As conflict in Iraq continues, and the U.S. increasingly turns to reconstruction, reports of low morale, increased attacks on troops and cuts to veteran’s benefits highlight a growing concern for U.S. soldiers. Can a “shock and awe” military force cope with the strain of long term occupation needed for a reconstruction effort?

Since the first gulf war, the number of reserves Army and National Guard has risen sharply. Operation Iraqi Freedom represents the largest battlefield presence of reserves since World War II. According to some, reservists receive poorer treatment than active-duty troops. Active-duty soldiers also suffer -- some report enduring harsh conditions without food or water for days and a lack of technology to make their jobs safer, including night vision goggles and GPS. These conditions come as a shock to some -- aside from a few specific incidents there has been little coverage of non-fatal casualties and injuries by the press.

• Of approximately 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, 42,000 are Reserves and National Guard. The administration intends to activate another 30,000 reserves for early 2004.
  
  
• The length of deployment allowed for National Guard and Army Reserves is two years. Active duty personnel are deployed for one year and receive a 15-day furlough.
  
  
• Since March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq. 20% have suffered severe brain injuries.
  
  
• According to the Pentagon-funded Stars and Stripes, 48% of troops polled rated morale as “low” or “very low.” The GI Rights Hotline calls increased 75% in 12 weeks.
  
  
• The Army says 5,381 soldiers have become ill during service in Iraq; another 1,076 illnesses in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is investigating a “mysterious pneumonia” that has killed two and injured 100 others.
  
  
• Almost 4,000 troops have been medically evacuated for “non combat reasons;” 478 troops for mental health illnesses. 13 suicides by U.S. soldiers are currently under investigation.

Why the demand placed on reserve forces? The U.S. reluctance to commit more active-duty troops is revealed by the numbers: 2.1 million active duty members of the military served during the first Gulf War compared to 1.4 million currently deployed in Iraq. This leaves reserve forces to fill in the blanks, placing a strain on local communities some losing up to 20% of police departments and half of their National Guard response teams as well as pulling bread-winners away from their families.

Even as President Bush pledges support for the troops stationed in Iraq, veteran’s benefits fall under the axe in support of the administration’s tax cuts proposed to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse.”

• In 2002, 1.4 million more veterans were treated than in 1996 by 20,000 fewer VA employees.
  
  
• Since 1995 enrollment in VA hospitals has increased from 2.9 million to 4.5 million. It is expected that more than 600,000 veterans will enroll this year. Veteran waiting lists for primary care are 300,000 long

How long will troops -- many of whom cannot speak the language -- be expected to act as peacekeepers in a hostile climate of growing Iraqi resentment over civilian casualties and cultural disregard? Analysts warn that increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq may only make things worse. One solution involves calling on the UN and NATO to relieve the strain on the military while enabling an organization better trained to assist in reconstruction to ease the transition for the Iraqi people. Would nations commit troops without sharing in strategy, deciding the future of Iraq, and having their fair share of construction contracts? Will we share?

Of the $87 billion dollars President Bush requested for Iraq, how much will go to support troops on the ground? Should the White House and the Pentagon relinquish control of the reconstruction to the UN Security Council and the Iraqi people? What can we learn to improve conditions for deployed U.S. soldiers in long-term operations? Have our policies and positions painted us into a corner where a draft is inevitable?