Commentary

Ed. Note: The full text of the Resolution is on the Letters to the Editor page

I would like to address Stephanie Bryan's comments in last weeks Opinion column concerning the National Guard Resolution put forth by Penny Hilton. Ms. Bryan said she would rather resign then sign the Letter of Resolution because it's disrespectful to all who serve in the military. She believes that it's insulting for an ordinary citizen to have the audacity to participate in policy decisions concerning the use of its citizen soldiers.

However, I think Ms. Bryan mistakes legitimate criticism of our government's policies and the democratic process by which to try and affect them as also being critical of the men and women whose job it is to carry out such policies. Being critical of the civilian government's treatment of the National Guard should not be construed as a criticism of the men and women serving in the Guard.

In fact, the Resolution is intended to help those in the Guard by addressing many of the concerns that they've expressed. Concerns such as the lack of body armor and armor plating for vehicles, extended and repeated deployments, and adequate funding for the needs and benefits promised to the guard and their families.

The Guard and Reserve make up almost half of all Army troops serving in the theaters of operations overseas and they've performed brilliantly. Consequently, because of the military's heavy reliance on the guard, these citizen soldiers and their families have experienced much stress and have endured immense hardship.

Recently, Senator Susan Collins and Brig. Gen. John Libby (Maine's highest-ranking National Guard official), in separate interviews in the Bangor and Portland Newspapers, warned that repeated and extended deployments are causing a "heavy strain" on the Guard. They both conclude that the Defense Department must do a better job organizing so as to reduce the number of repeat deployments. It also is interesting to note that there are over 40 bills pending in congress that try to address some of these same issues requested by the Letter of Resolution.

Good arguments could be made on both sides as to whether this resolution is within the purview of the Select Committee and whether it's an issue for the Town. Nevertheless, this could be a fine opportunity for our senators and representatives to hear from their constituents. Living in a Democratic Republic doesn't mean that we cast our votes every couple of years in the elections, then become completely detached from the process. The resolution is non-binding.

It's a way for citizens to have their voices heard--one way or the other. At Town Meeting, I look forward to listening to a respectful and insightful discussion of the resolution.

Sincerely,
Mark Bowie
232 Rowe Station Rd.
New Gloucester, ME