Because the President and his political cronies dislike another countries Politics, Religion, Trading policies or Habbits. Instead of sending our young guys to certain deaths under the Guise of Defending this country, He and his cronies and all the Generals and War Lord Industrialists should be forced to lead the Troops into the battle. ie Leading by example. If this was the Tradition and the Law for sure Diplomats would solve all problems and there wouldnt be any Wars or Guys getting killed for false reasons.
I think you're letting your desire to defend Bush blind you. For one, I don't want to pay taxes, either. That's why I voted for GWB. I think taxes should be as low as possible and truly believe that supply side economics works when we let it work. Like the stated aim of the Republicans, I'm for a smaller, leaner government that keeps out of our business as much as possible. Of course, this administration is not doing that. They are spending more money to fully staff a bureaucracy that hasn't been fully staffed in some time. They are supporting cracking down on making boys register for selective service and spending extra money to do it. AND they may well decide to activate said draft and, in an extremely socialist manner, decide what these boys get to do with their young lives (and maybe the rest of their lives. At least some of the drafted will be killed in any action), something that conservatives abhorr. They spit on the very free market foundations that they claim time and time again that they espouse. This administration is not conservative. If they are even THINKING of ever reinstating the draft, they forfeit their right to call themselves conservatives or Republicans. A true conservative would find a free market solution to the problem. And to take established medical personnel away from their jobs, lives, etc. and force them to go overseas and participate in actions against their will? Why'd we fight the Cold War if we're just going to become Communists on our own? That is not a free market solution. That's about as socialist as one can get. See, this is the problem with the Right. We claim to be conservative and Republican and for free markets and all that, then we get into office and we start proposing socialist and communist policies. If this President were a true conservative, he would insist these offices be dismantled instead of spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money upgrading them and giving jobs to people to serve on these draft boards and appeal boards instead of making them make thier way in the free market. If these folks aren't supposed to do anything (they say there's not going to be a draft) then these are nothing but political crony jobs that aren't even expected to do any work. Certainly not the small government guy I voted for. If this President were a true conservative, he'd insist that a free market solution be found to combat whatever deficiencies there are in military recruitment instead of proposing continuation and possible activation of Soviet-style conscription. Secondly, obeying traffic laws and not committing assault would technically be keeping you from doing things you want to do rather than forcing you to do something you didn't want to do. But either way, it's hardly the same as requiring kids to go overseas and die when they don't want to be in the military at all. As a matter of fact, there are quite a few military people who believe a conscript army results in more soldier deaths than a volunteer army. So, a draft potentially costs lives. Personally, I'm surprised at people like you. You denouce the left, but you can't see your way to denouce the actions of this President when he goes against the very principles that would make him a Republican? GWB was my President. I voted for him. I've never voted for anyone but Republicans. Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp are my political heroes. But these actions aren't the actions of a conservative. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to see from someone from the left. So, as Republicans, we should call him out on it because it's an area where the President ISN'T standing true to the principles of the Party and of the Conservative Movement. Letting him get away with it just means the left has won.
why don't you go enlist then so you can "pay the price"? also, isn't it about time women were forced to sign up for selective service? shouldn't they have to "contribute" to our society as much as men?
Wow!!!!! Outstanding post, Mr. Paige. I've been saying for months that GWB is a bigger friend of the liberals than they'll ever know and yet, they hate him with a viciousness I find hilarious. I didn't vote for him in 2000 and I won't vote him in 2004 for that very reason. He's no more a conservative than Krugmann is! I've been mad at him about a lot of things such as: 1. the Patriot Act 2. building that huge Homeland Security Dept. bureacracy, 3. federalizing baggage screeners 4. suggesting that we give amnesty to illegal aliens 5. not vetoing bloated budgets filled with pork and waste 6. signing that awful education bill written by Sen. Ted "Drunken Master" Kennedy 7. engaging in protectionistic policies 8. not taking the case for judicial nominees to the American people and letting the Dems walk all over him with some b.s. technicality. 9. Blowing money on wasteful defense programs (Clinton was a dumbass advocate of it as well) like the Osprey tilt-rotor, on which we've spent billions and it still doesn't work while Marines fly in helos that have been around since VIETNAM!!!!! 10. Refusing to allow Rumsfeld to totally remake our defense forces in a more lean, modern direction rather than the Cold-War style formations we are locked into (such as the Army division, fighter wing, etc.) I also do not support the draft in any way, shape or form. It would destroy the now invincible espirit de corps and professionalism of our modern, volunteer force. We don't want to go back to the bad old days in the 70's under Carter described by my gunnies when I first joined the Corps, when walking into one's own barracks was dangerous. The military would be full of people who didn't want to be there and while it would increase the quantity of our troops, it would seriously degrade the quality of our forces.
