A certain segment of the population is always talking about "supporting our troops" and I'm often baffled by what they mean by that. At times, it seems to mean not suggesting their leaders are fallible or that the war is not being fought properly or even not challenging incumbents.
I would think that "supporting our troops" meant — at an absolute minimum — making certain that they have the best possible equipment…to, you know, kinda minimize as much as possible the chance of them being killed. I would also think it would involve paying them a good wage and guaranteeing them the best possible medical care, both during and after their military service.
I would also think it would include doing something about predatory lenders. As recounted in this article, a lot of soldiers are simultaneously trying to serve while struggling with personal debt…and there are people out there who are exploiting this dire situation. It also, of course, suggests that while we might honor the soldiers' service and pray for their speedy and safe return, we sure ain't paying them enough.
One of the reasons this is a problem for our soldiers is that last year, in what many claimed was a bill bought and paid for by the credit card industry, our federal lawmakers made it much more difficult to declare personal bankruptcy. There was an amendment offered to that bill by Illinois Senator Dick Durbin to exempt our servicemen and servicewomen from that vulnerability, at least while they were fighting overseas. The amendment was soundly defeated. Someone ought to ask the senators who voted that way if they think "supporting our troops" includes forcing many of them into the hands of loan sharks.