PDA

View Full Version : What next? Unmarked mass graves for our returning dead troops???


memyselfI
06-01-2007, 12:19 PM
Outrageous. It's bad enough they died for a fraudulent and failed policy but then to try to save money and resources combining their memorial services? I think this is the absolute worse way to treat the returning dead. Apparently they are reconsidering this decision. Frankly, the moron who proposed it should be sent to Gitmo. :shake:

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/75887.html

Fort Lewis rethinks end of individual memorials

ROB TUCKER; The News TribunePublished: June 1st, 2007 01:00 AM

Fort Lewis leaders are reconsidering a decision to end individual memorial ceremonies for soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A post spokesman said Thursday that Brig. Gen. William Troy, acting commander at Fort Lewis, has decided to review his decision to hold a single memorial once a month to honor soldiers recently killed in action.

Lt. Col. Robert Gilpin said Troy’s final ruling “will take into account the views of commanders, family readiness groups and our senior noncommissioned officers.”

The original decision, made in the last few weeks, was controversial on and off the post.

Many said soldiers who make the ultimate sacrifice deserve a more personal tribute. But Troy said in a memo that with thousands of local soldiers now in hostile action, “our losses will preclude us from continuing to do individual memorial ceremonies.”

The current review, said Col. Jack Van Dyken, the post’s senior chaplain, is occurring because commanders are not “100 percent sure” that a once-monthly event is the right way to go.

“We want to do what’s best,” Van Dyken said Thursday.

He said a memorial honoring several soldiers killed in combat will be conducted Tuesday. The next day, an individual ceremony will be held.

He was answering reporters’ questions after a memorial service at the Main Post Chapel for Sgt. Iosiwo Uruo, who died in Iraq on May 24. Uruo’s was presumed to be the last individual ceremony under the old policy.

The post has about 10,000 soldiers deployed to Iraq. Nineteen have been reported killed there in May, more than in any other month since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

Danielle Milner, whose former husband was killed in Iraq, said she was happy to hear that Troy would reconsider his decision.

“It seemed so dehumanizing and impersonal to lump all of the deaths in a month together,” the Spanaway resident said. “The harsh reality is that many, many men and women have died and are dying every day, and people need to see these memorials to them.”

She said she is a daughter of Air Force members and served in the Air Force for four years on active duty.

Her ex-husband, Staff Sgt. Jesse L. Williams, was killed in Iraq over the Easter weekend by a sniper. Williams, like Uruo, was assigned to the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

“I don’t want anyone to ever become desensitized to any death that occurs, and grouping these memorials together, I feel, would do that,” Milner said.

Maj. Kyle J. Marsh, who gave a tribute at Sgt. Uruo’s ceremony and is the commander of the Stryker brigade’s rear detachment, acknowledged there has been debate about the policy switch. But he said consolidating memorials can be done well.

“We did one for six soldiers killed in the same incident,” he said. “It was intimate. It took more time, but every soldier was honored.”

Lt. Gen. Bill Harrison, a former Fort Lewis commander and Lakewood mayor, also attended Thursday’s memorial. The services, he said, are “just wrenching” for everyone involved.

He said he supported the decision by Troy, who is serving as post commander until the arrival of Maj. Gen. Charles Jacoby Jr., recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

“We can still honor the soldiers,” Harrison said. “It’s a combined group, but we can still honor them as individuals

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-01-2007, 12:21 PM
Cannon fodder.

Mr. Kotter
06-01-2007, 12:27 PM
I don't agree with this ridiculout change of policy either...but you have no shame, do you? :shake:

Sick and twisted hyperbole like that you posit in this thread title is precisely the sort of thing you do around here that earns you the contempt that many here have for you.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 12:30 PM
Frankly, the moron who proposed it should be sent to Gitmo. :shake:

I’d be less worried about whoever came up with the idea as whoever thought it was a good enough idea to pursue. That guy does deserve Gitmo.

alanm
06-01-2007, 12:30 PM
Why do you care?

Phobia
06-03-2007, 08:51 PM
Seriously, what's the point of a memorial service anyway? So a bunch of high ranking officials can show up and pay lipservice to the dead, whom they likely never met?

Who cares about a military memorial service? The family's private wake is the most important event. The people in attendance there actually knew the deceased.

penchief
06-03-2007, 09:03 PM
I don't agree with this ridiculout change of policy either...but you have no shame, do you? :shake:

Sick and twisted hyperbole like that you posit in this thread title is precisely the sort of thing you do around here that earns you the contempt that many here have for you.

At what point is the policy worse to you than the political hyperbole stirred by the policy? If more people were willing to point out the hypocricies of this administration's policies maybe we wouldn't be experiencing such dire straits.

I'd like to see you criticize the policy if you disagree with it more than you criticize the policy's critics.

penchief
06-03-2007, 09:04 PM
Seriously, what's the point of a memorial service anyway? So a bunch of high ranking officials can show up and pay lipservice to the dead, whom they likely never met?

Who cares about a military memorial service? The family's private wake is the most important event. The people in attendance there actually knew the deceased.

I don't disagree with what you say.

