I've come up with a few questions that I'd like to pose to military wives who think voting Kerry is in their best interest.
1. Kerry has recently been talking about reducing the number of troops in Iraq as soon as he gets into office. Would you support this measure, knowing that it might mean that your husband could be stretched even thinner and have less support and back-up on his missions?
2. Kerry has also said that the reduction of American troops will be made possible by the addition of foreign, especially Arab, troops. This question is rather hypothetical, given that to date no additional nations have agreed to send troops if Kerry were elected, but would you rather have your husband fighting alongside Arab soldiers instead of other Americans?
3. Kerry recently spoke out against the genocide in Sudan and said, "we must also start planning now for the possibility that the international community, acting through the United Nations, will be forced to intervene urgently to save the lives of the innocent." There's no question that the situation in Sudan is horrible, but would you want your husband to deploy there as part of a UN-led peacekeeping mission?
Yep, they're loaded questions. But the problem is that many wives hear the words "Kerry's gonna reduce the number of troops in Iraq" and they don't think about the fine print. A premature reduction of troops means less stability and more strain for those who are left there. Do we really want to vote for that?
Posted by Sarah at August 15, 2004 10:56 AMI don't think it will matter who is in the Oval, we're in this for the long haul and I don't see a significant reduction in troops happening for at least 3-5 years. You're right though Sarah, he's playing to the yearnings of our wives and mothers.
Glad your hiatus wasn't a long one btw.
Posted by: Sgt Hook at August 16, 2004 05:01 AM