Jessica Swedin: Bring the 142nd Battalion home Jessica Swedin
Published 09/21/2003
My husband is a sergeant in the Minnesota Army National Guard. On Jan. 28, members of the 142nd Battalion put their lives on hold at a day's notice to leave their homes, families, businesses, schools and employers for active duty supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Without question or complaint, they worked tirelessly doing a commendable job at every mission put to them, despite being targets of daily mortar fire, suffering 130-degree temperatures and continually having their hopes raised, then dashed, by ever-changing homecoming dates.
We learned via the media of the Army's extension of Guard and reserve troops in Iraq, adding six months to the year they already will have served.
Regular Army units don't serve this long, yet they receive benefits our soldiers only dream of. Guard engineers may provide necessary skills the Army doesn't specialize in, but Guard members are not meant to be active full-time. They are trying to finish school, return to jobs held open in our sluggish economy and maintain businesses they are in danger of losing if absent much longer.
Our soldiers don't receive the Army's two weeks of leave during a yearlong deployment to handle such concerns or to be with their families during the holidays. On top of spending over a year separated - - missing anniversaries, children's birthdays and three semesters of school -- they are denied emergency leave for life-altering events like the birth of a child. Some of our soldiers won't see the first year and a half of their children's lives if they are held to this extension.
It is unacceptable that our soldiers be rewarded for the remarkable tasks they've accomplished by being kept from their lives, and out of ours, a year longer than the standard Guard activation.
Why aren't incoming Guard and reserve troops affected by this extension? Their families know well in advance the deployment and redeployment dates they can count on, while the 142nd has never had such luxuries. Why shouldn't additional troops be utilized to offset the hardship? Why should our soldiers, who have been there since before major combat ended and who provide for the relative safety and comfort of incoming troops, be the ones required to stay the longest?
Our soldiers aren't even allowed to rotate out when their contract ends or when they retire, as in the Army, so some are held entirely against their will. If troops there are crucial, shouldn't we rotate in fresh ones who aren't fatigued and war-weary?
This battalion has executed the missions it was sent to do. Under this extension its members will sit at their camp, doing jobs civilian contractors already present could do, to improve the comfort of a military base. This does not benefit the Iraqi people's quality of life. Is this the essential service requiring them to stay? Is this what an additional $87 billion should be funding?
If the 142nd is treated so poorly and shown so little appreciation for the work they've done and the sacrifices we all have made, I fear this will cause a substantial reduction in reenlistment of Guard and reserve troops that sustain our us all during times of need. Don't allow this to happen.
Bring these soldiers home. They've earned it.
Jessica Swedin, of Otsego, is an assistant scientist at the University of Minnesota.