting Congressman Ruppersberger at his office - his name's all over the program, I'm sure his office would happily provide the answers you seek.

Why don't the airlines just donate their empty seats?

Pan Am has, and Delta gave 10 Million miles (about 400 seats) to the program. Also, read this story about seats not always being available.

And just for the record, I share your feelings about this being strange and necessary - I debated hard about how to frame this post. But, ultimately, I see it this way - the anti-war movement is constantly being accused of failing to support the troops, and this is clearly a way the troops need to be supported. The government is failing these men and women in a dozen different ways - by sending them there, by keeping them there longer than promised, by failing to provide them with enough support - and now they're being failed in another way ... a way the American people can do something to help alleviate one of these governmental failings.
posted by anastasiav at 9:17 AM on November 7, 2003

Like remember the firefighters of 9/11 ? They instantly become National Heros , but I don't remember as much praising for them or for firefighters generally speaking before 9/11 ; expecially when it comes to cutting their budgets, heros are soon forgotten.

True enough, but perhaps most people just felt reminded of the dangers firemen, cops, and paramedics face on a daily basis and realized we had taken them for granted.

I hate the very concept of heroism

I don't know about that. I understand your uneasiness with elevating one persons over another. But when it comes to firefighters, cops and military personnel, I would call them heroes, since they are putting themselves in harms way (often for lousy pay and crappy treatment from both the government and civillians). It's not something me, or you or people in general are lining up to do so that is heroic to me.

Are they perfect? Are their motivations always pure? Are there some who've done harm? sure. But let's give credit where credit is due.
posted by jonmc at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2003

Grrr. Please change that to "Strange and Unnecessary". Damn spell check.
posted by anastasiav at 9:24 AM on November 7, 2003

insert a "no" after "Are their motivations always pure?"

sorry.
posted by jonmc at 9:25 AM on November 7, 2003

A different perspective: My brother-in-law is in Iraq now. He's been there since this started. His most recent report is that he'll be there until probably April 2004, which would put him at about a year away from his family. His wife and 2 kids were a mess for about 2 months after he left. Between them freaking out knowing what war is, and her freaking out because they are still young enough to be more than she can handle at times, they've finally returned to some normalcy and routine, knowing dad is gone but safe and will come home when his duty is done. It hasn't been easy for them, but they've settled in acceptance. I wonder if a short visit will start the whole process all over again. She was really at her wits end for a while, and she has a very large support system, between family and the miltary (she is career military as well). I don't doubt some R & R will do the soldiers good, but I also wonder how emotionally taxing it would be on them as well, to have that short visit only to be ripped away again, having to themselves adjust all over again to being away from their loved ones. But given the choice I am sure they would all prefer to go home even for 2 weeks.
posted by archimago at 9:36 AM on November 7, 2003

monju_bosatsu: That whole "just doing their duty" argument was pretty effectively invalidated between 1945 and 1949 in a little place called Nuremberg.
posted by signal at 9:50 AM on November 7, 2003

Why don't the airlines just donate their empty seats?

The airlines are mostly still in a good bit of trouble from reduced passenger traffic. A good moneymaker is to charge much-inflated last minute fares to people traveling on short notice to funerals. I assume the same good will applies here.
posted by copmuter at 9:51 AM on November 7, 2003

jonmc: I'm all for giving credit when credit is due, in fact as you may have seen in my precedent post I do little to hide I'm outraged by the fact soldiers must pay part of their trip home. What I'm trying to do is to point the attention on the fact that -doing the duty- is not heroic, because one needs to go above and beyond the call of duty to be a "true hero", like for instance a firefighter that in a desperate situation (building collapsing for instance) still insists on trying to rescue somebody , almost seeking suicide for the purpose of saving a life ; simply -doing the duty- doesn't _appear_ to be heroic at all , because it can fall into routine : for instance, a firefighter may fight a fire everyday with no harm for years, then one day he's dead.

Now let's bring the idea of _doing the duty_ outside of the comparatively high-risk - low reward duties of soldiers, cops etc. If for instance one hospital technician doesn't do his duty to the full extent, he may endanger some life. If the bus driver doesn't do his duty of driving with extra care and precaution , accidents will happen.

Obviously, the greater the chances you're going to die , the greater the reward should be ; that's why soldiers appear heroic to many of us, because they do have many more chances of being killed then a postman, yet they're comparatively pennyless ; hence we conclude they must be doing that for love of Nation or for some other noble deed. I don't think that's always true.

