Comments for Nobody cares about soldiers?

Nobody cares about soldiers?

2006-07-04T08:31:24Z

(Released)">

Pfc. Matthew J. Mongiove assigned to the 10th Mountain 4th Brigade, supporting the 561st Military Police Company, provides security for the Canadian Mobile Training Team (MTT) on May 16, 2006 in Spin Boldak, Afghanistan. The Canadian Military Police out of Spin Boldak provides refresher training to the border patrol police who patrol the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. (U.S Army Photo by Sgt. Andre' Reynolds) (Released)

Blue Star Chronicles has up a post about a conversation she had with a US soldier.

Who avers that Nobody Cares About Soldiers. (They should read more milblogs..., but that's a different issue)

Go, read. How 'bout you guys and gals serving? Overstated? Understated? Message mixed?

Comment from spinboldak on 2006-07-09

2006-07-09T18:34:49Z

Where I hail from in Northeastern Pennsylvania we have a generally older population who are throwbacks to the 1930-40's who will wave the flag and beat their chests but thirty-five years ago shunned the Vets returning from Vietnam. Today they claim to "support the troops" but when cornered in a candid moment will tell you that the people over here "aren't real soldiers." Dig deeper and they will tell you that anyone younger than 50 is unworthy of living. Jump to the other end of the spectrum and you'll find the clueless Gen-X & Y's who as true products of our hopelessly broken educational system could probably not find the Middle East on the globe if you pointed it out to them. From them you are more likely to hear the chants of "war criminal" and "baby killer" based on the sketchy amount of MSM disinformation that enters their minds. So if you want to ask the troops over here whether they think they are sincerely supported by the American nation, don't be surprised at their sincere answer.

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-07-06

2006-07-06T06:03:08Z

Speaking of "vitreous" and "clear," that transparent jelly that keeps your eyeball round (until something icky involving a sharp stick occurs) is called the *vitreous humor*--which, in this case, is funny on several levels...

Comment from John of Argghhh!!! on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T21:38:01Z

Ry - just to be clear - that when it comes to guidance on spell check, you are impervious to penetration without cracking. Like vitreous china. As in urinals... Love, Yer Big Brother

Comment from ry on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T21:33:41Z

Nowhere. And there aren't any other places where Big Brothers would say it without malice while having a sense of a supportive, herding arm behind the comment. And now that you mention it, I'm not sure I did get it(that brittleness derived from self doubt returns. Sigh. (Resumes banging head on piano.)).

Comment from John of Argghhh!!! on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T20:08:31Z

Heh. Ry, where *else* in the Known Universe could someone call you "vitreous" and expect you to get it?

Comment from ry on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T20:05:00Z

"And Ry is rapidly assuming the RantMantle that SangerM left vacant when he left on his sabbatical to take care of Real World stuff (heh--we'll be able to address him as "Master" Sanger when he gets back). 'Cept Sanger can spell..." Sanger can have the mantle back whenever he wants it(though I hope he doesn't mind the soda stains and the extra pouch I added for comic books), I thought he was typically more coherent than I am, and I thought we could already call him 'Master'? I thought this was his second go for a masters? But I do miss the guy(sniff). Hard grader but he's an education all by himself. "I've pointed him to several browser-based options, but he's... vitreous." Not quite that brittle, but close. "Ry, in one of my favourite (and REALLY old) TV shows called Dr Who (it's British don't bother) the good Doctor talks a Darlek (bad guy) to death." Yes, we know of The Dr. Various incarnation, the Tarturus(phone booth that's bigger on the inside and out), trashcans with toilet plungers on the side for robots. We know of The Dr, and not just from Gary Glitter's stadium anthem either. In closing, 'Brevity is for the weak.'(runs)

Comment from Trias on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T16:33:00Z

