Another way to honor these soldiers is to find them jobs. Close to 50% are returning to no job. Every business person I talk to I encourage them to contact their local county employment office with an offer of a job. I urge you all to do the same.

Let's not take any chances, short time is the scary time.

Bless them, may they all come home safe, and healthy. Is there any greater expression of patriotism, and love of country than the full measure of devotion given by the man and woman in uniform today.

I feel small in the huge shadow their service has cast on all service of our military of the past, and future. They have been called upon like no other generation before them, and dispite the distorted reason given for their sacrifice, they have never lost sight of the true reason. To protect and serve the constitution, and people of the United States of America.

"They have been called upon like no other generation before them."

Read history much?

Ya, I read history. Tell me how many generations have been called up for 4-5 tours of extended combat?

How many extended bloody occupations lasted 8 years?

How many 8 year wars did we wage without a draft?

How many times did we have "stop loss" for our National Guard.

How many generations would have been expected to serve so many tours of combat without a draft being called?

Maybe Bohica, whatever that is, should brush up on your history books.

Posted by: Rep Margaret Doherty | Apr 5, 2010 7:45:46 PM

Another way to honor these soldiers is to find them jobs. Close to 50% are returning to no job. Every business person I talk to I encourage them to contact their local county employment office with an offer of a job. I urge you all to do the same.

Those of us that voted our conscience can go to the back of the line. Would you explain how participating in an illegal police action makes someone more qualified for a job? We all know its simply an attaboy/girl for doing what your were told were told to do. Don't criticize the Catholic Church on one post, and glorify the troops in another. Ratzinger to Pvt. Reed are being rewarded for preserving the State, above every other consideration, on command.

It's the 21st century. Unquestioning loyalty to bad policy does not deserve reinforcement for simply being obedient, and it does no "service" to society. I am digusted by "progressives" that decry the illegal war, while finding a reason to rationalize every particular element of its conduct. It's been 7 years. If you still support any part of this invasion, then you are pro-war, pro-colonial, and that has never been pro-GI!

• Alisa in Tillamook

Don't you know about the importance of OPSEC (operational security). You are putting your son and all of the other soldiers at risk by posting his itinerary. Very, very careless and thoughtless of you! Shame on you!

They weren't called.

T.A. wrote:

. I'm done with the "I don't agree with your decision" stuff; that's past history

What does this mean, T.A.? I understand that a veteran returning from war or occupation may not be ready for a soul-searching discussion on the morality, legality, and efficacy of military action. And certainly, those who serve as foot soldiers of the imperium are victimized and deserve help. But does that mean that we are free of moral responsibility for taking part in force and violence which our government assures us is just and necessary?

Demonizing veterans is not an appropriate way to cleanse the national conscience. Neither is sweeping all under the carpet, it seems to me

Those who serve and are called deserve the front of the line. Heck, its even been codified into state statute. Veteran's have preference. Alisa in Tillimock, you need to learn to get over yourself.

I welcome the Oregon Guard home safely.

T.A.,

I am trying to understand how you reconcile your love and support for your son with your disapproval of US foreign policy and use of the military. My question is not meant as criticism, but as exploration of an important issue. I did not suggest whatsoever that you were demonizing veterans; I mentioned it as one extreme of possible behavior, the other extreme being the belief that respect for those who serve precludes the questioning of the morality and legality of military force.

Having had a child in the military, I appreciate the inherent conflict for progressives.

With all due respect, T.A., if understanding what you write in a blog today depends on what you wrote in several other blogs as long as three years ago, then you should provide links to those posts. I hardly think a wtf? is an appropriate reaction to someone lacking the required "special knowledge".

Pat Ryan wrote:

everyone should thank the diety of their choice that this class of people stands for us, regardless of serial stupidity on the part of their civilian bosses.

To the contrary, Pat, I would thank my choice of diety if all people refused to take up arms except in direct defense, i.e., invasion of the homeland.

But without him how would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau Without him Caesar would have stood alone He's the one who gives his body as a weapon to a war and without him all this killing can't go on

Buffy Sainte-Marie

But without him how would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau Without him Caesar would have stood alone He's the one who gives his body as a weapon to a war and without him all this killing can't go on ////

This is a convoluted way of saying let somebody else do it.

I think the fact that we decided to have an all volunteer armed forces during a time of a two front war is the reason the ravishes of war have not properly been noticed at home.

