In defense of the NMI’s reservists

Ruth L. Tighe abruptly curtailed my Sunday morning ritual of reading the Saipan Tribune section by section when I came across her comments and recommendations on the issue of military leave with pay for CNMI reservists.

She is of the opinion that these reservists are already receiving remuneration far in excess of her estimation of their worth, and the proposal to extend some meager benefits such as half pay for a limited period is, in her misguided opinion, unwarranted. Incidentally, the hazardous duty, imminent danger pay, and tax-free allowance will only be applied AFTER they arrive in Iraq and ceases once they depart from the danger zone. She portrays this proposed remuneration as something “wasteful, and wildly extravagant” of the government and inaccurately attempts to attach an illusion of false patriotism by our lawmakers as the underlying motive for the proposed legislation.

Obviously she has little thought or consideration for the sacrifices that our reservists and their families are making in defense of our nation, and deems such entirely worthless and valueless. She is unwilling to consider or place a monetary value on the severe emotional and psychological effects on our reservists and their loved ones for the arduous extended period of separation from family, career or studies.

I would propose that Ms. Tighe reevaluate her stance and consider how the families of the reservists feel about the extended deployment of their loved ones. I would surmise that all of the reservists and their families would willingly forfeit the meager separation pay; the hazardous duty and imminent danger pay and the “very decent salary” alluded to by Ms. Tighe, in return for resuming a normal life.

I would remind Ms. Tighe that those patriots who volunteered for duty in the “regular military” (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard) did so as part of their long-term career goals, and as such, willingly anticipate and accept overseas deployment and extended periods of separation as part of their regular duty. Reservists, on the other hand, patriotically put their lives on hold for these extended periods of deployment, and upon their return, attempt to resume their lives and restart their careers.

Incidentally, in my conversations with many of the reservists and their families, I have never heard any disparaging remarks made about their deployment to Iraq; rather, the sole reaction was one of total commitment and support for their mission.

In general, the obtuse approach by Ms. Tighe to the subject of pay and benefits for those serving in the military reserve reflects her underlying opinion that all who choose to honorably serve our nation by entering a branch of the military should be begrudgingly compensated for this. It is akin to the mindset once held by the zealots of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era, when our returning military were spit upon and shunned as pariahs by these misguided individuals.

Ms. Tighe states that the extension of benefits proposal is a “great vote-getting scheme.” I, on the other hand, would equate the proposal to a patriotic display of solidarity by our lawmakers to our reservists and their families. In response to this affront by Ms. Tighe, I would urge all our elected officials to show their total support for our reservists with the unconditional and rapid passage of the proposed legislation.

John White
Chalan Piao, Saipan

Editor’s Note: White identifies himself as a “very proud father” of a U.S. Army reservist serving in Iraq.