Logical
06-03-2007, 09:15 PM
Seriously, what's the point of a memorial service anyway? So a bunch of high ranking officials can show up and pay lipservice to the dead, whom they likely never met?

Who cares about a military memorial service? The family's private wake is the most important event. The people in attendance there actually knew the deceased.

If this was the reason, then you probably have a point. However, I believe the real point is to try to hide from the public the toll being inflicted on our American families because the war is already massively unpopular and can no longer be justified.

patteeu
06-03-2007, 09:52 PM
At what point is the policy worse to you than the political hyperbole stirred by the policy?

You should be talking about this thread's title, but of course, you aren't.

Phobia
06-03-2007, 10:04 PM
If this was the reason, then you probably have a point. However, I believe the real point is to try to hide from the public the toll being inflicted on our American families because the war is already massively unpopular and can no longer be justified.

I'm guessing it's a productivity issue. When military ceremonies are held, they bring out hundreds of troops to march in parade and all the VIP's to sit in a booth to observe. The marching troops have other jobs in addition to their ceremonial duties. Generally, a ceremony shoots the majority of a day. If you're doing a couple a week, it's:
1. Bad for morale, not only due to the KIA being honored but because NOBODY likes to march in these events. It's mundane, boring, and a major PITA. Additionally, personnel appearing in ceremonies are to be inspection ready - meaning you have to allocate hours into the readiness of your uniform, one of the least enjoyable things about the military.
2. Cuts into the afformentioned productivity.
3. Causes schedules often made months in advance to be shuffled and re-shuffled again.

I've worked as one of the guys marching in ceremonies and also in a three star and two star Generals' office. I understand the motivation behind consolidating memorial services and it has a whole lot more with wise allocation of resources than it has to do with any political modus operandi.

Logical
06-03-2007, 10:21 PM
I'm guessing it's a productivity issue. When military ceremonies are held, they bring out hundreds of troops to march in parade and all the VIP's to sit in a booth to observe. The marching troops have other jobs in addition to their ceremonial duties. Generally, a ceremony shoots the majority of a day. If you're doing a couple a week, it's:
1. Bad for morale, not only due to the KIA being honored but because NOBODY likes to march in these events. It's mundane, boring, and a major PITA. Additionally, personnel appearing in ceremonies are to be inspection ready - meaning you have to allocate hours into the readiness of your uniform, one of the least enjoyable things about the military.
2. Cuts into the afformentioned productivity.
3. Causes schedules often made months in advance to be shuffled and re-shuffled again.

I've worked as one of the guys marching in ceremonies and also in a three star and two star Generals' office. I understand the motivation behind consolidating memorial services and it has a whole lot more with wise allocation of resources than it has to do with any political modus operandi.

In that case it was incredibly bad timing.

memyselfI
06-04-2007, 10:51 AM
In that case it was incredibly bad timing.

Not to mention bad taste.

I'm sure it's not pleasant and I'm sure it is a PITA for those who have to be the ceremonial participants. But as long as it's being done for one then it should be done for ALL. Meaning, if they are going to do it on base by base or case by case basis then no family should have their soldier slighted simply because of the logistics of his base vs. the one in another location.

If you want to do away with the ceremony all together then that is something to consider. I doubt the military would have the cajones to propose such a thing. But to deny certain soldiers their individual honors simply because they are at a particular base that finds the resources wasted or otherwise impractical is just bad taste.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 12:06 PM
Bad taste? Most everything about the military is distasteful. This becomes a problem when ultra-sensitive people concern themselves with issues to which they are incapable of comprehension. The military is a giant killing machine. If you are a little squeamish then maybe the workings of the military is something you should just avoid.

Logical
06-04-2007, 02:27 PM
Bad taste? Most everything about the military is distasteful. This becomes a problem when ultra-sensitive people concern themselves with issues to which they are incapable of comprehension. The military is a giant killing machine. If you are a little squeamish then maybe the workings of the military is something you should just avoid.

LOL Phil it almost sounds like you are suggesting that we treat all military families distastefully. I am not sure we don't, but I hope we don't.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 02:40 PM
I'm not suggesting that at all, but think about this....

Hypothetically, you're dying. Do you want hundreds of anonymous people who don't want to be there in the first place attending your memorial service for appearances and because they were ordered to be there or do you want the ones who loved you remembering you for who you were?

Logical
06-04-2007, 03:29 PM
I'm not suggesting that at all, but think about this....

Hypothetically, you're dying. Do you want hundreds of anonymous people who don't want to be there in the first place attending your memorial service for appearances and because they were ordered to be there or do you want the ones who loved you remembering you for who you were?

Perhaps it is just me but when I am dead I won't care what happens. I believe memorial services and funerals are for family and friend benefit. If the families don't mind giving up the memorial service then I agree they should do so, but not just on one base but everywhere.

WilliamTheIrish
06-04-2007, 07:23 PM
What next? Unmarked mass graves for our returning dead troops???

Yes. That's absolutely what's next. You've discovered the true plan.

Phobia
06-04-2007, 08:54 PM
Yes. That's absolutely what's next. You've discovered the true plan.

Oh crap, why couldn't I be that succinct?