So I think that -doing your duty- completely, should be praised at least as heroism, and from the way of praising to the way of recognition of value of doing a duty, which is likely to be ,otherwise, considered minimal or less then heroism value "just because you're no friggin hero". The danger from heroism magnification appears to be that of comparing a few brilliant apples to other apples and says "you're not brilliant, therefore you're of little value or rotten".
posted by elpapacito at 10:04 AM on November 7, 2003

Can any of you history buffs answer this:

Is the sending of troops from faraway lands back to the US for R&R unprecedented in this magnitude? If I recall correctly in Vietnam, WWII and Korea troops were all given leave "in country" to a secured area. The very fact that they are sending the kids home for a 2 week pass seems odd to me. I can't think why we would expect the government to foot the bill to their hometown, as this seems to be an entirely new process with no historical ruler to guide us.

That being said my cynical side says this is awfully close to the 2004 election cycle. Looks to me like a ploy by the Bush admin to buy back some military votes or rescue the dangerously dropping morale. In any event I hope the troops enjoy their liberty, lord knows i'd need it after being tied up in that mess over there.

Looking forward to learning more about the history of R&R.
posted by jester69 at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2003

Can someone in or recently in the military explain why they can't just fly space-a? Did that get axed or something?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:06 AM on November 7, 2003

I suggest writing to your congressmen and senators about this outrage. I also suggest writing letters to the editors of your local newspapers. In a democracy, this doesn't have to happen.
posted by moonbiter at 10:09 AM on November 7, 2003

That whole "just doing their duty" argument was pretty effectively invalidated between 1945 and 1949 in a little place called Nuremberg.


No, signal, the Nuremburg trials invalidated the usage of the "doing one's duty" concept as a justification for doing something heinous. Over throwing Saddam and attempting to keep Iraq from descending into chaos is hardly in the same league with running death camps.
posted by orange swan at 10:16 AM on November 7, 2003

...pretty effectively invalidated between 1945 and 1949 in a little place called Nuremberg.

Godwin! End of thread.
posted by psmealey at 10:16 AM on November 7, 2003

psmealy: Godwin's Law doesn't mean what you think it does.

orange swan: I never said they were "in the same league", just that everybody is responsible for their own actions, which seems a truism, to me at least.
posted by signal at 10:19 AM on November 7, 2003

I know, signal... just being a bit cheeky. Apologies.
posted by psmealey at 10:24 AM on November 7, 2003

someone else: Define "hero"
monju_bosatsu: Fuck. You. Sorry for the impolite response, but these soldiers are doing their duty. If you think the enlisted men and women should sit in the airport, abandoned by the same government that ordered them to engage in a war for profit, with all due respect you need to rethink your position.

There's nothing whatsoever 'heroic' about simply doing one's duty, if that's what you consider current Iraqi Freedom fighters to be doing. Heroes are those who peform above and beyond our expectations and their duties. It's clearly diminishing and inappropriate to use that term for the forces that have yet to even find Osama Bin Laden or Sadaam Hussein, or to actuality secure the government-stated goals of a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Iraq. I'm not suggesting every grunt in every brigade on the ground is incompetent; I'm merely reserving the word 'hero' and the treatment accorded one so called for those who actually earn it, rather than applying it to the service people who while they may be demonstrably 'doing their duty' are still nothing of the 'hero' kind.
posted by JollyWanker at 10:25 AM on November 7, 2003

So you meant that one should never use the reductionist "just doing one's duty" line and be prepared to take credit or chastisement for one's actions, whether immoral or heroic? Well, yes, that's a good point - my apologies for having misunderstood you, signal.

In the light of this insight, JollyWanker, I now turn to your comment and say that people deserve credit for whatever courage they show and whatever good they do, regardless of whether they signed up for it and collect wages or not. Whether you jump in a turbulent river and save a life or a cop does it, it's the same act, and you both deserve credit.

Are the Iraqi Freedom Fighters showing courage? Yes, because they are fighting the most powerful armed force on the planet. But I consider that neither their means nor their goals are good, and therefore think that they are not heroic.
posted by orange swan at 10:36 AM on November 7, 2003

Soldiers Miss Flights Back to Iraq

Soldier chooses family over Army
posted by homunculus at 10:50 AM on November 7, 2003

It takes a very special type of bonehead to try and instill tickle-down economics into the DoD arena. As cadastral and other have pointed out, donate now and you'll donate forever. Anastasiav, I believe a better course of action than proving your worth to the pro-war crowd is actually asking them WTF is this sloppy mess the all about (IOW shoot to change what makes the situation wrong in the first place). Also, the WWII reference in the snopes letter (by a DoD employee, no less) was a clever touch ( I was on the verge of wiping tears from my eyes too). I trust that I will not bring Godwin's rage onto the thread if I point out that, hey, the other option is NOT surrendering to the German and Japanese empires - try making friends.

