Major Banzet, don't insult the reserves

Being a retired military officer myself, I was interested in reading the reasoning behind Maj. Banzet’s “quitting” the military, as chronicled in the Sunday, Nov. 7, Inter Lake. However, some of his vague references made it difficult to understand who he was maligning.

Certainly, his reference to the “commander-in-chief who loathe[s] the military, while using ROTC deferments and special treatment to avoid military service that the less ‘connected’ take as a responsibility,” must be about George W. Bush, who, in spite of his preferential appointment into the National Guard, nevertheless went AWOL for a year during Vietnam.

It was that statement by Mr. Banzet that caused him to lose all credibility with me, not because of his bad-mouthing poor ex-president Bush, but because of his derogatory reference to the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps. For the information of the readers, ROTC is a program where college students take military science classes during the school year and participate in at least one “summer camp,” which is the equivalent of basic training. Upon graduation from college, and the successful completion of the ROTC program, graduates are commissioned as second lieutenants, or ensigns, as the case might be. All ROTC graduates incur an obligation to serve in the military, which obligation can be fulfilled through either active duty or reserve service.

It is apparent that Mr. Banzet knows nothing of the draft deferment policies in effect during the Vietnam era, when the draft was last implemented. At the time of the Vietnam War “student deferments” were automatically granted to anyone going on to college, and who remained actively working toward a degree. Student deferments were later abolished when the draft lottery number system was introduced. ROTC was never a means of “avoiding military service,” and, being a Vietnam-era ROTC graduate myself, I am deeply offended by being placed in the same category as those who shirked their military duty. All ROTC graduates, who make up 56 percent of the active Army officer corps and 39 percent of the overall U.S. military officer corps, should be likewise offended.

Regarding Mr. Banzet’s innuendos as to which political party is most supportive of the military and veterans, I suggest readers examine the history of legislation that would change the law pertaining to “concurrent receipt.” As that law now stands, military retirees’ pensions are reduced, dollar-for-dollar, by the amount of any service-connected disability compensation they receive, if their disability is rated at less than 50 percent. In other words, such retired veterans are paying for their own disability compensation out of the military retirement pension they earned through their service. A measure to repeal the law was included in President Obama’s 2011 defense budget, but Senate Republicans refused to approve it last July.

President Obama has a long history in the Senate of supporting legislation that would eliminate pension reductions for disability received. Sens. Kerry, Reid and Boxer, and Rep. Pelosi, have likewise been strong supporters of such a change. In fact, many more Democrats than Republicans have supported such measures over the years of the Bush administration, which consistently opposed the legislation.

Obviously, most Republicans consider the proposed legislation to be too costly because it might mean a tax increase for the super-rich, who, God forbid, should ever be called upon to “subsidize the lifestyles” of disabled veterans, or oppose it just because it’s another piece of socialistic “entitlement” legislation, which, of course, cannot be tolerated. Don’t take my word for this. Google “concurrent receipt,” or get on vawatchdog.org, or the Military Officers Association of America, or the American Legion websites for objective, non-partisan takes on just which party supports veterans and which does not.

While I respect Mr. Banzet for his service, the excuse he uses for his retirement is totally unjustifiable. Were he to have resigned when Bush was president it would have been more understandable, given the fraud perpetrated on the United States to wage war on Iraq. However, it is apparent that Mr. Banzet is basing his retirement decision on the lies of commentators such as Limbaugh, Beck, and the Fox Propaganda Network. It’s very sad to see that seemingly fine military officers are being duped by radical right-wing propagandists into believing that they should retire/resign, apparently in protest of the current political climate.

While such drastic action, were it to be taken by a substantial number of officers, might further Limbaugh’s desire to see the Obama presidency “fail,” and thus the United States itself “fail,” it certainly cannot be objectively considered to be in the best interests of our military or our country.

Weed is a resident of Kalispell.