[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 22746-22747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 OPINION PIECE FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE ISRAEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Tuesday, September 23, 2003

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues the 
following opinion piece from the New York Times on Sunday, September 
21, 2003. Written by Mark L. Kimmey, a lieutenant colonel in the United 
States Army Reserve and a systems engineer in civilian life, this piece 
portrays Reservists' frustration with the Defense Department's recent 
decision to prolong their deployment.

                 Boots on the Ground, Family Back Home

                          (By Mark L. Kimmey)

       The Army's decision to keep its Reserve forces in Iraq on 
     duty for a full year from their arrival may have profound 
     consequences for both the Army and the war in Iraq. While the 
     Army will gain increased flexibility with its ``boots on the 
     ground,'' the long deployments may demoralize reservists. 
     When mobilization and demobilization are included, 12 months 
     on duty in Iraq will mean a 14- to 16-month separation from 
     family and career for reservists.
       ``Fair doesn't mean equal,'' a battalion commander once 
     told me. But the message to reservists is unmistakable: the 
     Army no longer takes into account sacrifices made to maintain 
     two careers and lives. Many reservists will watch the regular 
     soldiers with whom they came to Iraq go home before they do. 
     The Army may not care about the disparity between the way the 
     forces are treated, but those of us in the Reserve do.
       Everyone knows that the regular and Reserve units of the 
     Army are not equal. Regulars are better trained, better 
     equipped and expected to execute their missions more 
     professionally. That's the way it should be: it's their job--
     their only job.
       Reservists have jobs in the civilian world. For a 
     reservist, every day in uniform is a day away from what might 
     be (or might have been) a promising career. Despite the 
     Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act, 
     which prohibits discrimination against an employee because of

[[Page 22747]]

     military service, we understand that when a dispute with an 
     employer arises, the reservist always loses--even if the 
     employer is forced to take us back. What's more, many of us 
     don't serve long enough to qualify for a military pension--
     and even if we do, it's not enough to compensate for 
     opportunities missed while we were deployed.
       Hardships on Reserve families have increased with longer 
     and more frequent deployments. Reservists don't always have 
     ready access to a military base and its support programs. 
     Left to fend for themselves, Reserve families are becoming 
     more vocal about their unhappiness with the situation. 
     Politicians may not be listening to their complaints, but you 
     can bet we husbands and wives overseas are hearing their 
     pain.
       The Army is fond of bragging about the advantages of the 
     all-volunteer force. But reservists are volunteers, too. We 
     sign up for the Reserve when we leave the Army because we 
     want to continue to serve with people we respect. We sign up 
     because we want to serve our country. We sign up for extra 
     income or educational benefits. Some of us sign up to be part 
     of history, for the possibility of adventure. But nobody 
     signs up for occupation duty, especially occupation of a 
     country that never officially surrendered.
       It is not a question of performing our duty. I have served 
     as a peacekeeper in the Balkans, a job that most of us found 
     hard but acceptable. Even though most active-duty soldiers 
     were deployed to Bosnia or Kosovo on 180-day assignments--90 
     days shorter than us reservists--my unit didn't suffer from a 
     flood of resignations after Balkan duty. In fact, we laughed 
     that reservists were providing more continuity there than the 
     regulars.
       The problem in Iraq is that the Army doesn't seem to know 
     what to do with us. The Army has only one civil affairs 
     battalion on active duty. Its job is to get in fast, 
     stabilize the situation and then hand responsibilities to a 
     mobilized Reserve unit as quickly as possible.
       That's where my Reserve civil affairs brigade comes in. I 
     am a communications officer in a unit filled with higher-
     ranking officers. Why so many senior soldiers in a civil 
     affairs brigade? Because our knowledge, skills and 
     experience, gained in the civilian world, make us valuable in 
     rebuilding countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
       In the case of my brigade, we've had nothing to do for 
     almost a month. We were originally deployed in support of the 
     First Marine Expeditionary Force, but when it went south to 
     Kuwait at the end of August to begin its journey home, we 
     were left to cool our heels. Our three battalions were 
     dispersed on far-flung assignments. One battalion was sent to 
     Bosnia on a scheduled peacekeeping rotation; another was 
     split, with half reinforcing the 101st Air Assault Division. 
     The remaining soldiers are filling holes in my own unit.
       So here in a makeshift base camp, we have a brigade 
     headquarters with few reservists to command and no regular 
     Army commander to support. The feeling throughout the ranks 
     is that we are being held in place while someone tries to 
     think of something for us to do. We've been assured that new 
     orders will be published ``any day now,'' but we've heard 
     that before.
       The advantage of experienced reservists to a unit is 
     immeasurable. But here in Iraq, I am hearing more soldiers 
     talk about calling it quits when they return to the States. 
     Even though some soldiers are only four or five years from 
     qualifying for retirement pay and benefits, they're getting 
     out. The constant deployments are difficult for families and 
     careers, they say, and waiting around for retirement benefits 
     is no longer worth it.
       The evidence I see in other units around me is the same: 
     the United States Army is about to see a mass exodus from its 
     Reserve.
       For me, the length of time I spend in Iraq is less 
     important than getting the job done right. I don't want my 
     son to have to come here in five years because we messed it 
     up. But if the Army continues its policy of year-plus tours 
     for its Reserve forces in Iraq and elsewhere, it will soon 
     find those ranks empty.
       The question the Army faces is simple: will more frequent, 
     extended deployments dry up the Reserve pool? We need an 
     answer soon. If the Reserve continue to be misused, soldiers 
     will vote with their feet when they get home. By then it will 
     be too late for the Army to figure out what went wrong.
       Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that we need 
     to be fair to reservists, their families and their employers. 
     If reservists are forced to spend too much time on active 
     duty, he said, ``we're going to end up losing them, and we 
     can't afford to lose them.''
       From my perspective, however, we're already losing them. 
     The real impact of the Army's policy on Reserve deployments 
     won't be felt until long after his watch. But because 
     everything bad that happens is the commander's fault, Mr. 
     Rumsfeld's tenure may be remembered less for its battlefield 
     victories than for the damage it caused to the morale of the 
     Army.

                          ____________________