Congress Acts To Let Wounded Soldier To Keep Her On-Duty Dog

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Nov. 28, 2005

[Wolfie]

Congress acts to let wounded soldier to keep her on-duty dog

McKean County native to adopt 'Rex,' her bomb sniffing canine

This is the story of a soldier and her dog, and the act of Congress required to keep them together.

It began in July, when Air Force Tech. Sgt. Jamie Dana woke up, confused, in a hospital bed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

Her last memory was riding in a military convoy in Iraq after she and her bomb sniffing dog, Rex, had searched a village. She remembered being in extreme pain. And she remembered asking frantically about Rex, eventually being told that he had not survived.

But she didn't know that the military had told her husband, fellow Air Force security officer Mike Dana, that she wasn't going to survive her injuries.

She didn't know that, after a bomb exploded under her Humvee, she spent more than a week in military hospitals in Iraq and Germany before arriving in Washington.

And she didn't know that Rex had survived the bombing with only a minor burn on his nose.

Click here for rest of story.

[Calpernia]

And you know the dog received no injury?

And you don't trust the judgment of Brig. Gen. Robert Holmes and Gen. Michael Moseley to know this situation?

[shhrubbery!]

My comments to Hair of the Dog were civil and simply in the spirit of spirited debate -- and simply in response to righteous statements she made toward my comments.

And my comments are directly concerning "whether a MIL dog should be [prematurely] retired."

Again, the argument here is one conservatives should relish. NOT YOURS TO GIVE by Col. David Crockett is apropos.

If the admin monitor wants to delete any of the above, of course he or she is free to.

But IMO you are being exremely thin-skinned and overreactive to run to the moderator.

[Calpernia]

And this?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1529723/posts?page=112#112

"But I'm so glad to hear you weren't involved in the decision. Not "pompous" enough, right."

??

[Wristpin]

Here's my point..and with all the respect in the world to the Sargeant...

Her attachment to the dog does not trump the requirement to have it continue to save lives in Iraq. Every evening, the insurgents, err.. terrorists are planting IED's like busy little beavers. They scheme endlessly on new and creative ways to conceal them. That dog is a resource, just like body armor.

We have plenty of wounded military going through Walter Reed whose buddies remain behind with their units in Iraq. Early transfer of their human buddies is inconcievable.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This is my last post on the subject.

[shhrubbery!]

I give up, I can't understand why you're so personally offended.

I'm only making a spirited defense of constitutional conservatism, and of Wristpin's position in particular.

So no offense intended toward you --I mean that sincerely-- but I'm just not going to respond to your posts. Have to leave FR for several hours now anyway, so you can relax and not get burned over anything I say.

But carry on, Wristpin!

[HairOfTheDog]

And this?

That would be an insult trying to look like a good argument. ;~D

[Calpernia]

I believe you should have included another FR Nic in that address in your post of "So no offense intended toward you --I mean that sincerely"

[HairOfTheDog]

In our modern military with the wealth of this country behind it, imagined supply problems (that you haven't shown exist) relating to one German Shepherd don't outweigh the value of the dog to this injured soldier. Not in the minds of most of us...

[Dustbunny]

I did not say she was selfish, I commented on the fact that it cost $18,000 to train the dog to save lives.

[Calpernia]

Apologies then. I didn't know which part of post 91, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1529723/posts?page=91#91 , you were agreeing with.

[altura]

Lotsa weird people on this thread, present company not excluded.

[untrained skeptic]

"Lotsa weird people on this thread, present company not excluded."

Care to elaborate? Or do you just like making vague insulting remarks? If you're going to be insulting, at least be specific.

[af_vet_rr]

I like this decision, the $18,000 is nothing compared to the money Congress wastes daily and this is comforting to a wounded soldier and to the dog.

Now that you mention it, it is ironic that many of us here will complain about giving a soldier a dog that cost $18,000 to train, but we give our politicians a free pass to waste 100s and 1000s of times that amount every single day.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Agree w/Hair.

Yes, Shepherds are "1-man" dogs but they are adaptable. Esp. if it involves people they already know! (I call them more accurately, 1-family dogs.)

I think another point is that this is a male. Males generally aren't as possessive as females, and hence are likely less "bonded" anyway w/their handlers than a female would be. I don't know the exact reason, but I think this is 1 of the reasons males are preferred for these types of patrolling tasks. (That along w/the fact they're generally stronger and also more motivated to attack regardless of "possession". Females are supposed to be better pure guardians because they are very possessive, but they don't see the point in being aggressive w/anything not threatening what's "theirs".)

[the OlLine Rebel]

(PS: It is NEVER Schutzen - you MUST have the "hund" in there for "dog"; I guess you could write "schutzhunden" but I don't think it's ever actually meant the dog, just the activity. And it's almost never written in umlaut form as it is not "ue".)

[the OlLine Rebel]

Still trying to dig up all the GS lovers for a ping list. At least the military and police stories could provide us a reason. ;-)

[billbears]

the $18,000 is nothing compared to the money Congress wastes daily and this is comforting to a wounded soldier and to the dog.

And therein lies the problem. It is not the amount but the principle. If I agree with $18,000 wasted I have no leg to stand on when I argue that $xx billions are wasted on some other program. Either Congress has the right to waste one dollar on feel good issues or they don't.

[AnAmericanMother]

Thanks! As I said, my dog wouldn't protect squat, so I wouldn't know anything about Schutzhunden . . . I just studied German for years and years . . .

My dog must be the exception that proves the rule about females being possessive.

The only time she has displayed any possessiveness, even about her food, is when my little blind Siamese cat jumped right into the middle of her food dish, butted her head out of the way and started eating her dinner out from under her. She went "woof!", picked up the cat by the shoulders, turned around, put the cat down behind her, and went back to eating. The cat naturally had hysterics (but not enough to keep her from coming back for another try at the food dish). It's highly unfair, because I keep the CATS' dish up on the laundry room counter where the dog can't get at it . . .

Although, come to think of it, I put the wooden plank from carving a rib roast down on the kitchen floor one time. In the general scrimmage that followed, the dog went "woof!" and flipped the plank over with one paw, and cats scattered in all directions.

[drungus]

Remember, this is a young woman and dog that John Murtha said was the enemy. I wonder how he voted on this?

From the full text of the article: "A spokeswoman for Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, said the secretary of the Air Force contacted his office and asked the congressman to insert language on Sgt. Dana into the defense appropriations bill. Rep. Murtha agreed, although the final language is still pending."

[archy]

Oops, I misspelled your name before when I tried to ping you.

If you check in today, can use your expertise on retiring MIL dogs.

I passed an e-mail with both the original story and a link to this thread to someone still very active in the Military Working Dogs business at Lackland AFB.

So far as I'm aware, their policy on the adoption of former military working dogs, as directed by the U.S. Congress, is best described here.