National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War

[Hatfield]

simply disgusting and I hope they get this corrected soon for these soldiers.

National Guard Troops Denied Benefits After Longest Deployment Of Iraq War

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (NBC) -- When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge.

Midcoast Federal Credit Union

1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

"It's pretty much a slap in the face," Anderson said. "I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership... once again failing the soldiers."

Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.

Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.

"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.

That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.

"I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home," Hobot said.

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730. Now, six of Minnesota's members of the House of Representatives have asked the Secretary of the Army to look into it -- So have Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman.

Klobuchar said the GI money "shouldn't be tied up in red tape," and Coleman said it's "simply irresponsible to deny education benefits to those soldiers who just completed the longest tour of duty of any unit in Iraq."

Anderson said the soldiers he oversaw in his platoon expected that money to be here when they come home.

"I had 23 guys under my command," Anderson said. "I promised to take care of them. And I'm not going to end taking care of them when this deployment is over, and it's not over until this is solved."

The Army did not respond questions Tuesday afternoon.

Senators Klobuchar and Coleman released a joint statement saying the Army secretary, Pete Geren, is looking into this personally, and they say Geren asked a review board to expedite its review so the matter could be solved by next semester.

Minnesota National Guard spokesman Lt. Col. Kevin Olson said the soldiers are "victims of a significant injustice."

[limey_sooner]

Yeah I saw that. Another example of "nothing to good for the troops" unless it costs extra money. Kind of like appropriate mental health care, decent hospitals, and properly armored vehicles.

[Newbomb Turk]

Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.

umm yeah...I'd say it was deliberate.

[SicEmBaylor]

Yeah I saw that. Another example of "nothing to good for the troops" unless it costs extra money. Kind of like appropriate mental health care, decent hospitals, and properly armored vehicles.
I agree they deserve the best of everything and a government run health care system is definitely not the best that they could get.

I have no problem paying for their health care, but I'd send them to a non-government health care provider.

[GrapevineSooner]

I still think the Iraq War was correct.

Putting this bunch of jokers in charge of prosecuting the war wasn't. And here's yet another mind boggling example why.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I still think the Iraq War was correct.

Putting this bunch of jokers in charge of prosecuting the war wasn't. And here's yet another mind boggling example why.Which jokers, and who should be put in charge of whatever?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.

I guarantee you this would NEVER happen under a Hillary Clinton administration.

[Vaevictis]

I guarantee you this would NEVER happen under a Hillary Clinton administration.

No, but it's not like people run around yammering about how pro-troop the Democrats are and how anti-troop the Republicans are.

The Republicans aren't any more pro-troop than the Democrats are, they're just better at making people think they are.

When it comes to the Republican party as currently run, if it's between cutting taxes and supporting the troops, it ain't the troops that win.

[Okla-homey]

Easily fixed. A couple lines in an appropriations bill. Let's don't beat up on DoD for trying to save a few bucks. Heck, I can't tell you how many times me, a buddy or one of my troops was deployed for 179 days, or 359 days, so extra pay and entitlements would not accrue, and I'm talking the Regular forces here over my 23 year career under both donk and elephant majorities in Congress.

It's simply the way its been done for decades and everyone in uniform knows knows it. I expect someone is trying to make political hay out of this.

Afterall, Congress makes the rules on what benefits accrue to whom based on service, type of service (regular, guard or reserve) and duty location.

[SicEmBaylor]

No, but it's not like people run around yammering about how pro-troop the Democrats are and how anti-troop the Republicans are.

The Republicans aren't any more pro-troop than the Democrats are, they're just better at making people think they are.

When it comes to the Republican party as currently run, if it's between cutting taxes and supporting the troops, it ain't the troops that win.

I don't believe that's EXACTLY true. Both parties are pro-troop/anti-troop in different ways. Republicans are much more pro-troop in ensuring that our troops are the best equipped and best trained fighting force in the world. If Democrats had their way then we'd be fighting in Iraq with Sherman tanks and Garand rifles.

On the other hand, Democrats support the troops by focusing on more personal programs like education for troops, health care, etc. The Republican Party just isn't as good at offering that support and those services to military personnel and veterans. I think the exception to that rule though is a soldier's pay.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The Republicans aren't any more pro-troop than the Democrats are, they're just better at making people think they are.

When it comes to the Republican party as currently run, if it's between cutting taxes and supporting the troops, it ain't the troops that win.Hope you're not serious about the above. I guess that's what the thread starter was trying to say with his story about the Natl. Guardsmen getting screwed, like the story somehow proved that Republicans are callous to the soldiers, making them only interested in cutting the cost of government...lol if it wasn't so silly.