Then why not fight the foundation of the selective service? If that's your objection, why does it take Bush reducing the readiness time to get this babbling?
I've done 5 years active duty, plus my name remains on the IRR, and will continue to renew until I hit 65. What have you done?
i signed up for selective service and i pay my taxes. even if i wanted to enlist the military doesn't want me. Although the Pentagon does issue those stop-loss orders during war time. I guess they feel it's OK for gays & lesbians to die on the battlefield so fewer straight boys and girls will have to. And I suppose troop morale and privacy in the showers doesn't matter when there's a war to win. were those 5 years you served during war time? since you believe so strongly in this mission why not re-enlist?
You signed up for selective service so you could qualify for financial aid. You can enlist in the military anytime you want. There were well known gays in my units, and as long as they kept their hands an d@cks inside their pockets, noone had problems with them. Do your job and you will fit in. Yes, they were during the Gulf War. And where did I say I believe in this mission?
my mistake. i thought you had said so. I apologize for that. http://www.gaymilitary.ucsb.edu/PressCenter/press_rel13.htm
And Clinton came out with the don't ask don't tell. But if the military is not for you, then so be it. Since you gave the objection, I was just answering it for you : )
mrpaige - though I don't necessarily agree with all you said, that was a very well reasoned and written post. Milton Friedman would be proud (I figure that's probably the highest compliment I could pay you!)
I find it odd that the conservatives who are finally realizing that Bush is a corrupt, tax and spend, big government, war mongering fool (what we have been saying since day one) are now trying to pin Liberal button on him -- strange indeed. As GV stated earlier if indeed this administration is trying to ramp up the selective services our country will have more preemptive wars to look forward to in the future. Unless we vote this administration out of office.
New article related to the topic... ______________ Army Reserve battles an exodus Branch misses its retention goal by 6.7 percent By Robert Schlesinger The Boston Globe WASHINGTON | The U.S. Army Reserve fell short of its re-enlistment goals this fiscal year, underscoring Pentagon fears that the protracted conflict in Iraq could cause a crippling exodus from the armed services. The Army Reserve has missed its retention goal by 6.7 percent, the second shortfall since fiscal 1997. It was largely the result of a larger than expected exodus of career reservists, a loss of valuable skills because such staff members are responsible for training junior officers and operating complex weapons systems. ‘‘The Army has invested an enormous amount of money in training these people, and they’re very hard to replace,’’ said John Pike of globalsecurity.org, an independent research group in Washington, D.C. With extended deployments and increasingly deadly attacks by Iraqi guerrillas, Defense Department officials are scrambling to combat a broader downturn in retention and recruitment that they fear is on the horizon. The U.S. Army, the primary service deployed in Iraq, is offering re-enlistment bonuses of $5,000 for soldiers serving there. The Army National Guard is extending an official thank-you to members by arranging services to honor returning soldiers. The Massachusetts National Guard is offering rewards ranging from plaques to NASCAR tickets to members who lure recruits. And throughout the branches, recruitment advertising is up and programs are being launched to make the military seem more family-friendly. The Army also is resorting to a policy called ‘‘stop loss’’ that allows the Pentagon to indefinitely keep soldiers from leaving the service once their time has expired. The policy, used during war, is designed to prevent staffing shortfalls in key sectors. As the military ponders unpalatable measures — further Reserve or Guard call-ups, back-to-back tours of duty — to fill the global obligations, any personnel shortfalls could prove disastrous. ‘‘It’s a slippery slope in the sense that there’s kind of a snowball effect,’’ said Andrew F. Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C., think tank that focuses on defense issues. ‘‘It’s very difficult to work your way out of, very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again once you break the force.’’ While Pentagon officials have insisted that recruiting and retention figures are mostly at or above expected levels, thanks in part to a soft economy that offers little competition, signs of trouble are emerging. Recruiting for the Massachusetts National Guard, a backup to the professional Army and Air Force, was down 30 percent this year. Nationwide, the Army National Guard has fallen 13 percent short of its recruiting goal, although that deficit was offset by fewer than expected troops leaving the service. Sgt. Maj. James Vales, senior Army counselor in charge of overseeing active-duty retention policy, said his shop of 740 career counselors has been answering concerns from members of Congress and Army leaders about trying to prevent a talent drain. ‘‘We have some things in the works to kind of offset any problems that we may see in retention,’’ Vales said, citing options ranging from family-friendly policies like support groups and child care to his most important tool: cash. ‘‘Most of (the effort) is increasing our retention bonus dollars. . . . The biggest thing soldiers respond to is monetary incentives.’’ It was the second time in the past seven years that the Reserve has fallen below its intended reenlistment figure, according to Steve Stromvall, an Army Reserve spokesman. In the 12 months that concluded at the end of September 2001, the Reserves was 1 percent short of its number. That the shortfall was entirely among career soldiers is important because they are considered the Army’s backbone. ‘‘They’re critically important,’’ said Cindy Williams, a specialist on military personnel issues with MIT’s Security Studies Program. ‘‘That’s where the leadership is going to come from in the next decade.’’ They are people like Staff Sergeant Scott Durst, a 15-year veteran of the Army Reserve who extended his enlistment after a tour in Bosnia but will not sign on for another tour after Iraq, though it will means he loses the opportunity for retirement benefits. ‘‘Not even a chance, no,’’ said his wife Nancy Durst, a high school art teacher. ‘‘He didn’t sign up to be a Reserve to be doing active-duty orders every year.’’ She added that her husband, a member of the 94th Military Police Company, has spent too much time away from their home in southern Maine and their two teenage daughters. ‘‘I fear there will be a negative impact on retention of these Guard and Reserve personnel,’’ said Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine who sits on the personnel subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ‘‘There’s an old saying in the Army that they enlist the soldier but reenlist the family, and the new one-year ‘boots on the ground’ policy for service in Iraq has really upset a lot of the families with whom I’ve talked.’’ According to internal Pentagon surveys conducted last spring and summer, the overall percentage of troops intending to reenlist remained steady from last year, at 58 percent. But among those serving in Iraq, only 54 percent who were surveyed agreed, while 46 percent said they did not want to reenlist. Michael O’Hanlon, a defense specialist at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, called the figures ‘‘at the threshold of tolerable. In and of themselves they’re not catastrophic, but the problem is they could get worse because as people increasingly confirm the reality of returning to Iraq another time these numbers can be expected to drop further. If you wait too long to address the trends, then it’s too late.’’ In 2003, the Army’s retention goal was 67 percent. Like the recruiting shortfall in the Guard, the Reserve’s 2003 retention figure, which was off by slightly less than 100 soldiers, was offset by stronger than expected recruiting. The Army, which oversees the bulk of troops in Iraq, is not the only branch of the armed services facing hardships in recruitment and retention because of the Iraq war. Air Force Major Joe Allegretti, chief of the Defense Department’s Joint Recruiting Advertising Program, cited a poll of youths conducted from April through June in which half said the war in Iraq made them less likely to join the military, and only one-third said it made them more likely to join. Reserve and Guard leaders are working to improve relations with stateside families by setting up support networks, including ‘‘marriage enhancement seminars’’ run through the Army Reserve’s chaplaincy and designed to address such issues as long separations during deployments. Guard leaders also have sent teams into Iraq to work on the problem. Several soldiers spread between Iraq and Kuwait try to act as trouble-shooters for unhappy Guard members, checking back twice weekly with Guard headquarters in the United States, said Colonel Frank Grass, the Guard’s chief of operations. And thanks to ‘‘stop loss,’’ members of the Guard and Reserve cannot leave the military until 90 days after they have been deactivated.
