While eschewing Scott’s obligatory Evil Warmongering Cowardly Dubya rhetoric, I have to agree with him that it’s disgusting that the National Guard would go ahead and deploy troops overseas to Iraq who tested positive for drug use, despite the Army’s “zero tolerance” policy. I certainly can’t support illegal drug use, but a policy touted with such moral righteousness during peacetime in order to winnow out the unfit and scofflaws shouldn’t hardly be set aside in wartime.
And in response to the idea that at least some of these guys were doing drugs in order to avoid deployment — well, screw ’em. Forget about the dishonorable discharge — throw in some serious brig time for both drug use and dereliction of duty in wartime, and show that it’s not behavior that’s “rewarded.”
The Guard’s actions here comes across as highly cynical — especially as there are plans to prosecute the offenders after they return from Iraq. The cynicism can only be increased by statements like this, from a Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, spokesperson:
A positive on their drug test is not going to keep them here, unless there’s a dependency issue. These units have to have so many people to go overseas.
If it makes ’em unfit in peacetime, it makes ’em unfit in wartime, quotas or not. And if it doesn’t, then change the policy, and don’t file charges after they’ve done their service.
Sing it, Brother Dave!
Amen, Brother Scott.
Our Guard unit bounced folks out that tested positive for drug abuse. We also helped those with “legal” addictions (alcohol) or moved them where they could not do any harm (we were a tank unit…you don’t want a drunk on a tank!).
Alas, if this is true, it appears some units have not improved since the late 70’s and early 80’s, when this was a bigger problem with the units.
What a shame.