[Vaevictis]

Easily fixed. A couple lines in an appropriations bill. Let's don't beat up on DoD for trying to save a few bucks.

Hell, they could save a few bucks by equipping our guys with nothing but sharpened sticks, an atlatl, and a loincloth. Shall we abstain from beating up on the DoD in such case?


It's simply the way its been done for decades and everyone in uniform knows knows it. I expect someone is trying to make political hay out of this.

Just because that's the way it's been doesn't mean it's not total, utter bull****. Political hay should be made of this -- irrespective of who's in charge of what. It probably won't get fixed without it.

EDIT: And yeah, my attitude will be just as ****ty if/when the House doesn't pass a bill fixing this.

[Okla-homey]

No, but it's not like people run around yammering about how pro-troop the Democrats are and how anti-troop the Republicans are.

The Republicans aren't any more pro-troop than the Democrats are, they're just better at making people think they are.

When it comes to the Republican party as currently run, if it's between cutting taxes and supporting the troops, it ain't the troops that win.

V,

Here's my take having served under several administrations and different majorities in Congress. When the elephants were in charge, we got raises and new weapons. When the donks were in charge, we got some enhanced benefits. Those are nice, but you can't pay the mortgage or make a car payment with them. You also can't kill bad guys with them.

Both parties were pretty equal on "foreign interventions."

I think that pay and cool toys dealio is also the reason I never knew a white officer who would cop to voting other than elephant in presidential or congressional elections. I served in a couple of joint billets and knew guys from all branches and that was my experience. I knew black officers who voted donk, but voting donk is pretty deeply ingrained in their culture. Most of the Hispanic officers I knew voted elephant as well, especially the ones who were from Florida.

[Vaevictis]

Hope you're not serious about the above. I guess that's what the thread starter was trying to say with his story about the Natl. Guardsmen getting screwed, like the story somehow proved that Republicans are callous to the soldiers, making them only interested in cutting the cost of government...lol if it wasn't so silly.

When I say "the Republicans" and "the Democrats", I'm referring to the parties. And yeah, I'm serious.

Neither party really gives a **** about the troops. They give a **** about being re-elected and drawing as much graft as possible.

I believe it's not a coincidence that the Republicans support the troops with equipment, and the Democrats support the troops with education/health care/etc. You need look no further than who votes for which party and who donates money to which party for an explanation.

[Vaevictis]

Here's my take having served under several administrations and different majorities in Congress. When the elephants were in charge, we got raises and new weapons. When the donks were in charge, we got some enhanced benefits. Those are nice, but you can't pay the mortgage or make a car payment with them. You also can't kill bad guys with them.

Trust me, I get that.

I still don't think that either party is more pro-troop than the other -- they are exactly as pro-troop as their supporters require (about the same level, IMO), but more importantly, in the manner their supporters require it.

For the Republicans, it's reflects in pay raises (hey, the troops vote) and it especially reflects in equipment (hey, the manufacturers employees vote, and at least as importantly, the manufacturer's lobbyists pay.) For the Democrats, it's in benefits because their supporters and lobbyists prefer it that way.

[OklahomaTuba]

The donks control congress, they need to change this ASAP!

That is if they can pass anything besides pay raises. Lord knows they can't even pass non-binding legislation again Rush Limbaugh.

[OklahomaTuba]

I still don't think that either party is more pro-troop than the other.

I guess the donks nominating John F. Kerry in 2004, and their never ending statements telling us how stupid and evil they are, and the never ending rush to put them into retreat just didn't convince you, did it?

The good ol fashioned Donks may no be anti-Military, but the left-wing controlling the party sure as hell is.

The ad from moveon.org calling General Petreus a traitor is proof of that.

[Vaevictis]

I guess the donks nominating John F. Kerry in 2004, and their never ending statements telling us how stupid and evil they are, and the never ending rush to put them into retreat just didn't convince you, did it?

Heh. The Dems were doing what they thought was necessary to get control. The Republicans were doing the same.

Whether what they were doing was best for the troops or not really didn't matter to either party. All that matters is (1) what will put me in office and (2) what will get me the most graft. And the only reason that the first comes first is because it's a prerequisite for the second.

[OklahomaTuba]

I guess.

Still not sure what that has to do with Kerry calling our soliders murderers, Moveon.org calling a very successful general a traitor, congress trying to yank the funds for our soldiers while they are fighting AQ, or Gore trying to block their votes from being counted in 2000.

I guess its called "appealing to the base".

[Vaevictis]

I guess its called "appealing to the base".

Sometimes it's that. More generally, I'd just call it "political posturing." Take the posture most likely to get you (1) so you can get (2).