I don't think voting them out of office is going to help since the Bushies screwed the pooch in Iraq and this prevents us from committing enough to secure Afghanistan. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...2dec02,1,4053226.story?coll=la-home-headlines Perils Menace Afghan Election A presidential vote set for June may be delayed as attacks and threats by Taliban and Al Qaeda rebels leave large parts of the nation unsafe. By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON — Security in large areas of Afghanistan has so deteriorated that U.S. and U.N. officials fear that plans to hold presidential elections in June may be in jeopardy. In an apparent strategy to obstruct the political process that is key to democratizing Afghanistan, Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents have been killing and threatening not only Westerners but also Afghans who "collaborate" with them. Some of the tactics echo the intimidation being practiced by insurgents in Iraq. Taliban forces have, for example, left leaflets threatening to cut off the nose of anyone who participates in Afghanistan's constitutional assembly, or loya jirga, this month. Under the Bonn agreement brokered after the Taliban was ousted in late 2001 by a U.S.-led invasion, the United Nations is in charge of reshaping Afghanistan politically, including supervising the constitutional process and registering voters. But violence has worsened dramatically in the last six months. A U.N. refugee worker was killed last month, bringing the number of aid workers slain since March to at least 13. At least five of Afghanistan's 32 provinces are virtually off-limits to foreigners, aid workers said. U.N., U.S. and other Western officials fear that unless voters in rural areas can participate in the presidential election, the resulting government will not be seen as legitimate. Many of the most dangerous areas are inhabited by the nation's largest ethnic group, the Pushtuns, many of whom feel underrepresented in President Hamid Karzai's interim government. The inability of aid workers to operate safely in those areas thwarts efforts to provide relief and reconstruction to their communities, deepening the cycle of Pushtun alienation. "If they can't go out and do voter registration ... and then the elections aren't free and fair, then the Taliban wins," one U.S. official said. "They are trying to make the central government look illegitimate, and what better way to do that than de-legitimize the loya jirga and the elections." On Monday, only 100 of 330 delegates showed up at a preliminary session leading up to the loya jirga, which convenes Dec. 10. Western diplomatic sources said the poor turnout could be the result of logistical problems but feared it also might suggest Taliban intimidation. That would bode ill for the crucial effort to register voters for the presidential election. Other American and U.N. officials expressed confidence that the full loya jirga, which was postponed earlier this fall because of security threats, would begin next week as scheduled. They said voter registration and presidential elections could take place as planned if additional security measures were put in place quickly. "There is a real threat to having credible elections," a senior U.S. official said, but added: "It is not insurmountable.... With some changes, and with due respect for the threat ... we think we can still pull this off." But analysts said the security situation was so bad that the elections might be postponed. "Presidential elections are seen as likely to slip several months because of the security situation and because of the difficulty in getting people registered," said Mark Schneider, an International Crisis Group official who testified in November before the House International Relations Committee about the urgency of improving security in Afghanistan. Voter registration is "a major problem," Schneider said, as is the ability to provide enough security "so people can actually go to rallies, as opposed to being afraid they'll get killed if they go to rallies." Some analysts argue that the timetable for elections in the war-shattered country is unrealistic. "The United States and its collaborators have tended to underestimate the amount of time it takes to get free and fair elections in a country that has never had such a thing," said former U.S. ambassador and election observer William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Assn. of the USA in New York. "The timetable was too tight." More than 10,000 U.S. troops are battling Taliban remnants in Afghanistan, and a 5,700-member multinational peacekeeping force under NATO command operates in the capital. The U.N. Security Council has authorized expanding the force outside Kabul to the troubled provinces, but so far there have been few offers of fresh troops or equipment. The U.S. is training a new Afghan army, at a cost of $475 million, but the desertion rate has been high. Far larger security forces were on hand to guarantee the safety of voters in postwar elections in both Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina, Luers noted. He said he thought it "unlikely" that enough progress could be made to hold elections by June. Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, said the security problem had been allowed to fester for more than a year, making the current task more difficult. "The election in Afghanistan is supposed to be a benchmark of success for the Bush administration, but not only for the Bush administration," Rubin said. "If they go ahead and hold the election even when they can't have voter registration in major Pushtun areas, then that would definitely undermine the legitimacy of the new government." U.S. forces' efforts to hunt down the Taliban have offended some Pushtuns and harmed civilians, creating more support for the insurgents. "The window of opportunity to get it right before all the Pushtuns turn against us is closing rapidly," the U.S. official said. Karzai is pushing to hold elections in June despite an internal government report that warned quick elections could backfire by leaving many voters feeling excluded. He is reportedly determined not to repeat his nation's history of interim presidents who clung to power. "We are definitely, certainly targeting June as the date for elections," Karzai said last month. "If with all our hard work ... we don't reach the target, then there may be a legitimate reason to hold elections in July or August." But, he said, "The aim is June." The U.N. announced Monday that it was beginning voter registration in eight urban areas, despite the security vacuum that forced the world body to suspend work in rural areas after its employee was slain last month. Registration is to begin in cities where workers signing people up for the voter rolls will not be in danger, U.N. spokesman David Singh said in a phone interview from Kabul last week. As security allows, the efforts will expand to other areas, he said. "The rural population are not going to be left out of the process," Singh said, adding that there was plenty of evidence of Afghans turning out for political events despite the Taliban's efforts at intimidation. "Afghans are tired of war, they're tired of living on the edge of the precipice," he said. "They are tired of being bullied. And they want another life." Singh said he was confident that legitimate elections could be held if all the contemplated security measures were put in place. The U.N. will make every effort to fulfill the Bonn agreement, he said, but he warned that "if specific direct attacks hinder the activities of aid workers, then we have every right to reassess our operations." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell are expected to discuss how to expand the NATO peacekeeping force in separate meetings in Brussels this week. Within the next month, the U.S. and its allies also plan to expand to eight the number of provincial reconstruction teams, joint military-civilian teams that provide security and tackle relief efforts in the provinces. Currently, there are six: three operated by the U.S. and one each run by Germany, Britain and New Zealand. Five more teams of 50 to 60 people each are planned for the dangerous areas in the south.
