Even in Afghanistan {sp} they are being limited in mission. You can't train persons to psychlogically do a mission then keep turning this process on and off and not expect serious problems. If they had sucessfull missions it would be a different story. None of these deployments have resulted in them seeing a goal obtained. They are not seeing completed military missions. If they go to fight a war a goal is obtained. Victory is the result the enemy is no longer a threat. They can turn off the process go back to the states and have time to put it where it belongs as far as the mind goes. If they go hands tied a political agenda that agenda is obtained at their expense.
We also have to take a serious look at the demished size of deployable forces. A deminished force means others are taking up the slack. This means more & longer deployments for a smaller group which is not good. We are operating under a Cold War military with a close to becoming third world nation level of military strenght compared to our nations size and population. For that the blame lies squarely in those who refuse to do a substancial military strenght build up in troop strenght and air & sea power. We are now seeing the results of the Bush Sr and Clinton policies. One is as guilty as the other Bush Sr went way too far in reductions & Clinton went further. I hope our congress and POTUS will see the problem and take quick and meaningfull measures but neither is making it their long or short term goal. All we are getting is unrealistic talk {proposed future programs at the expense of existing} followed by no action.