Ry, in one of my favourite (and REALLY old) TV shows called Dr Who (it's British don't bother) the good Doctor talks a Darlek (bad guy) to death. I totally agree with Alan about the need for a civilian �buy in� as he puts it. The risk of loosing this war was never the terrorists fighting the US military and defeating it. Indeed the existence of terrorism shows that because otherwise this would be conventional. It�s probably a grossly unpopular thought here but this war is not going to be won or lost on the basis of the military having better equipment, morale etc. The risk of loosing the war all comes down to the politicians and people over in the US. It is they who might vote in people that will call the troops back to the US. After the Sept 11th event people wanted to be involved. They were told to go back to their jobs and the government/military would take care of it. Support for the war on terrorism ran high. But after several goal post shifts, the reality this was not going to be a short war and a lot of negative news we see support for the war now pretty damn low. Most citizens are surrounded by their personal events like jobs, kids, sports whatever. They don�t know someone fighting in Iraq. They don�t sit down studying why liberals are gangrene. However the war is important to them unlike in Rome. They bung on the TV and see news of dead soldiers, high costs and no progress. If there was some level of involvement it would be different. No, after years the citizens are hardly going to be excited about the war anymore than they we see they are with no involvement today. But they may well understand why it�s worth it and why it�s taking so long. They might just vote for someone else.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T12:19:31Z

Noticed that, have you? Apparently, advanced degrees in Chemistry don't require an ability to spell. I've pointed him to several browser-based options, but he's... vitreous. Good lord, Ry. *I* won't read a post *I* wrote that is as long as this comment is... (no snarking - alla ya, just shut up).

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T12:01:43Z

And Ry is rapidly assuming the RantMantle that SangerM left vacant when he left on his sabbatical to take care of Real World stuff (heh--we'll be able to address him as "Master" Sanger when he gets back). 'Cept Sanger can spell...

Comment from ry on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T07:43:49Z