It would be truly sad if after removing the Taliban from Afghanistan and having such a good start toward a legitimate democracy there, the elections couldn't go forward because the ball was dropped. When it comes to foreign invasions I would rather do one job right, than to do two jobs poorly.
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGASAGNX2PD.html Army Expanding 'stop Loss' Order to Keep Soldiers From Leaving the Service By Robert Burns The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Army is preparing to inform soldiers due to return from Iraq and Afghanistan over the next several months that they will not be allowed to retire or otherwise leave the service for 90 days after they return to their home base, defense officials said Monday. The order, known as "stop loss," is a personnel management tool whose use reflects the difficulty the Army is having in keeping enough soldiers available to meet the Army's worldwide commitments. Prior to the war in Iraq, "stop loss" authority had rarely been used; it is seen by many as being in conflict with the principle of an all-volunteer military in which enlisted personnel sign contracts for a specific period of service. It was first used in the 1991 Gulf War. The Army has not officially announced the order, although Lt. Gen. Dennis Cavin, commander of Army Accessions Command, told CNN last Friday that a new "stop loss" order was under consideration. Defense officials discussed some details of the new order Monday on condition of anonymity. It is an expansion of a "stop loss" order imposed last November on the tens of thousands of soldiers who are scheduled to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan this year. They were told they may not leave the service during their one-year deployment abroad or for 90 days after they return. <snip> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even more proof of the Draft's imminate return... Between this and the Hawks pushing for wars against Iran and Syria and North Korea.. we're gonna have to have a draft...
Funny thing is, most of those guys would still vote for Bush. It's the reservists that look like they will abandon Bush. But we won't know for sure until November.
--------------------------------------------------------------- By Brent Hallenbeck Free Press Staff Writer JAY -- Army Spc. Solomon "Kelly" Bangayan was about to board a bus that would take him to Boston, where a flight would lead him back to the war in Iraq. He had been home in Vermont for two weeks before Thanksgiving. The normally quiet young man was more silent than usual as he parted from his mother and stepfather. When he spoke, he spoke the words of a soldier whose trademark courage made room for fear. "He said it was very, very dangerous. Tears came down his face and he said, 'I may not come back,'" Bangayan's stepfather, Victor Therrien, recalled Monday. "He put his head down and said, 'I don't want to go.'" His mother felt his pain. "I won't forget that," Helen Therrien said. "When I looked at him I said, 'Oh, my God, that might be the last time.'" Bangayan, 24, died Friday when he and his fellow members of the 82nd Airborne Division were ambushed by enemy fighters using an improvised explosive, a rocket-propelled grenade and firearms. Bangayan and Spc. Marc Seiden, 26, of Brigantine, N.J., were killed. Several other soldiers in the convoy were injured. Bangayan is the fifth soldier from Vermont, and the sixth with ties to the state, to die since the war in Iraq began in March. He grew up in the Philippines and lived in Jay with his mother and stepfather for only a few months. He found time to embrace his young Vermont roots -- he cavorted like a boy in the first snow he ever saw as a 21-year-old; he shot down the slopes at Jay Peak with reckless abandon in his debut on skis; he went snowmobiling in Canaan where he used his newfound English skills to carve "I love Vermont" into the snow with his sled. Then he left for the Army. He vowed that he was willing to die for his country. "That was one of the things I respected and appreciated in him," Victor Therrien said. "His dream was to come to America and join the military." Getting to know him Helen Therrien left the Philippines when her son was 2 to pursue a career in health care that would lead her to the United States. Bangayan and his younger sister, Hilda, stayed behind with their grandparents. Helen and Victor Therrien met when both were living in Concord, N.H. After they married in 1995 they decided to bring her two children to the United States. Victor Therrien, a Beecher Falls native, petitioned to bring them to the States before they turned 21. Kelly Bangayan arrived in 2000; his sister came the following year. "I really didn't know him," said Helen Therrien, who through the