Bipartisan Presidential Debate at Fort Hood, TX

As much as individual presidential candidates want to talk about their health care plans or "outstanding" personal values, the fact remains that we are electing a WAR PRESIDENT. We are electing a president who will probably spend the bulk of his or her first term managing military conflicts and performing extensive foreign policy damage control. In fact, in 2008, the next President will inherit at least two wars and the costs of those wars, internally as well as internationally, will continue long after the last service member comes home.

As a result, Military Spouses for Change is inviting ALL the candidates to Fort Hood, Texas (Killeen), on February 1st, to talk EXCLUSIVELY about the U.S. military, veterans affairs, foreign policy, and America's wounded warriors (from ALL conflicts, including Vietnam).

Fort Hood is the largest military installation in the United States. There are almost 46,000 soldiers assigned to Fort Hood and more than 24,000 spouses. On any given day, almost a third of these soldiers are deployed to Iraq and every week at least two soldiers from Fort Hood (on average) are killed in Iraq. (I am 34 and I know more widows than my mother.)

This kind of event has never been done before and it needs to be done now. Not only because Americans on both side of the aisle need to be reminded (before Super Tuesday) that we are selecting the next Commander-in-Chief, but also because our service members and their families deserve to be addressed and heard by the people who wish to be selected for that position.

Not to mention, we also think this country’s large veteran community should know which candidates REALLY value the military and veteran votes (which all the candidates should care about, if not for moral reasons, then for practical reasons). There are approximately 1.4 million active duty service members in America and 1.2 million in the National Guard/Reserves. If you include the spouses, they come to a total of 4.1 million votes.

Meanwhile, according to the Census Bureau, 1 in 8 adults were veterans (26.4 million) in 2003. If we assume that at least half of those adults are married, then we have approximately 39 million vet couples giving us a total of almost 43 million American adults who are currently serving in the military, had served in the military, or are married to someone serving or who had served. That is not an insignificant number.

As an organization and as military spouses, clearly U.S. foreign policy is important to us. But the American public has an interest as well, not only for fiscal reasons (we have spent 447 billion dollars on the war in Iraq to date), but for national security reasons.

And what about the depletion of our states' national guard and reserve units. How are we going to replenish those units so that individual states can respond to natural disasters or, heaven forbid, another 9/11?

So far 1.5 million service members have been deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. What are the candidates positions on the possibility of reinstating the draft if, for example, we become engaged with Iran before he or she enters office?

Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense has reported more than 64,000 wounded and 4,000 killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The Department of Veterans Affairs, however, has reported treating 250,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, including 95,000 for mental health conditions.

Meanwhile, an estimated 700,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are expected to seek care from the VA within the next ten years, at a projected cost (by the CBO and CRS) of 7 to 9 BILLION dollars.

The suicide rate is the highest in almost 30 years and the propensity to serve is at a 20 year low. Consequently, the Army and Marine Corps are relying on reenlistment and recruiting bonuses that will cost nearly 2.5 billion dollars next year.

Iraq is the defining electoral issue of 2008. Nothing can be done domestically until we have settled our foreign affairs in such a way that does not require a large military presence in hostile countries.

Yet because Texas is not an early primary state, it does not warrant the attention of the Presidential candidates. Nonetheless, we cannot imagine an event more powerful than these candidates answering questions posed to them by the very people whose service and sacrifice allow forums such as these to exist.

Shouldn't we ascertain which candidates are the most qualified (from both parties) to lead our nation and our military prior to Super Tuesday? And shouldn't this be done in front of an audience of service members, veterans, wounded warriors, advocates, and their families?



* MSC is a non-profit, non-partisan organization created to educate military spouses about the political process and its impact on their lives (and the lives of those they love). Recently, MSC was in an article in the Military Times: Link.