In fact, this topic asks a question, it doesn't make a statement.

You certainly know what my opinion is, but let's not accuse me of stating something I asked.

I do believe McCain does not support the troops in any area where it might cost money. Otherwise, he's right there with the visits and the publicity. However, when he votes against bills which improve medical treatment for vets, or make them easier to get, or when he votes against spending money to help returning vets receive or continue their education, I cannot find it in my heart to say that he is supporting the troops.

He may support them morally, and pat them on the back, and pray for them, and talk nice about them, but when it comes to doing something for them, rather than merely thinking they are brave and their mission is just, he fails.

Well, Dax, I am afraid I must respectfully disagree. However, I do not see any point in further discussion of the topic because I do not believe you are actually interested in the truth but rather interested only in supporting your partisan political agenda. I will conclude my involvement in this thread by pointing out that a failure to think sharply increased funding is necessary DOES NOT equate to failing to support the troops.

It sure as hell doesn't help 'em much though, does it?

McCain's stand on the GI Bill could be very costly for his presidential ambitions. First of all he did not bother to show up and vote on the bill. Is that how much importance he assigns to the bill? Then there is his strange proposal that only soldiers who serve for 6 or 12 years should get benefits from a GI Bill.

Let's do a little math:
If a soldier joins the service in his early twenties he will be thirty or even 35 before he can go to college! He or she will get a degree in 4 years. Try to get a job when you are moving in the direction of 40! If McCain continues his thoughtless proposals he will be dead on arrival when the November election rolls around.

Nonsense, CG. Most Soldiers join when they are 18 or 19 and not in their early 20's. If a service members waits until after he is in his early 20's (lets say 23) one wonders what he was doing in the 5 year period he was out of high school...

You, and to a lesser extent Dax, are ompletely loosing sight of what the GI Bill was and is and ought to be. When first created, it was intended to allow WWII veterans to go to school and get jobs in the new economy created by the technological developments and business expansion of the war. Most of those who took advantage of it were in fact pushing 30...of course, CG, I suspect you have no problem with that. The GI Bill continued largely thorugh Congressional inertia and transformed into a recruiting tool. It was intended to serve as a draw for high school graduates who could not otherwise afford to put themselves through college. It has been that since the end of the Korean War era. It was revamped after Vietnam and became the GI Bill we had until recently.

The DoD has valid concerns about the GI Bill, concerns that do not reflect a lack of concern for individual Soldiers but rather a concern for the structure of our military. The DoD must walk a fine line between enlistment incentives attractive enough to motivate young people to join the services and those so attractive they drive service members to actually leave the service for civilian life. The new GI Bill goes too far in that direction. It is attractive enough to lure current service members out of the services and into the civilian world at exactly the time they are desperately needed in the services. Moreover, the personnel it is luring out of the service are EXACTLY the critical personnel most desperately needed by the military, midgrade NCO's with 6-10 years in service. Those personnel represent an enormous investment in training resources and effort. They are typically squad leaders or middle level managers, the personnel who do the bulk of the work in the services and represent the institutional expertise and memory of the military. A desire to retain those people does not reflect a lack of concern for Soldiers. It reflects a real concern for the military as an institution.

Implicit in the arguement you and Dax present is the underlying suggest that somehow military service is not worthwhile or rewarding and people should be moved out of the military as soon as possible. Frankly, I see the same foolish liberal elitism that motivates so many on the political left to look down their noses at service members as low browed knuckle draggers at work here. What I do not see expressed by you or Dax (despite his own military experience) is any depth of understanding of our modern military and its force structure and shaping needs.

Just a little more math, if you will:
If a soldier enlists @18 and stays in the Service for 6-12 years, it is probable that he will deploy to Iraq at least 6 times. The odds are against the soldier. If a soldier enlists for three years, he will probably only deploy to Iraq 1 time, considering time spent in basic training and Advanced Individual Training. Soldier #2 actually stands a better chance of actually surviving and attending college.

And what would those "odds" refer to? The odds are against him or her actually deciding to further their education? The odds are against them deciding to leave the military, but rather go onput in their 20 and retire?

Odds are better for the soldier to further his education through McCain's strange proposal IF he chooses to serve only a 3 year term.

McCain will be hurting this November with the scarlet letter "R"!

The original GI Bill or Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 was, indeed, much different from today's GI Bill. Not only did it provide money for education, it also provided money for low-interest home/business loans. It was designed to forestall another depression.

Back then, and for decades afterwards, the Military was under the draft system, so the GI Bill at the time could be thought of as a thank-you to troops who were forced to spend time in the Army.

Now we have an all-volunteer Army and the GI Bill has changed drastically. Now a soldier has to pay into it, for example. Also, because there is no longer a draft, more high school grads are enlisting. (With the draft, a lot of the soldiers forced into Government Issue during peacetime had already received their educations and had been able to defer their mandatory service until after they'd graduated from college.)

So the GI Bill became an enlistment inducement. At the same time, the skills required from a soldier became more and more high tech and a soldier's training became more and more expensive.

Many of those skills can be transferred to the civilian millieu with little adjustment and no further education. How many enlisted soldiers enlist for the educational benefits of the GI Bill and how many enlist for the training they'll receive?

I'd be very surprised if higher educational opportunities are, in fact, an enlisting inducement. In that respect, I agree that an increase in such funding may not be necessary or even desireable.

Under this GI bill, vets of Iraq and Afghanistan will be able to afford only state university educations, which is most states is neither a "good education" nor a passport to good jobs.

Bush's veto does not bother me that much. He will probably veto his own signature these days. But McCain did not even show up to vote on his OWN bill. Where exactly are his priorities these days? Not with the troops.