"ry, I just meant taxation as an example, not a solution. Without civilian buy-in through some level of participation, the war on terror becomes problematic to pursue in the long term as it is exactly that, "put up the yellow sticker and think the jobs done." But when the war is done (and when will that ever happen?) there will be changes and cuts to programs just like there was after the Warsaw Pact decided it was no fun fighting anymore. Why wouldn't there be? You call it "liberal" but that is just a label for policies you don't like. Plenty of liberals support the war and plenty of the right are quite content to "put up the yellow sticker and think the jobs done." " Don't know how I missed this, but I'm not ducking it Al, not by a long shot. I stand by my earlier comments. Where were these war supporting liberals when they were arguing the '01 budget? Where were these war supporting liberals when we went to Beirut(and what were they saying about the US going there back then?)? Where were they in 2000 when the US was deciding whether to elect either the 'Environmental President' or the 'Return to Reagan President'? They were voting for Al Gore and calling for more military cuts, that's where. And what are these war supporting liberals saying? "Get ObL and the war's over. It's all about aQ." Trapped in punitive and reactive thinking that doesn't really do squat to change the security question since it is environments awash in either pan-Arabism or pan-Islamism or romanticism of radical revolution that breed this(i.e. it isn't going to stop with one group or one man.), or ever realizing that aQ, by its very design, was along an open source warfare style(read JRobb for def'n if you please). Let's look at the candidates, American liberals mind you, vote for. What do these candidates wind up voting for and what they have for priorities. Who is it that took the USN to court recently to stop training with a sonar system that'll help in detecting(and killing) diesel-electric/AIP subs(a real frickin' need if you talk to the boys at FASWC in San Diego) because of potential harm to sealife? That wasn't Focus on the Family or the Hoover Institute now was it ? AMerican Liberals, and Liberal doesn't mean the exact same thing in Canada or Down Unda or The Shire as it does here, rarely, if ever, are willing to take a hit on domestic spending to shore up military shortages. Seriously, I dare you to look up the fights Tip O'Neil waged during early Reagan to not allow a single dollar to be cut from social welfare spending. Look at the policy Bill Clinton promised during his 1992 campaing. Look at the policy of Jimmy Carter. Look at the reasons Oliver Stone believed Kennedy was shot(Liberal day dream right there) I bloody dare you. Good lord, Al. JOhn F'n Kerry voted several times to kill the M1 Abrams; and it was the M1 and all its highly expensive gadgetry that allowed the USArmy to kill without being killed in tank battles in '91. And then Liberals decalered he was what they wanted, what the country needed while we were at war, despite this and that that vote didn't matter because he served in Vietnam? I've got good and solid data on this, Al. I ain't just kickin' people who do stuff I don't like yammer that teachers need pay raises that exceed inflation every year or want to tax the helk out of gas so I can't drive my car or want to tax property thru the nose so I have to live in their centrally planned urban paradises(ala plans Portland, Or has on the board). I'm going after specific actions and specific attitudes---not broad brushing, or more accurately, not in proportion to your umbrage, sir. ;) Come on Al. I get defending the tribe, but can't you admit that American Liberals(I'm using the Buckley spelling to differentiate between liberals(pretty much everyone in the US and the Western world) and those I see as the problem(Liberals). Don't know what that means? Go ask Jonah Goldberg.) have jacked the system up and screwballed the military by always maumauing need(books not bombs, more for education, more for single payer health care here in the US)? Sorta like Howard Cossell who called it as he saw it, I kick people when I see that they deserve kickin' for specific actions. And I notice that you totally ignored my saying that Jack Murtha, US Liberal, might deserve a little bit less crit because he actually does go out of his way, ala Scoop Jackson, to see that the mil gets everything it needs. I'll call gangrene exactly what it is, Al. When it comes to mlitary spending 99% of US Liberals are frickin' gangrene. And there's a diff between the 'bumper sticker and dones' and US Liberals. 'Bumper sticker and dones' tend to vote for people who will pay for the military more. They vote for guys like Hunter, Cunningham, and Bob Dornan; CA republicans who have gone great guns to see the US military get what it needs, whatever their other personal or political flaws. They vote for GWB on the promise that he's going to increase military spending, which was one of his selling points in the '00 election. The 'Bumpersticker and done' folk may be shallow and vapid on the issue, but they're far less an impediment to the fixing the systemic problem. They get the 'republicans are strong on defense and democrats are good for the social welfare programs we want' dichotomy. It's just convincing them that the mil is necessary that election cycle that's the problem. But your avg American Liberal democrat voter? Please. The research is already done on this Al. And it wasn't some conservative hit group that did it. Try Gallup. The 'BPaD' voted for Reagan and his defense spending increases because he WAS Reagan and because of his ds increases. The 'BPaD' we have a chance of convincing of the need. The other guys we largely don't. Look at SWWBO's attempt to get DKos kids to donate to Valor-IT. They wanted no part of it and got her banned for it. No Al, this one stands. American Liberals stink at mil vs. domestic spending decisions. " Without civilian buy-in through some level of participation, the war on terror becomes problematic to pursue in the long term as it is exactly that" I think you're stealing a few to many bases on this one. Why? We fought the Cold War exactly this way. Tip O'Neil, being redundant, made sure of it by refusing even the smallest reduction in social welfare spending growth. Good lord, you mean we've all forgotten the Dilbert cartoon where Adams lampooned this concept of 'shared sacrifice for noble cause' over Chinese sweat shops? If you can't trust people to stop buying Nike in- the- hip- to- be- socially- conscious- 90s because it adds $20 or means they have to buy ugly BK or Reebok what in the world makes you think that 'civilian buy-in' actually translates into more solid support for a policy in the long run? What makes you think WW2 was any different? Seriously, 12 million men went thru the services at a time when the US was over 100m. The personal investment was pretty dang low(neither my Mother(who was 9 years old at the time of Pearl), any of my maternal aunts, or my Grandmother and Grandfather knew anyone who went to war then.). Or Korea where it was even smaller? The mythology of WW2 is so much better than the actual event. We need to stop mythologizing WW2. It's absolutely ruining thought on the subject of what war is, isn't, and how a populace should relate to the military in either war or peace. Really, people need to read 'This Kind of War', or just the essay that was culled out of it 'Proud Legions'. It forms the basis for everything I've put to 'trons here. What you're talking about MAY work(according to historian TR Fehrenbach in TKoW) for wars of crusade type, but not wars of policy(WW2 was a crusade. Vietnam, Korea, GW1&2, and the Cold War are/were policy wars). It may work for wars of short duration where ardor can overcome short term suffering(poor analogy with faulty parrallelism: camping. A weekend is cool, but, unless you're a die-hard, a week sucks.). But not generational wars. YOur guide should be CW not WW2. But you know what, Al? You're a smart guy. Show me more of your reasoning behind why you believe there must be a 'public buy-in' for The Long War to be successful and I might buy it. I'm not the smartest guy in the room and I might miss some serious issues sometimes(particularly at 2am). "I don't think we should let the point both Ry and Alan made go by the wayside: the general public doesn't think about the military beyond what is presented to them in the press, unless they have friends and/or family involved in uniform." I said what, now? I don't mind being lumped in with Al, usually. He's a good guy who I'd love to have as a next door neighbor (instead of the crappy neighbors I've got), he puts up with my near bi-polar personality, and has an excellent taste in Ska music. But what exactly did I say that is a point that Al also made? Al's saying that the public has to buy into it or it's a house of cards that'll fall. The lack of shared struggle dooms it. (Please, give me more behind this logic. What's it based on, please?) I'm saying that the time for the public to really support the mil is the time before its deployed(War is a time to show what you know and not a lesson learning time, sorta.). I'm saying that there doesn't have to be a during the fight serious commitment by the general populace(Rome lasted how many centuries without it? "Come home with your shield or on it" may not be the real reason Rome died based on stuff I've been reading lately. May have been more of 'Imperial Overstretch' as Paul Kennedy would call it coupled with using too many foreign born in the legions. Even when the legions were entirely or largely Roman most Romans knew little or had little invested in a war. It was hard to get into the legions after all.), however much that may hurt or anger people(you think I like being an SOB? YOu think I derive some joy out of these thoughts? Guess again. That doesn't mean I don't think I'm right though.). I think there's a huge diff there. But I could be wrong. I am Gollum after all. What say John, SgtB, Sanger, The Cheif..., any vet/active duty people who grace Castle Argghhh!'s pages? Beyond anger at the Normals would shallow popular support make you do anything different? "the general public doesn't think about the military beyond what is presented to them in the press, unless they have friends and/or family involved in uniform" And ain't that a freakin' shame? Doesn't that nearly move you to tears? Doesn't this seem to you to be evidence that the public forgets about the mil when it isn't in a high profile situation with inevitable shortages because it isn't important and on their radar screens? Like when the movies Iron Eagle and Top Gun were out. When that Charlie Sheen vehicle about SEALs was out. Like right after the Gulf War and there wasn't a week that went by without a story of Gulf War syndrom with the cries of more money being needed for VA and for the services to prevent anything like that ever happening again(only to be left behind in 1993 when we wanted 'The Economy, stupid.'). I'm Gollum, and iF you want to take me out behind the Woodshed I'm sure John'll let me out of Purgatory for that purpose just so long as you return all my part(not neccessarily working or attached, just all together). Damn it, it's 4am Eastern. Check the all parts together. The Wife may not leave all my parts together. Crap. And I missed streethockey at The Cheif's again(got all my shots and the filters).

