I suppose it's possible that the bill's language has changed but I think it's sloppy language. All week, people having been writing about Sen. Jim Webb's version of the GI Bill and writing, very specifically, about how it would benefit for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. I have been asking questions about this because, to the best of my memory, previous GI Bills did not require service in a particular theater of operation but rather was dependent on time served. Because if service in a combat theater were required, that would seem to force some people into volunteering for combat roles or at least to volunteer for overseas assignments. Today, I'm seeing the same writing in some places, but changes elsewhere. In particular, The New York Times today clarifies and writes about X amount of service after Sept.11. But others are still talking about Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm interested in knowing how this shakes out and whether we're going to get this story right today.
No comments:
Post a Comment