There are many things to read into this, but I'll say just one more and then shut up. Perhaps if real money had shown up in Madrid a few weeks ago, the US government could pay for the last mile tickets too. Of course, for that to happen, the Coalition of the Willing would have to be something more than a fantasy. Farce upon farce upon farce ... until final victory?
posted by magullo at 10:51 AM on November 7, 2003

Maybe we can agree on "Operation Poor Bastard Miles"?
posted by brantstrand at 10:51 AM on November 7, 2003

gRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

/me = dumbass

brantstrand: good one
posted by magullo at 11:00 AM on November 7, 2003

tickle-down economics

Now that's an economic policy that has me squirming.
posted by orange swan at 11:04 AM on November 7, 2003

Homunculus has the links I like.

Here's what I propose:

Donate all the miles you can to get these soliders home.

Absolutely insist that none of the miles be used to transport them back to the base for duty.

Follow the leader's excellent example and go AWOL! (I just wouldn't suggest doing it in Alabama)
posted by nofundy at 11:06 AM on November 7, 2003

But I consider that neither their means nor their goals are good, and therefore think that they are not heroic.

How do their means and goals compare with those of US Forces? Do they bomb indiscriminately from 2000 miles away - nope. Are they trying to free their country from an invading force - yup. Clearly this is a disgrace unparalleled in modern warfare.
posted by biffa at 11:07 AM on November 7, 2003

If you think the enlisted men and women should sit in the airport, abandoned by the same government that ordered them to engage in a war for profit, with all due respect you need to rethink your position.

I don't think the government ordered them to join the military, and I don't think there's a promise of unlimited free airfare when you do join. I might be wrong... Now that I think about it, my employer isn't flying me home for the holidays, either.
posted by josephtate at 11:09 AM on November 7, 2003

Anastasiav, I believe a better course of action than proving your worth to the pro-war crowd is actually asking them WTF is this sloppy mess the all about (IOW shoot to change what makes the situation wrong in the first place).

magullo, I'm not trying to 'prove my worth' to anyone. I'm the proud daughter of a soldier who fought in Vietnam, and the allegations made by the pro-war faction that everyone who is against the war is somehow also "anti-military" have never applied to me, but I'm beginning to see (by comments like "no one made them join") that perhaps I was mistaken in making a broader judgement and the anti-war movement actually does contain a large number of people who think that the men and women who join up are just dupes or suckers who deserve little respect.

You'll just have to trust me that I've also done my part in asking how we got stuck here (and then some - my experience is that many who oppose the war are content to shout on the Internet and do nothing more. I hope everyone here who is griping about what a bad idea this is has also phoned their congressman and Senator to complain about the state of affairs as well). I've stood in the cold and written my letters and waited on hold and come away with the horrible sinking feeling that no one in Washington is quite sure how we got to this point, either. Right now our choices seem to be continue to write letters and stand in the cold - to essentially no avail - or do something than can actually help someone - a real person stuck in a situation more awful than most of the posters here will ever face.

Will we be giving forever - no. As referenced above, money has already been allocated to sort out this problem, but it will take some time to kick in. In the meantime, that still leaves 470+ service people every day stuck with either a) big travel bills or b) leave but no means to travel. I just feel for them and think someone should reach out a hand to them, since the government they swore to protect and serve let them down. I know how much ten days with my Dad would have meant to my Mother in the summer of 1968, and I can't see fit to condemn any means used to provide that same opportunity to others now, today.
posted by anastasiav at 11:20 AM on November 7, 2003

Now that I think about it, my employer isn't flying me home for the holidays, either.

I think you'd be pretty pissed off if your employer flew you to Iraq then didnt pay for you to get all the way back.
posted by biffa at 11:24 AM on November 7, 2003

I might be wrong... Now that I think about it, my employer isn't flying me home for the holidays, either.

Nor is your employer sending you out into an unknown area with the possibility of being blown up, shot or tortured.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:32 AM on November 7, 2003

Woah Biffa. The planets just aligned.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:33 AM on November 7, 2003

I won't touch the rest of the rhetoric flying here, but I'm sick and tired of this "honour our heroes" line.