I believe that when a level of force readiness is effected, we should have a legal requirement for force replenishment. A draft, or no war. I believe if we are to rely on a all volunteer force that then any expansion of this definition of mission should require a draft.

A draft is how a democracy takes it's proper responsibility in deciding to make war, or not.

Tim,

Unfortunately, existence of a draft did little to prevent unnecessary wars in the past, whether in democracies or in states using a different form of government. The draft did increase Resistance to the Vietnam adventure, but only after tens of thousands of Americans died. With today's arms, we can wipe out half the world's population before losing that many soldiers.

An Imperial Presidency as a Commander in Chief has powers so enormous and frightening that if we elect draft-dodgers as we did, we had better pay close attention when they start making noises about war.

We started the Iraqi War on a lie, and while the Republican leadership thought it prudent to pass huge tax cuts for the wealthy, and corporations. They treated the whole process as some sick patronage for their corporate facilitators. We watched, we protested, we failed to have even a moderate effect. Michael Moore won a Oscar on the subject, and couldn't get his film on the public airways.

We were a couple of years into two wars without even making the disasterous leadership pay at the polls, we re-elected the draft dodgers that got us into the war to begin with.

A draft, on 9/12/01 would have been enough for Saddam, and the Taliban to capitulate. We should have let the Afghans know that until they could govern themselves without this kind of behavior, they had just became the Territory of the United States of America. We would have had the willing participation of the world.

Instead we made Iraq the focus, for oil. A draft would have made such a deception impossible. The Tonkin Resolution happened first, the draft came later.

They are stil unconvinced by our resolve to make the sacrifice needed. They believe we'll reach a cost analysis level of loss, and go home. A draft from the US would have been enough to end any conflict before it even started.

A draft, would have made this an issue for every citizen, not just those of us who pay attention. That is the point.

A draft would have made war cost those whom it should cost, all Americans, not just the few, honorable, and bravest among us.

Mr. McCafferty,

The "ravishes" of war?

Mr. Ryan,

I don't think we need to thank a deity for actions undertaken that we disagree with.

I believe both Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant thought the Mexican War was an abomination. Would they be required to thank the U.S. forces that carried it out (Grant was among them)?

And, referring to another thread on this chat room, would MLK Jr. be expected to thank the U.S. forces that killed millions in SE Asia?

How about some gratitude for leaders or others who try to not let some of these adventures take place?

Mr. McCafferty,

The "ravishes" of war?////

I take it you agree. If we are allowed to marginalize the effects, and costs of war in the way the Republicans did for Iraq by exploiting an all volunteer force, stop loss, and depletion of the Natioal Guard/Reserves and do nothing about it, we doom ourselves to repeat the history.

A draft before we extend our reach, before we should decide to project American military force is the only way to restrain the deceptive way we declared war.

Either war is a shared process in our democracy, or it should never be considered.

Pat,

I'm not talking about unilateral disarmament, but universal rejection of aggression. The US has not been attached by another nation since the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. And we had the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii not to protect the homeland, but to project naval power throughout the Pacific.

Imperialism has become so ingrained in the US mindset that any rejection of it sounds like pacifism.

Costa Rica's not a bad place to hang out. they do, after all, have the world's happiest populace - and no military.

I'm not talking about unilateral disarmament, but universal rejection of aggression.// Jake

We are an American Democracy, requiring a consensus of public opinion.

If you truly wish "universal rejection of aggression" of a nation that spends more than the rest of the world combined on defense, then require a draft in prelude to any projection of military power overseas.

Mr. McCafferty,

Yes, I agree that a draft would be a much better way to accomplish enlistment. I don't agree that many of the U.S.'s foreign adventures were necessary; therefore I don't agree that the "Universal Soldier" lyrics translate into sloughing off the responsibility onto someone else.

I think you misused the word "ravishes": of course you meant "ravages." "Ravishes" is what the U.S. does to relatively defenseless countries when it attacks them.

Posted by: Stephen Amy | Apr 6, 2010 5:58:34 PM

To clarify, I am opposed to any foriegn deployment that isn't affirmed by existing treaty alliances like NATO, or to support a reliable ally.

A strong military is a deterrent to war. Peace through Strength. That's our philosophy in a statement. If we are to remain strong we need to refrain from making enemies for the bottom line of oil companies, and multi-nationals.

Peace is the strongest deterrent to war. Invading nations for purely economic reasons has a long history of disasterous effect on American security.

