Based on the very favorable 90 accomplishments of President Barak Obama, I am asking the question,how is he doing as a president? The author of the 90 has 16 points directed at what Obama has accomplished for the military, so I figured I would use this as the starting point. As I stated before, this is more subjective though I will do my best to be fair. You might have a difference of opinion and that’s all right with me. I’m open for discussion and to be persuaded. So let’s begin:
Our Fallen Soldiers
· Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
· Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
· Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family.
The first point is a change in policy that should be welcomed by all. It’s one that I think almost all of us can givie a nod of approval. For that, I really do commend the Obama administration.
The other two are certainly a change in policy and a striking difference in philosophy between the two camps. But in my opinion it is not a better or worse type of change, for which I am sure I might be criticized greatly.
Obama changed the long-standing policy to allow more transparency. Critics will tell you that he did so for better photo opportunities; such as the first night he went to Dover to pay his respects with an entourage of paparazzi. They will say this is simply a propaganda tool and would point out that 17 of the 18 families declined the offer the night President Obama showed up.
On the flipside you have the Bush policy, which was actually enacted Bush Sr. and carried on by baby Bush. The policy was put in place after the media ran a shameful display placing a side-by-side view of the coffins of fallen soldiers arriving to Dover and video coverage of Bush Sr. giving a press conference. Thus the Bush camp put the policy in place to protect the dignity of our fallen and give the families the respect by keeping it private. Critics have said this has little to do with dignity and respect , and more to do with Bush trying to cover up the war and not wanting the media to show the true cost of his self-motivated war.
I’m sure there are probably truths to both the proponents and critics cases. But for my own evaluation, I will just take both parties at face value. One wants transparency in our government, the other privacy for our fallen soldiers. I like both sides, so the change has a neutral effect for me. Though, I will give the Obama administration credit for not just reversing the policy, but allowing the decision to be left up to family members.
Our Veterans
Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals.
I admit I am a little baffled by this one. I am having a really hard time finding where Obama comes into play. Again it seems like the author is stretching the truth just a smidge.
While the decrepit conditions of the Walter Reed Medical Center was certainly a black eye on the Bush administration, it was actually Bush who righted the ship.
According to the NY Times, it was Bush 43 who appointed Dole and Shalala to lead the inquiry and make suggestions on Military Health Care.
The groundbreaking ceremony began while Bush 43 was still holding office (though it’s not set to be completed until 2011), so how in the world can Obama claim this as his accomplishment. Is it because he is allowing the construction to continue? Here is the article about Bush at the ground-breaking ceremony.
Our Military Personnel
Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date.
This policy actually hit pretty close to home with me, since I work with a couple of soldiers who have actually been affected by this policy. One co-worker was recounting his story to me just the other day about how he was stuck in field for months even after his contract ran out.
For those of you that don’t know what the policy is, it basically prevents soldiers from “leaving military service on time if they were scheduled to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.” Critics call it a back-door draft and it is highly unpopular with soldiers and their families.
However, the author of the 90 is lying to us all... just a tid-bit. While they hope to eliminate most the use of the stop-loss policy, MSNBC reports, “ Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, though, it may never be possible to completely get rid of the policy called "stop-loss," under which some 13,000 soldiers whose time is already up are still being forced to continue serving.” MSNBC also writes, “He said that he hoped any future use after 2011 would only be in "scores, not thousands."
Why 2011? We’ll that is when Obama has said we will be out of Iraq, thus leaving us with only one war which he is spearheading. At that time, he won’t need to keep the practice going, because he will have enough resources to fight in Afghanistan without holding soldiers.
This seems tacky. I mean who couldn’t make this claim. If Obama wanted to do the right thing, the noble thing, he would have put an immediate stop to this practice. Instead he claims he is ending the practice when the war is over. Who couldn’t make that claim?
Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
Improved housing for military personnel
In 2009 Obama did purpose a pay increase for military personnel of 2.9 percent for the fiscal 2010 budget. So, I guess that a good thing, though one might argue that in this economy providing raises might not be the best thing. Then again those same people would probably be for it if it was a conservative giving the proposal.
Of course not everyone is happy about the proposal, including House majority leader Steny Hoyer . But it’s not more spending he is upset about, he’s upset that the government isn’t spending more equally. The Washington Post writes, “But the proposal would give civilian employees a smaller pay raise than the 2.9 percent it would grant to uniformed military personnel. And it quickly ran into opposition on Capitol Hill, where House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said he would raise the issue with the Obama administration.
"While it's to be expected that during this time of shared sacrifice there will not likely be a federal employee adjustment equal to last year's level, we must continue to adhere to the long-standing bipartisan principle of pay parity," Hoyer said in a statement.”
This year, Obama proposed a much lower 1.4 pay increase for both federal Civilian and Military workers. It seems Hoyer and the Federal Workers Unions got through to the President on the Pay Parity issue.
One thing should be noted, according to the Washington Post, “The proposed military pay bump is the smallest bump since 1973.” This of course might sour the taste of the bold claim that Obama is increasing pay and benefits for military personnel. Why this might be technically true, it seems that this is done on a yearly basis. So how does Obama doing so make him special? Where is the big change? Except that he’s paying less and making it look like more.
Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
The last point is from executive order Executive Order 13473.
Eligibility for this noncompetitive hiring authority falls into four major categories as follows: (1) a spouse of an U.S. armed forces service member serving on active duty (not for training) for more than 180 days, provided the spouse relocates to the member’s new permanent duty station; (2) a spouse of a military service member who is retired from active duty with a documented service-connected disability rating of 100 percent; (3) a spouse of a military service member who retired or was released or discharged from active duty and has a disability rating of 100 percent as documented by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or (4) a spouse of a military service member killed while on active duty.
Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about this order. In some ways it’s a very good act on the part of the President with very good intentions, on the other side I have this horrible gut reaction to it. It seems to me that in caring for our soldiers we might not be putting the best people in the correct jobs. Would we allow this to happen anywhere else? Imagine for a moment you’re going up a position as a schoolteacher, but you’re rejected because the job was awarded to someone who is married to a person working in the local law enforcement community. Somehow this just doesn’t sit right with me, but maybe I’m wrong or I’m not understanding this order in it’s entirety.
Well that was long, and we’ve only gotten through a couple of points. Maybe, I’ll pick up the pace with my next one.
Posts
1 comments:
It is really nice to see someone try to assess this without being totally stuck in a party mode. look forward to the rest, even when i am sure we will disagree.
Post a Comment