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-07-05

2006-07-05T05:34:50Z

'Twasn't taped to the *top* of the panel, Brab - there's enough space at the bottom, slightly left of center (I could say something, but I'll refrain) and it didn't even cover much of the Go-No-Go stencil.

Comment from Barb on 2006-07-04

2006-07-04T23:15:36Z

Geez, Bill - how did you see any of the instruments after that carp was taped over top of the panel?! Idjits who try to make war neat and pretty are just fooling themselves. Might as well go cheat at solitaire if you can fool yourself that easily. Let the men on the ground set RoE that (a) accomplish goals while (b) preserving our forces. End of discussion.

Comment from cw4(ret)billt on 2006-07-04

2006-07-04T05:38:00Z

The troops in Iraq are just being told to make sure that whoever they're gonna kill is someone in need of killing. Tell that GI to try these Rules of Engagement on for size: "The Aircraft Commander of any Army helicopter receiving fire will perform the following steps before initiating suppressive fire: 1) Positively identify the location of the fire. 2) Positively identify the location of the nearest friendly units. 3) Positively identify the location of the nearest friendly civilians. 4) Positively identify the location of the nearest neutral civilians. 5) Determine whether the type, accuracy or volume of fire warrants returning the fire. 6) If you have determined that you should return fire a) call Sector TOC with your aircraft identification, location, the type and volume of fire you are receiving, location of the source of the fire, the locations of 2, 3 and 4 (above), and request permission to return fire; b) Sector TOC will relay the request to 164th Group headquarters by the most expeditious means; c) 164th Group headquarters will notify First Aviation Brigade headquarters of the request; d) First Aviation Brigade headquarters will relay the request to Corps headquarters, which will approve/disapprove the request and so inform First Aviation Brigade headquarters; e) First Aviation Brigade will relay approval/disapproval to 164th Group headquarters; f) 164th Group headquarters will relay approval/disapproval to Sector TOC; g) Sector TOC will issue permission/denial of permission to return fire to the requesting aircraft." Those, boys and girls, are "Tie One Hand Behind Your Back And Stick The Other One In Your Pocket" RoE--and just to make sure we didn't conveniently forget any of those steps, they were typed and taped to our instrument panels and had to be in place before we could launch...

