Newswise — In the past six years of the Global War on Terror, more than 1.5 million U.S. troops have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq. Of these, some 250,000 have been members of the National Guard. While Guard troops had been posted abroad on earlier military and peace-keeping assignments, the number of involved and the nature of their responsibilities on the frontlines of the Global War on Terror are unprecedented. Their experience has major implications for the future of the National Guard as an institution and for U.S. foreign and military policy.
A new report by Tufts' Feinstein International Center entitled The U.S. Citizen-Soldier and the Global War on Terror, focuses on the experiences of the citizen-soldiers who make up the National Guard. With roots in communities across the nation and full-time careers outside the military, they offer an illuminating bellwether of American public opinion. The report features individual Guard members from more than a dozen states. New Hampshire receives particular attention, as Guard officials there have gone to some lengths to identify lessons to be learned and to implement innovative re-entry strategies for returning soldiers. Also featured is the experience of Vermont, a state with a disproportionately large number of its population engaged in the Global War, and a disproportionately large number of fatalities.
Relying largely on the soldiers' own words, the report provides a composite narrative of the experience of National Guard troops -- from enlistment and training through deployment, combat and re-entry. In addition to interviews conducted for the study with members in the National Guard in New Hampshire and Vermont, the report draws on materials from the Veterans History Project in the Library of Congress, on e-mails and other communications by soldiers themselves, on news accounts and documentaries, and on conversations with family members, mental health professionals, and members of the media. The study also utilizes data provided by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Among the themes of the report:
* Many of the 250,000 enlisted well in advance of 9/11 for economic or educational reasons, not with an eye to international deployment. For more than a few, the idea of a Global War on Terror lacks personal resonance, even though many are quite prepared to serve their country. Some who were initially skeptical about U.S. involvement, particularly in Iraq, became more persuaded having seen first-hand the living conditions of ordinary civilians.* The tradition of keeping military service divorced from politics continues largely intact. However, many of those interviewed articulate strong views " privately, and, to an increasing extent, publicly -- about the conflicts in which they are engaged. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan enjoys strong support among the "boots on the ground," but many express misgivings about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Veteran's organizations are playing an increasingly active and visible role in the political sphere.* The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking a heavy physical and psychological toll on those fighting them. Soldiers deployed to those theaters experience considerable difficulty in adapting to the unfamiliar, in coping with the danger and insecurity involved, and in sorting out the ethical issues of soldiering in complex political settings. Providing the necessary support services to returning veterans poses more of a challenge in the case of citizen-soldiers, who disperse quickly to their home communities and occupations, unlike active-duty military personnel, who congregate on or near military bases and continue their military duties.* Administration officials acknowledge the substantial contribution of citizen-soldiers, particularly as enlistments into the active-duty military ebb. Given the searing experience of many Guard personnel in the Global War on Terror, however, the report questions whether administration plans to use civilian-soldiers to recruit personnel into the active-duty military are likely to succeed.
The report is based on a year's research by Larry Minear, former director of the Feinstein's International Center's Humanitarianism and War Project. The 90-page study, available electronically upon request and in a limited number of printed copies from the Center, is part of a multi-year research undertaking, Humanitarian Agenda 2015: Principles, Power, and Perceptions. Other studies in that series and other work at the Center also give special prominence to the views of participants in crises, be they local populations, aid workers, military personnel, or other international interveners.
The Feinstein International Center strives to improve the lives and livelihoods of communities caught up in complex emergencies, war, and other crises. Established in 1996 as part of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, the Center carries out field-based research in complex emergency environments. These include Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Sri-Lanka, and many other areas affected by humanitarian crises.
RSS