years had spoken with her son several times over the phone. "I was so glad when he came here. I said, 'I'm going to get to know my son.'" The Therriens did get to know Bangayan. "He was very caring, very sensitive to our needs," Victor Therrien said. "He was a peacemaker and a caregiver. He was shy and quiet, but he had a heart of gold." Victor Therrien, who is disabled from a construction accident, said Bangayan was quick to lend a hand when a fence on their property needed mending, snow needed shoveling or the chimney needed cleaning. He was also ready for fun and adventure. Victor Therrien remembers that first visit to Jay Peak up the road from their house. Bangayan had never skied but took to the slopes with natural flair. Later in the day his stepfather watched as Bangayan came down the hill clutching his bleeding mouth. He had crashed, and his skis knocked out one of his front teeth. Ignoring his injury, Bangayan clambered back up the hill to search in vain for the missing tooth. "You couldn't tell him he couldn't do something," his stepfather said. That showed the toughness Bangayan packed into his 5-foot-6-inch, 140-pound body. His stepfather said that if you're in the military in the Philippines it means you are somebody, and Bangayan wanted to be somebody in America. He took his courage to the military eight months after arriving in the States. "I didn't even know him that well," Helen Therrien said, "and he left for the Army." Prepared to die Bangayan wanted to follow in the footsteps of his mother, who works as a nurse's aide at a Morrisville nursing home. He planned to serve four years in the military to help pay his way through nursing school. He put his risk-taking side to work in the 82nd Airborne, where he served as a paratrooper. His first duty after reporting in Iraq in March was to parachute into enemy territory under the cover of night to help pave the way for ground troops. He told his mother and stepfather how thrilled he was to help bring freedom to a previously oppressed nation. He said women who had been concealing their faces with burkas were now removing the cloths. Children were playing unfettered in the streets of Baghdad. Bangayan even sat in the throne and swam in the pool at one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces. The celebration that followed Saddam's fall gave way to tension. Loyalists to the old regime continued the fight. Lawlessness ruled on the streets. Bangayan and his fellow soldiers in the 82nd Airborne had new duties. They were to go house-to-house in search of enemies and weapons. Bangayan was due to end his tour of duty in Iraq in February. He came home for one last get-together in November, when he confided that he was afraid of what awaited him. "He told us, 'What I'm doing now is very dangerous and I might not make it back, but I'm prepared to die for my country,'" said Victor Therrien, who served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War. "We were just so, so proud of that. He prepared us during those two weeks before he left." The Therriens spent the next month and a half watching the news and worrying. "I told Helen, 'If we ever see any soldiers come to our door,'" Victor Therrien said, "'you know what that means.'" Pride and remorse It was around 8 p.m. Friday when the Therriens' dog barked. Helen Therrien went to the door. Two soldiers in uniform stood outside in the snow. They said her son was dead. Something about an ambush. Something about a head injury. "No, no, no, it didn't happen," Helen Therrien said. The soldiers went to the living room, where Victor Therrien was watching television. He heard his wife crying in another room. "Please tell me he's just wounded," Victor Therrien said to the soldiers. They stood there, saying nothing. The Therriens wouldn't believe Bangayan was dead. Gov. Jim Douglas called later that night. "The governor is not calling if it's not true," Helen Therrien said. The reality is sinking in, slowly. An Army official called the family Monday to say that Bangayan will be awarded the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. His mother is making arrangements to bury her son in his hometown of La Union in the northern Philippines. The family might hold a memorial service for Bangayan in his adopted homeland of Vermont. The Therriens talk of Bangayan with pride. They know he was doing what he wanted to do. They're left with that pride, and with nagging hints of remorse that he ever joined him in their briefly idyllic life together in Vermont. "There's a part of me now," Victor Therrien said, "that says I should have left him in the Philippines." Staff writer Adam Silverman contributed to this report. Contact Brent Hallenbeck at 660-1844 or bhallenb@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