Comment from Barb on 2006-07-04

2006-07-04T05:11:30Z

I don't think we should let the point both Ry and Alan made go by the wayside: the general public doesn't think about the military beyond what is presented to them in the press, unless they have friends and/or family involved in uniform. The average citizen doesn't do without a thing because of the war efforts, except for tut-tutting over the latest doom and gloom on the tube or in the paper. So, many don't feel a part of the effort -- even when they say they support the troops.

Comment from AFSister on 2006-07-03

2006-07-04T03:39:57Z

I understand that winning the hearts and minds doesn't include blowing away every Iraqi our guys see, or randomly shooting at anything that could possibly be the source of gunfire. I get that. But I also get that the hesitation to take the shot may result in our guys getting hurt or killed. I feel like our guys are out there yelling "he drew first blood" (without the Rambo attitude, btw), but he's still having to hesitate to react. I want the war over just as much as anyone else, and I want the maximum amount of our guys back without major injuries. I've never been in a war, so I'm just speaking with emotion here and not experience... but it seems to me that the commanding officers are handing down ROE's that are too stiff, and aren't backing our guys up when they make snap decisions in the heat of the moment.

Comment from John of Argghhh!!! on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T21:56:07Z

I stayed at the JW Marriott in Seoul. Very nice hotel... and no Hilton funding!

Comment from emdfl on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T21:51:46Z

Slightly OT, but I had the pleasure of steering a four-man team out of a hilton and into the Hyatt for a three-week job over in Seoul, Korea. Now all I need to do is figure how to let the hilton people know. Only bummer is that the only hotel near the Naryta airport is a hilton so two of us are stuck doing an overnight there. Of course, we got a seriously discounted room so they ain't making much on us.

Comment from emdfl on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T21:51:16Z

Comment from ry on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T19:00:40Z

Thanks B'riar Tobias. But, I know I'm a little fish. Me saying doesn't matter as much as a luminary saying it. So who wants to argue with Boyd?

Comment from Tobias Magan on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T18:12:27Z

What Ry said. There are two things the US military does better than anyone else. One is killing people. The other is not killing them. Read Guerilla Warfare by Che Guevara. The guerilla tries to provoke the government into over-reacting, specifically to cause dissention in the people. To succeed, the soldiers have to avoid that over-reaction. We have to be stronger and better than the enemy. Hey, nobody ever said that being the best Army in history was easy.

Comment from ry on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T17:59:57Z

Sorry WK, that two seconds of hesitation may mean the diff between success and failure. May mean the diff between this ending with less than 5K KIA by 2009 or going on for 20+ years with 50k kia. It's 'mud hutts, chai tea, and villages with no name' instead of 'kill all them basturds dead'. It's exactly this situation that I agree with Barnett that we need Leviathan and a SysAdmin force. What we're doing now is telling Leviathan to do both. Not smart. Not smart at all. Look at what General Casey has been saying. We have to generate belief that we are there to help them and not just to blow away anyone who looks at us funny. Blowing people away with such a low bar of discrimination doesn't help build trust. The Iraqis are already cynical. If you read the Time piece you find them expecting that the US would abuse them because that's what everybody does. Two seconds shows, by increment, that we aren't like everyone else. That we aren't there to abuse them. It builds trust and confidence in what we tell them about why we're there and what we're about. Yeah, it sucks to be the troopie to carry it out. It wasn't fun being in Ceasar's legions either. Being the policy implementor sucks. But that's what the job is. Yeah, that may make me an SOB, a callous @rick, but I'm not alone in that(David Drake(since we're honoring Baen books lately), himself a Vietnam intel weenie veteran, has writen about this in one of his afterwards in the Hammer's Slammers and in various stories(At Any Price, Operation Firefeitz, and others. I think you can make the case that he even includes it somewhat in the novel 'Rolling Hot'), TR Fehrenbach's 'This kind of War' has an entire chapter on it(Proud Legions)). I get it. One of my best childhood friends is deployed to Iraq right now. I've known him since kindergarten(26 years). He just had his first kid, beautiful little red headed girl, 9 months ago. I want him to come home and be a daddy to that little girl. I really do. His waiting 2 seconds might mean he doesn't get to do that. But it does mean that more guys get to come home and be daddies to their little girls because this gets over and they aren't walking patrol 10 years from now in Tikrit or Fallujah or some other gawdaweful place. I don't want one more Chuck Z then is absolutely neccessary (and yeah it breaks my firgin' heart that he won't be able to play catch with his kids) but not waiting means we'll have more Chucks. At the end of the day the troops can hate me all they want so long as they follow this doctrine and they come home that much faster because of it. I can live with being an SOB under those conditions. I can live with them kicking the crap out of me on sight for that.