With respect to the talk of pulling funds and Kerry's comments, it's just a matter of a politician figuring, "Hey, people are dissatisfied with the status quo. So, I'll take advantage of that by taking a posture against the status quo." Doesn't really matter what that posture is. Just that it will siphon off some votes.

As far as Moveon's calling a general a traitor goes, well, both parties have their nuts.

[limey_sooner]

Isn't it amazing how people are so outraged by Move On but when conservatives Bash Patraeus, you don't hear a peep.

http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_24/article2.html

[Vaevictis]

Well, to be fair, that article is actually legitimate, reasoned criticism. It's not the same as running an advertisement calling a general a traitor.

[limey_sooner]

True, but on the other hand you can't deny that the headline on the cover is intended to mock Patraeus.

[SicEmBaylor]

True, but on the other hand you can't deny that the headline on the cover is intended to mock Patraeus.

American Conservative is a paleo-con magazine that gets bashed and rediculed plenty by the neo-con wing of the movement. I consider myself a paleo-con, and I hear plenty of criticism from so-called conservatives.

I don't know if anyone criticized that article itself, but the magazine and like minded conservatives get bashed quite a bit.

[soonerloyal]

Unfortunately, while the worthless politicians of both parties bicker and nitpick, our troops get the short end of the stick. After WWI, the poor vets marched on Washington to get what they were promised, albeit in a different way than it was supposed to be given. It was still a cheap shot by politicians to reneg on taking care of the troops. Our history is pretty shameful when it comes to doing right by our fighting men.

I'd prefer to see the best tendencies of both parties bestow our military with what they need - before, during and after a war. And when we are at peace as well. Why the hell can't we just pay our debts to our most important citizens? Pay, housing, training, medical care, supplies, research, education...ALL of it.

Our military is stretched and needing repair, and yet they are still the world's best, and are delivering 100% of what we ask them, and strive for more. It's way past time we start getting it correct where they are concerned. Our entire country's survival depends on them. Always has.

Some things just CANNOT be cheaped-out on. This is one of them.

P.S. I still can't believe we are in wars on different fronts and we as a nation aren't as a whole sacrificing for it. Am I wrong, or is this the first time we've been at war and had massive tax cuts, and ridiculous protection for the wealthiest? In WWII, EVERYONE did without and gave back in some way. Shame on us.

[limey_sooner]

I don't know if anyone criticized that article itself, but the magazine and like minded conservatives get bashed quite a bit.

True, but then again we don't see the republicans in congress wasting time with inane meaningless resolutions condemning the american conservative.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

True, but then again we don't see the republicans in congress wasting time with inane meaningless resolutions condemning the american conservative.We do, however, see agenda-driven leaders in congress telling intentional lies about private citizens. Those are your guys who do that.

[picasso]

Yeah I saw that. Another example of "nothing to good for the troops" unless it costs extra money. Kind of like appropriate mental health care, decent hospitals, and properly armored vehicles.
you really want to go there? Shall we walk back 15 years and see who made our military spending decrease?

burp.

[limey_sooner]

you really want to go there? Shall we walk back 15 years and see who made our military spending decrease?

burp.


You bet I want to go there, considering those cuts were started under Bush Sr., and highly approved of by no other than Dick Cheney I might add.

[picasso]

You bet I want to go there, considering those cuts were started under Bush Sr., and highly approved of by no other than Dick Cheney I might add.
you serious? do you know anybody in the military? I know a few who jumped ship as soon as Clinton started cheaping up the place.

you are seriously going to try and argue which party supports the military more in the bank?

[limey_sooner]

We do, however, see agenda-driven leaders in congress telling intentional lies about private citizens. Those are your guys who do that.


No instead the republicans use agenda driven leaders to intervene in things like the Terri Shiavo case to appeal to their base.

[limey_sooner]

you serious? do you know anybody in the military? I know a few who jumped ship as soon as Clinton started cheaping up the place.

you are seriously going to try and argue which party supports the military more in the bank?


Again, happy too. They love spendin the money on the big weapons systems but when it comes to the troops, not so much.


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/

[SicEmBaylor]

No instead the republicans use agenda driven leaders to intervene in things like the Terri Shiavo case to appeal to their base.

Now, that's true.

[Harry Beanbag]

Going back to the original post now. I know you have to be on active duty for 2 years (730 days) to earn GI Bill benefits if you contribute your $1200 to the plan. If you don't contribute you don't get anything. Does anybody know if these National Guard soldiers contributed their part? I honestly don't know if NG troops are given the option. I guess they could receive the opportunity once transferred to active duty, but did anyone think they would be there for 2 years? The posted article doesn't contain enough information to get all riled up over yet.