So even peacetime missions are combat now? How will we treat military people who are in combat and war?
During the Reagan years an average of 2200 GIs died a year, almost 18,000, do we move them to the combat column now?
Well, my thinking in suggesting the idea was severalfold.
1: Sending troops to thwart or battle a virulent deadly disease is a potentially lethal mission, and even the left has to acknowledge that, as much as they can acknowledge any kind of common sense conclusion. The very word “Ebola” has that same kind of emotional reaction, even in the peabrains of the left.
2: Semi-clever pro-military political sentiment value because 0bama has done all he can to reduce the strength of the military via budgetary means. So we can spend hundreds of millions to send those troops over there without combat pay, but combat pay for those troops would be a drop in the proverbial bucket. This is not what they signed up for, and I don’t care how well they are trained, some are going to be killed/wounded.
3: This prevents 0bama from claiming credit for the idea (or put him in negative light should he veto the bill) by pre-emption and even so, I do not doubt for a second he will try to claim credit for the idea anyway. He’ll claim credit for the idea and blame the Republicans for blocking his brilliance even as he signs the veto, should he do so.