[familyop]

"Clearly its impossible to have a rational conversation with you as you are arguing about an article you clearly didn’t even bother to read. The dogs are RETIRED."

From the article, the only explanation of disposition of any particular dog:
"Bos described how a back injury forced him out of the military, causing Cila to be relocated to another service member."

The training for each one of those dogs is very expensive and comes from military funding.

[Kartographer]

Ganzert explained that military policy dictates that when a military dog is retired while overseas — and not while back in the United States — it is not given a military transport home. That makes it difficult for some veterans to afford the costs to send the retired dog home.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/lawmakers-make-it-easier-for-military-dogs-to-reunite-with-soldiers-after-war-photos/#ixzz38W7tzDHI

[Innovative]

It’s not publicized much, but I have read that many military dogs are killed, after they are no longer useful, because they are deemed too dangerous to be adopted by “ordinary families”.

Don’t you think it’s much better both for the dogs and their handlers to be adopted by their military handlers?!

Here is one article, I’ve seen others and the US is doing the same thing.

Majority of 350 ex-military dogs put down for ‘age and welfare’ reasons

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/10401353/Majority-of-350-ex-military-dogs-put-down-for-age-and-welfare-reasons.html

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) confirmed it had put down 42 dogs due to a ‘’dangerous temperament’’, while 27 developed cancer-related health problems.

The majority (117) were put down due to ‘’age and welfare’’ reasons, while 76 had osteoarthritis.

An MoD spokesman said it was reviewing its policy to ensure that a military vet, in conjunction with an experienced dog handler, would be involved with every decision to put a dog to sleep.