Heroes are, by definition, those who by employing great courage, resourcefulness, or skill, exceed all expectations placed upon them in a selfless act. Very few of these soldiers are heroes.
posted by azazello at 11:34 AM on November 7, 2003

Hero: 2. A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Hero: 1 b : an illustrious warrior. d : one that shows great courage. 4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion.
posted by anastasiav at 11:46 AM on November 7, 2003

When asked about being called "heroes", most people defer to a standard "I was just doing my job" comment. There's a reason for this. So few people even bother with their duties, let alone go above and beyond the call. Let's not obfuscate the definition by raising it higher than it already is, even if people doing their duty don't get any awards these days.

As for this whole air miles thing -- my disguist with this country's government grows every day. It's like the way we treat Vietnam vets, only we're doing it while they're still active.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:48 AM on November 7, 2003

What a bunch of ungrateful Fuck-tards the majority of you are.

If it wasn't for people like the ones currently in the military, you wouldn't have the freedom you have to say what you do. Them, thier fathers, thier fathers, etc...

All you can do is continually shit on them.

Who the fuck cares what defines a hero.

You pathetic bunch of whiney little petty bitches.

Stop literally being cynical bastards and look at this for what it is: People helping People.

Stop reading into everything and try to take things at face value for once instead of making everything a big consipiracy.

Is there no goodwill left in man? I guess not.
posted by da5id at 11:58 AM on November 7, 2003

Define "hero"
Fuck. You.
Sorry for the impolite response, but these soldiers are doing their duty.
By the same logic the assholes that are killing our soldiers are heroes too. Should I start gathering frequent flier miles so they can fly back to Saudi Arabia or where ever for the holidays? People who chose to join the military are not some holy race of supreme beings.
posted by Outlawyr at 11:59 AM on November 7, 2003

So, da5id, how much did you donate? Cash, credit, or miles?
posted by aramaic at 12:00 PM on November 7, 2003

da5id, try anger management.
posted by Outlawyr at 12:01 PM on November 7, 2003

I donated $100. I don't have frequent flyer miles as I don't fly enough to accumulate them.

Besides the fact that I served my country. That is also my donation.

How much did you donate? Did you serve?

I don't need anger management. Just sick and tired of the overblown cynicism and hate that is directed at anything related to the military.
posted by da5id at 12:06 PM on November 7, 2003

da5id: please explain how my freedom is the result of the actions of US soldiers.
Or where you talking about soldiers everywhere?
posted by signal at 12:09 PM on November 7, 2003

BTW, I donate to Let's Bring 'Em Home.
posted by da5id at 12:10 PM on November 7, 2003

Well signal given that you are from Chile, my post doesn't apply to you.


My reference is to Americans, since these are American soldiers we are discussing.
posted by da5id at 12:12 PM on November 7, 2003

So I don't qualify as an "ungrateful Fuck-tard"?

Damn.
posted by signal at 12:13 PM on November 7, 2003

da5id -

The troops deserve our support. The people who made the decision to send them into war deserve our derision and criticism.

Stop shitting on us.
posted by yesster at 12:22 PM on November 7, 2003

You pathetic bunch of whiney little petty bitches.

You forgot "pukes" and "maggots", sarge.
posted by jpoulos at 12:22 PM on November 7, 2003

there is no universally accepted definition of hero. not anymore. it's quite the over-used a term in modern america: people who suffer from terminal diseases are heroes, children who fall down wells (/simpsons ref) are heroes, etc.

that said, there can still be degrees of heroism. i think teachers in inner-city schools who are trying hard to see to it that the life of even one student who passes through their class changes for the better are far greater heroes than any soldier or firefighter.

i think the white police officers who protected civil rights activists in the south during the 60's are far greater heroes than any soldier or fireman.

i think the civil rights activists -- especially those who tried to register black voters in georgia, alabama, and mississippi -- are far greater heroes than any soldier.

i think the kid in the ghetto who looks after his younger siblings and his drug-addled mother while doing well in school is a greater hero than any soldier.

i think the soldiers who are just as skeptical about the invasion of iraq (i refuse to call it a war) as i am, but still go over there and try to make even a small difference for the good among the madness are greater heroes than the "fucking a! get you some, towelheads!" soliders who rhapsodize about how great, beautiful and noble it is to kill and be killed for their country.

but we're all heroic in some sense. mainly in the sense of joyce's ulysses (not even gonna bother to try to spell it right): just getting through the goddamn day without jumping off of a bridge (or throwing someone else from it) sometimes is an epic feat that gilgamesh or hercules would admire.

and, da5id, i think there's plenty of goodwill toward others here: being skeptical does not preclude extending a helping hand to others. or, at least it shouldn't: your mileage may vary.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:25 PM on November 7, 2003

All this time I thought we were just figuratively being cynical bastards.
posted by Dr_Octavius at 12:28 PM on November 7, 2003

LOL, no signal, I can't give you that distinction... that is only for those who are shitting on the troops.