Comment from Alan on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T17:44:17Z

ry, I just meant taxation as an example, not a solution. Without civilian buy-in through some level of participation, the war on terror becomes problematic to pursue in the long term as it is exactly that, "put up the yellow sticker and think the jobs done." But when the war is done (and when will that ever happen?) there will be changes and cuts to programs just like there was after the Warsaw Pact decided it was no fun fighting anymore. Why wouldn't there be? You call it "liberal" but that is just a label for policies you don't like. Plenty of liberals support the war and plenty of the right are quite content to "put up the yellow sticker and think the jobs done."

Comment from audrey on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T15:17:26Z

my name is audrey i think of our soldiers often and hope there return to there homes soon but i think the soldier is right the goverment dont care about them they just keep deploying them telling everyone that the people over there need them well who cares i sure as hell dont they are needed hear by family and loved ones i know they have a job to do but they have been there way to long oviouly there country is never gonna change instead that stupid president of ours keeps sending our men and women out and hopes that he can make some change over there in the meen time they are dying being accused of shit what did the goverment think he would send over this men and women in hopes that what they would all set down and have tea hell no theses men and women are pissed they dont want to be there people of iraq dont want them there and we want them home so i think that are men and women should come home drop a nuec over there and then beat the hell out of the president for making there lives a living hell you dont see his ass on the front lines and you wont either cause hes to busy at homme cheating on his wife and fighting with the music singers the dixie chicks but to alll men and women in our armed forces we think of u all often and wish for your safe and speedy return you are i my thoughts often

Comment from Karla (threadbndr) on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T13:47:58Z

Scary rant for a woman whose already very cynical Marine is about to deploy.

Comment from Were-Kitten on 2006-07-03

2006-07-03T12:17:20Z

GA-DAMMMMIT!!!!!!!!!! Ohhhhhhh THIS MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL. Our guys are getting KILLED because they're having to take that extra second or two to decide whether or not to take a shot. They're being faced with the reality of saving the last bullet for themselves. And saddest of all? They're being faced with brass who have cotton for balls instead of steel.

Comment from Stormy Dragon on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T04:15:12Z

Beth, she herself says she went into a tirade in her post.

Comment from ry on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T03:30:18Z

And I will shake my finger at the soldier and those at BSC over something. Not all aspects of war are about the kinetic part. It isn't about killing them all dayid. It sounds like BS, but that cs stuff isn't. That's the way to the largest number of these guys and gals comming home alive. This is nation building. THe hated MOOTW. It isn't plowing the Sov Union over. Let's stop thinking like that. We aren't going to win this by body counts. We learned that from Vietnam too(feel free to slap me down John. Posting at Kat's is going to my head. I'm starting to forget how little a fish I really am.).

Comment from ry on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T03:24:14Z

