Letter to the Editor
Jul 27th, 2006 at 7:16 am by Susie
Via Steve Gilliard:
I am a registered Democrat and a soldier currently serving in Afghanistan with the 1-102 Infantry Battalion of the Connecticut National Guard. Last week I received some newspaper clippings in the mail that sparked my interest: Senator Joseph I. Lieberman has been successfully challenged and forced into a primary that will take place in August.
As some readers may have heard, in January my battalion was issued substandard equipment for our deployment to Afghanistan. Originally, we were issued M-16s rather than M-4 carbines, rifles with shorter barrels and collapsible butt stocks. As a politically active member of the battalion, I began to get in touch with Representative DeLauro and Representative Simmons, who both responded quickly and enthusiastically. Senator Dodd also responded quickly and gave me prompts on how to further validate my request for weapons.
However, I did not receive a response from Senator Lieberman’s office. I continued to leave messages for both him and his military aide, now senior counselor, Fred Downey, who represented Sen. Lieberman at the Battalion’s send off ceremony on Jan. 4. After several messages, I finally received a return phone call. However, I was not met with the same enthusiasms expressed by other legislators; I was immediately confronted with an inquisition that seemed to have the purpose of dispelling the belief that the battalion was ill equipped. Rather than listen to our specific concerns, the “benefits” of the M16 were highlighted and the advantages of the M4 were downplayed.
Lieberman’s office left the impression that they believed we had the equipment we needed, despite the contrasting beliefs of soldiers in my battalion, some who have been on as many as five deployments. The others in Washington were not so quick to abandon us.
Lieberman has never hesitated to voice his support for the war, and recently voted against pulling troops out of Iraq, so where was he when over 500 of his own constituents were being sent overseas to fight on behalf of his great country? It appears the senator was so concerned with climbing the political ladder, he forget what his job is really about: the people.
When my absentee ballot returns to the States next month, Lamont’s name, not Lieberman’s, will bear the check when August 8 arrives, will you stand for the hypocrisy?
Sincerely,
Colin D. Halloran
While the level of constituent service doesn’t seem at all acceptable in the area of timely response the writers basic complaint seems like sour grapes also. The M-16 is the basic issue weapon of the army, the M-4 was designed for special operations. So with the level of information here it just seems like someone didn’t get the shinny toy they wanted and cried and didn’t like it when someone didn’t agree with them.
Very good John. You spun that just like many a conservative douchebag would. Semantics over weaponry aside that is not what Halloran’s letter is about.
It’s about the response and concern of the war monger Lieberman. It’s so typical of those who support Cheney’s illegal war. They support the war but don’t support the troops.
John.
So in your opinion, effectively fighting this war on terror is not a “special operation?”
Besides, who do you think would have better knowledge or insight of what’s the right tool(s) to fight effectively in Afghanistan, the soldiers doing the actual fighting or Lieberman (or anyone else in D.C. for that matter)?
Fighting this war on terror is a war, parts of it does involve special operations, but in total it is a war. If this unit is only doing basic infantry tasks such as providing security at fixed sites or manning stationary check points then they are not involved any task that would require an upgrade from the basic M-16. The mission of the unit is not and should not be clear from the letter so it is hard to fully know if the argument for the change is valid.
I’m in total agreement that no one in D.C. can know better than someone in the field what they need for equipment. But on of the problems we have is that our force structure currently is very top heavy with senior ranks in offices and not the field. I forget the exact ratio is but the number of flag officers (i.e. Generals) per enlisted troop strength is higher now than in WW2 when the military was much bigger.
Finally once again I will state that I agree that the level of constituent service was not good. But I hope that in part the delayed response and then the answer the Senators office gave was from research and asking the pentagon directly on the case and not just a knee jerk reaction.
No surprise. Lieberman’s got that thing Republicans have instead of a sense of responsibility: Deny facts that don’t support whatever you feel like believing, and when things go wrong, find someone to blame.
John
Manning stationary check points and fixed security sites are basic MP tasks, not Infantry. Infantry maneuvres and as far that goes the M-4 is a much easier weapon to handle, especially in mounted operations. If M-4s were unavailable then it would be a different story, but the fact that the weapons were available and that others (on both sides of the aisle) were willing to work to get them for the unit makes Lieberman’s actions that much less acceptable.