Those are the ones who I am shitting on.

You can criticise and deride the people who sent them to war all you want.

My anger / condemnation is only for the ones who are sniping at the troops.

So yesster, please do not feel as if I am shitting on you, because I am not. I am equally upset with this administration as to how they are currently running this country.

I only want people to recognize the sacrifices many of these people in the military are making. The sacrifices being made now, and the ones that have been made in the past. (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc...)

Yes, many of them volunteered for it, but many of them over there are reservists and even National Guardsmen, and many of them and thier families are suffering for these decisions.
posted by da5id at 12:30 PM on November 7, 2003

what lord_wolf said.
posted by sharpener at 12:35 PM on November 7, 2003

Thought this Iraq thingy was wrong from the first gleam in Dick Cheney's eye. But it's also wrong to sit in a comfy chair in front of your 'puter and elucidate the various ways soldiers are not heroes in your eyes. You didn't spend months schlepping down allies with an eye cocked for RPGs and living with sand in your shorts.

Invoking Nuremberg? I mean, really. Get a freaking grip.
posted by sacre_bleu at 12:37 PM on November 7, 2003

These soldiers need to learn how to work their ticket.
posted by rocketman at 12:42 PM on November 7, 2003

You didn't spend months schlepping down allies with an eye cocked for RPGs and living with sand in your shorts.
So we're not entitled to an opinion because we aren't in Iraq killing and being killed? Amazing.
posted by Outlawyr at 12:49 PM on November 7, 2003

I've really not seen anyone "shitting on the troops" da5id.

Questioning the chickenhawks and Dear Leader is a very patriotic thing and is "supporting the troops."

Again, I say we pay for the trip home and encourage them all to stay at home.
Fuck what the PNAC wants!
Follow aWol's excellent example troops!
Be a real patriot and skip out of your military service today, just like Dubya!
Hell, you might even get to be pResident one day!
Don't forget to become a drunk coke-sniffing cheeerleader frat rat while you're at it!
WooHoo!
Let the neocons and their mouthpieces do their own damn fighting!
To the front lines where everything is going great with you Mr. Instacracker!
posted by nofundy at 12:52 PM on November 7, 2003

Finally, somebody gets it.
posted by pemulis at 12:52 PM on November 7, 2003

Metafilter: You pathetic bunch of whiney little petty bitches.
posted by muckster at 12:56 PM on November 7, 2003

More on working the ticket (scroll down a ways).
posted by rocketman at 12:57 PM on November 7, 2003

But why isn't the military just sending them home space-A on empty transports, and letting them space-A their way to whatever air base is most convenient for them?

If they're chartering flights from Iraq, why are they landing at DFW and BWI instead of air bases where the soldiers could Space-A themselves to some convenient base?

Or am I just stupid?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:57 PM on November 7, 2003

So we're not entitled to an opinion because we aren't in Iraq killing and being killed? Amazing.

Oh, no. Go ahead and have your opinion. You could work on your reading comprehension, though.

Let me be clearer: Making snide remarks about people who are doing their jobs, necessary, unpleasant jobs that you don't have to tackle because other people are willing, is simply rude.

Are all soldiers, firefighters, police officers, "heroes"? No. But I believe they collectively deserve our respect, even though there may be retards, slackers and knuckleheads among them. Because they do jobs that we need done, whether or not I agree with every mission they are sent on.

Sometimes they lose their lives or health or well-being doing those jobs. Quite more often than you (or I) will, sitting in front of our computers.

Sure, they chose to go into those lines of work. And I choose to respect them for it.
posted by sacre_bleu at 1:15 PM on November 7, 2003

Funny that the military can afford to scatter medals like candy but it can't afford to fly the soldiers home. Hey, maybe they can pawn those bronze stars for the price of a ticket!