The points Alan and SD are making are exactly why I have tried(proll'y in vain, knowing me) to not make my essays on the subject over at Kat's a partisan issue. Rogers did, in the end he really did because it comes down to getting the people in power now instead of looking at how the system is messed up. People do tend to just put up the yellow sticker and think the jobs done. It ain't. Not by a long shot. These same jokers did the same in '91(and voted for Bush the Elder in 1992), but by '94 wanted Slick Walrus(having voted for him) to slice off 4 divisions and cut the Navy in half because they thought they had better uses for it than letting the Mil have it(and when you're strapped for getting current gear, repairing gear, and getting the pipeline for future gear decision makers aren't going to worry about things like the VA so much, particularly when it isn't being stressed so hard in peacetime.). But, to be fair, the anger at 'liberals' is fair too. Nine times out of ten it is 'liberals' who want to cut mil spending to fund something like Headstart for everyone(instead of just for really empovrished or disabled children). Al, I always have a problem with the 'war tax' argument. You do realize that we took in more tax revenue last year than just about any year ever? That we funded WW2 with lesser taxes? And temporary taxes usually aren't---just like temporary presidential powers typically become permanent(like the power grab by FDR, over which a SCOTUS battle was being fought and to win said battle FDR was going to pack the court, that means every pres now has immense pull on domestic issues when they didn't prior to FDR). There's enough revenue comming in to do this without a war tax. How about we get rid of Amtrack, a perenial in the red service? Sell it to a private provider. There's a ton of other things that could be axed because they are entirely un-necessary before we need a war tax. And again(have you read my essay Al?), a war tax now really wouldn't fix the problem. It'll take a few years before that cash infusion will begun to be seen in the field. And then, when the war in Iraq is over, the public will demand we scale back again---producing the late 90s situation all over again, and this all over again the next time a pres decides to go to war without a 5 year build up. I really think we've mythologized WW2 and the rationing scheme too much. My Mom lived thru it and the way she talks about it it wasn't a great thing. It was hated. It sucked. 3 years of it had people in backwoods Wisconsin(and other places) talking about voting in someone who would get us out of the war(which makes me question why so many are so in favor of a war tax. Is it because they know it will kill support? Rather a cheap trick to get your way if so ain't it?). SD and Trias, most of my childhood friends joined, myself being the only one who went to college(Craig went to The Point after being JROTC) instead. They do write/call me saying how pissed off they are that they are being turned into a political football, how much they hate us Normals becuase we don't understand and can't understand. One side arguing that they more authentically care about 'The Troops' more. This guy and Beth have a point(though, I would be a little more kind to Murtha. He may want to pull out any time there's trouble but he typically votes to get the gear.). While they, my buddies and their Brothers, like seeing that yellow bumper sticker they're also aware of the triteness of it. It's bitter sweet for them(We're remembered, but, damn, why's that $itch driving an f'n Hummer, with perfectly manicured nails and coiffed, dyed blonde hair, and wearing Gucci sunglasses while my buddies and I had to sleep in 115 degree heat, eat crap food, and mickey mouse $hit?). And they absolutely want to skull hump those who say things like, 'Support the troops. Bring them home.' Because it's cheap to do either. Because it's easy. Becuase it isn't substantive help(though it is a pschological boost to some when they first came home.). I've known some of these guys longer (Moran(20 some odd days longer) and Boner(yes, his last name really is Boner and I've known him a few years longer)) than my wife's been alive. the group's collectively gotten into spittle inflected rages over this. Support shouldn't start when Bush said we're going to war and it shouldn't stop when the last man steps of the Starfrog ladder Stateside. That's what they're pissed about: the easy stuff's being done now, but none of the hardstuff was done years ago when it could've mattered. They're tired that they have become a political football. And yeah, it's a lot easier to point the finger at someone else. It's a lot easier to try and make our own efforts seem much grander than they really are. (I could've made arguing budgetting in places other than living rooms and resteraunt tables the last 15 years). So let's not fault Beth for this overmuch. We sacrifice what we can without making utter messes of our lives. That's all we can do at this point. We can't undo the late 90's.

Comment from Beth Donovan on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T02:46:06Z

The author of the post is not a reporter - she is the mother of a soldier. I don't think that Beth went on a "tirade". At. All.

Comment from Trias on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T02:34:19Z

There's a related issue here i'll bring up. In my opinion one of the Bush mistakes was this. Instead of involving the citizens in the whole war on Iraq effort it's been very much the attitude of we'll take care of it and send in the troops. The rest of you go back to your jobs/lives. For good or for ill many people i think are basically doing just that. I know citizen involvement can have it's issues but deactivating citizen 'ownership' of the issue means that war support and perhaps troop support is indeed not going to be very deeply sustainable. Stormy: I think you're right in that the reporter was foolish to try to win him over with the politico tirade. You're wrong to assume an assumption tho. Show us the evidence.

Comment from Stormy Dragon on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T01:38:08Z

They aren't scare quotes, I was just quoting it because of the unusual capitalization. And being right about the disdain certain liberals have for the military isn't the point, it's whether a tirade on the subject is going to help a soldier who says he's fed up with politics. Passion is great, but not if it's not properly controlled and directed. And in this case I think she let her emotions get the better of her judgement, and as a result may have missed a chance to help a soldier who was reaching out to her. And yes, I realize I'm a fine one to talk, being that I frequently let my own growing anger about the state of US politics color my own perceptions.