Oh, but I'm forgetting: the kind of ordinary rank-and-file soldiers who could most use some help getting home (and who also incidentally are the ones doing the actual fighting and dying) aren't the ones getting the medals.
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:22 PM on November 7, 2003

Let's try that link again...
posted by George_Spiggott at 1:23 PM on November 7, 2003

The government is failing these men and women in a dozen different ways - by sending them there, by keeping them there longer than promised, by failing to provide them with enough support - and now they're being failed in another way

And the government's failure should be spotlighted, not swept under the rug. If the public doesn't like this sort of treatment of the troops, let them express their dissatisfaction at the polls, or by hounding their congressmen.

I don't think the government ordered them to join the military, and I don't think there's a promise of unlimited free airfare when you do join. I might be wrong... Now that I think about it, my employer isn't flying me home for the holidays, either.

This is true. I'm all for respecting the troops and the job they do, but it IS a job, and one they signed up for willingly.

If you are appalled by the treatment they are receiving, or feel they deserve more, than hold accountable those responsible for these decisions. How obvious is that?
posted by rushmc at 1:44 PM on November 7, 2003

Because they do jobs that we need done...

Well that just may have summed up all this cah-cah nicely.

We're all talking about specific soldiers here, the ones in Iraq, and maybe a lot of the reluctance to care has to do with how one feels about this having been a job that actually needed to be done.
I think it's a sore spot with many and subject to emotional outbursts from time to time.
posted by LouReedsSon at 2:07 PM on November 7, 2003

A good moneymaker is to charge much-inflated last minute fares to people traveling on short notice to funerals. I assume the same good will applies here.

FWIW, my sister had to fly recently from Florida to Tulsa for a funeral. She flew out the day after she found out about my grandfather's passing. The ticket, since it was being purchased last minute, would've been close to $800, but NorthWest Airlines gave her a grievance discount and knocked the price down to about $300. I don't know if all airlines do this, but I thought it was pretty cool of them.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:13 PM on November 7, 2003

When my grandfather passed away a few years ago, I got a $125 roundtrip on American from O'Hare to Orlando the afternoon before I had to leave. At the airport, I had to show the ticket agent a certificate the hospital had faxed to me documenting his death.
posted by JollyWanker at 2:46 PM on November 7, 2003

People who chose to join the military are not some holy race of supreme beings.

You might change your mind if they pulled your butt out of a jam.
posted by clavdivs at 5:02 PM on November 7, 2003

This piece caught me as odd when I first read it. The one word I don't read is "reimbursement." In my military travels, to and from duty stations on commercial airlines, it was always "pay first, get reimbursed later." But other stuff is strange too.

Now granted, this is a leave circumstance, but I've never heard of transportation to or from an airport hub, as opposed to HOR (Home of Record), (OR) Official Residence, or TDY (Temporary Duty) Station. It just doesn't make sense.

If nothing else, accountability is a military fixation in these situations. I would *expect*, for example, that soldiers be required to "check in" at some kind of military checkpoint near their leave destination, such as a Reserve or National Guard Center, or even an Induction Center or police station. If for no other reason than rapid recall in case of emergency.

Remember, these are combat theater soldiers in a time of hostility. The military expectation would be that desertions would occur, or that other failure to return could be a serious problem to a military unit.

I'm not really disagreeing with the subject or how it was relayed, just that it seems to go against the military/bureaucratic mindset.
posted by kablam at 6:38 PM on November 7, 2003

You might change your mind if they pulled your butt out of a jam.

What is that, some kind of "no atheists in a foxhole" fantasy?
posted by rushmc at 7:13 PM on November 7, 2003

Problem is, clavdivs, our butt wasn't in a jam. It is now that we're in quagmireville. So now we're kinda' forced to deal with a situation that we (cowards/liberals/commies) knew would result in this.

When I go out with my girlfriend, she never puts on a coat, no matter how cold it is. Of course, I know it's cold, so I put one on. Then when we're outside, she gets cold and I have to give her my coat. See, I told her it was going to be cold, but nooo, she wouldn't listen until it was too late. And now I'm freezing my ass off. The "I told you so, you dumb bastards" line we keep giving you is just about all we got to show for being right ahead of time. Let us enjoy it, will ya?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:35 AM on November 8, 2003

CD: She won't change if you keep giving her the damn coat.
posted by cell at 5:49 AM on November 8, 2003

Civil_Disobedient: have you tried wearing 2 coats?
posted by signal at 6:54 AM on November 8, 2003

CD: Have you thought about dumping your girlfriend. That'd get you out of the quagmire (although she'll probably end up freezing to death.)
posted by five fresh fish at 10:01 AM on November 8, 2003

Yes, you are all correct. Of course, we could just stay inside.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:32 AM on November 8, 2003