Comment from Alan on 2006-07-02

2006-07-03T01:11:43Z

To be fair, there are a lot of right winger civilians who do not exactly care deeply about the lot of the military either, asking it to do far more without the civilian side of the community pulling its weight behind the effort in the war on terror through increased taxes, bonds, etc. You see some community outreach in a town like Watertown, NY near me as Fort Drum is so close but you might find a greater national effort might also find that soldier feeling less like no one cared.

Comment from Beth Donovan on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T23:54:33Z

Stormy Dragon - why are you putting scare quotes around Beth's name? I know her personally, and her name is Beth - just like me! She has a son in the military and she has met many of his friends in the military. Beth is very passionate about the military and supporting the men and women in the military. I don't really get why you use those scare quotes. And truth be told, there are a lot of liberals who do.not.support the troops. Go over to the Democratic Underground and you can see the left-wing calling our soldiers baby-killers. I have to wonder how many of them are baby-boomers reliving their anti_Vietnam war protests - the thing is - Vietnam and Iraq are two very different situations. Unfortunately, most people don't even check on the history of both conflicts. Hell, most people don't even learn about World War II in school and spend way more time on earlier conflicts.

Comment from Stormy Dragon on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T22:56:54Z

The way she only ever refers to him in the generic 'soldier' instead of by name didn't give me the impression of familiarity. However, even if she does know him and his is conservative, doesn't it still seem a bit insensitive to respond to a complaint about the politicization of deployment with a tirade about politics?

Comment from FbL on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T22:23:10Z

Stormy it appears to me that the specific soldier Beth was talking to is someone she actually knows because it was during a phone conversation while he was Iraq (if I read between the lines correctly). So, I'm guessing it wasn't just some random soldier about whom she knew nothing.

Comment from Stormy Dragon on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T21:49:06Z

Well yes, I am assuming that if they're walking up to soldiers they don't know and launching into tirades about how "disgusting" liberals are, that this is because they're assuming that soldiers are stereotypically right wing. I admit there is the other possiblity that it has occured them the soldier they're talking to may be a liberal and they just don't care. If this is the case, I sincerely apologize to FbL for assuming that "beth" and the various people seconding her actions are merely mistaken and not malicious.

Comment from 1sg keith on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T21:09:04Z

Anyone who has served, or lead, in the military knows that when they feed us a special dinner of lobster and steak, there is always someone who will complain that the butter wasn't hot enough. It's the same in the civilian world for those that have never served. There's always complainers who aren't happy. But the Soldier she talked to knows his job. Or should know it. Soldiers ARE expendable. Period. You can't fight and win a war with zero casualties. Period. If you expect zero casualties, go to work at Burger King. I have guys in my unit that are still volunteering for a deployment. One of my guys is retraining for a different, shortage MOS, knowing that as soon as he graduates 1 October, theres a VERY good chance he'll never come home because he'll probably get snagged and be in the 'green zone' by Halloween. Tell Beth to talk to a few more soldiers before she makes up her mind that all of us are like the one she talked to. Still a good post, though.

Comment from FbL on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T19:58:18Z

What's really funny is the assumption by all the milbloggers that the soldier mentioned is necessarily right-leaning in his political views. There are in fact significant numbers of both Democrats and liberals in a military, and for all we know, this soldier was one of them. Try re-reading the exchange from that viewpoint an see how "beth" comes across. What's really funny is the assumption by Stormy Dragon that all the milbloggers assume the soldier is right-leaning in his political views.

Comment from Stormy Dragon on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T17:16:25Z

Clue: When a soldier says they feel like they're just pawn in the political game, the solution is NOT to launch into a tirade about domestic politics and whether liberals or conservatives are great or disgusting. What's really funny is the assumption by all the milbloggers that the soldier mentioned is necessarily right-leaning in his political views. There are in fact significant numbers of both Democrats and liberals in a military, and for all we know, this soldier was one of them. Try re-reading the exchange from that viewpoint an see how "beth" comes across.

Comment from Trias on 2006-07-02

2006-07-02T16:15:54Z

How depressing. Indeed the soldier sounds depressed. He used the fatalistic word 'nobody' which is an absolute. He's wrong of course. The military does support the troops. Milblogs like this show support. But how much support is there across the US? I don't know how one could measure it accurately. It's easy and populist to wave the flag and say you support 100%. Maybe one could look at charity activity, publicly demonstrated support and internet traffic flows. I recently got the impression morale was good which doesn't seem to mesh with this case. It'd be very good to hear from the soldiers there.