You said, "Cindy, don't be a twit. if he can email his family about leaving, then it's not a milsec. notice i didn't use how many days, however: i vagued it a bit. but if i gave the bad guys the military operational secrets they've been missing for 8 years, oops! my bad."

I don't think you needed to resort to name-calling. I happen to be a devoted military wife who knows the rules as well as common sense about OPSEC because I have been through three deployments with my husband. Clearly, your immature response shows your lack of knowledge and your disrespect of the importance of OPSEC. You should have thanked me for the reminder and moved on to your next post instead of calling me a "twit."

Cindy's point should be well taken. And the "Momma Sez So" rule is in play, so back off.

I've taken the time to do as T.A. suggest and re-read his older posts, which I didn't see when they were up as I've only been reading this blog since xmas. Frankly, they all sound like this one. Include the responses, tone, etc. Cindy seems to have made a dent, but if the past is a guide that won't get a response.

I would like to answer Pat's attempt at civility while mocking our position as naive of history and the world.

1). "probably 90% think as we do". Then the 10% that are likely to do whatever they're told are responsible for wars, no?

2). "free (for some mysterious reason)". Climb out of the 19th century think tank! Suppose Hitler had won WWII. How long would the Nazis have continued on as they were? It would have moderated, and, don't look too closely at Europe today, because it would look almost identical. The pound wouldn't be an independent currency. That was worth 50 million lives.

Meantime, back at the ranch, the US economy had collapsed in the 1930s because OUR SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK. No prob., that was was very handy for generating spending and demand. Except, the system doesn't work. You have to go back to a peacetime economy, then you're back in the sh*t. Never fear. The military-industrial complex can taylor an economy based on perpetual conflict around the globe. After all, as Pat notes, lots of people want to be fighting and don't get it. Lots of potential for perpetual conflict. It has eroded ALL OF OUR FREEDOMS. Why is it better that a fat banker runs my life instead of a fat Nazi?

3). Aggression happens. People die. Maybe we're prepared to accept that as the price. Do we get the choice, or do the 10% "fighting for our freedom" get to tell us to shut the f*ck up because we don't get it? I heard a debate between an inner city pastor and a young G the other day. G was saying what Pat was, basically, about "places I could show you". Reverend was making my points. Obviously debating it is stupid, because you're debating assumed world views. My point is that if what Pat says is valid, then so it what G said. Do you REALLY want to see that. How is what we are doing overseas ANY different?

4). "work ethic". Watched the Wikileaks video? Better yet, watch it with a returning air cav guy/gal and see what their reaction is. A photographer is identified with a big camera and that constitutes satisfying the rules of engagement, and we watch as the pilot "lights 'em up"- the whole group standing there- then strafes medical aid when it arrives. Oh, but a kid may have been injured. Rush the medics. Work ethic? Humans are no better than a turn at the Gameboy? If I EVER find myself sitting next to a gunnery sergeant at work you can bet your bottom dollar that I will be finding a lawyer muy pronto to sue my employer for reckless endangerment. You know peeing in a alley in SF will get you on the registered sex offenders list. Seriously, you are telling me that the guy that learned to stalk humans as if they were Nintendo should be moved to the head of the line, but the guy that took a leak in the alley should be excluded for my safety? This is so full of sh*t...

Benjamin Franklin said that democracy needs to be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what they have for dinner. Congratulations, Americans! Between the progressives that wouldn't change a thing and the teabaggers, you now have that blessed harmonious situation where the sheep are now voting with the wolves.

I do have a question, relative to vets and jobs. A lot of us struggle to get through school these days. I debated long and hard with friends that said, "we'll never have to fight, it's just an education". They were wrong, and are now rationalizing why its a good fight. I say rationalizing because they never mentioned ANY of those consideration when the decision was made. If we're going to give them unconditional support, and isolate them from the effects of a bad decision, then maybe we should bail out all the people that made stupid mortgages during the banking bubble. That's my biggest gripe about the supposed higher ethics of the troops. The #1 life value that Americans need to learn more, need to DEVELOP, is taking individual responsibility. Everything you are arguing for the troops is against that principle. I'm all for helping the returning troops demob. It's good for everyone. I help crack addicts too. I think we need to show more sympathy and care for the mentally ill. I don't see, however, how telling any of those people that they made a courageous decision in not being personally responsible, will help them at all.

"bartender" on another thread would probably consider me an adversary, but, believe it or not, my sentiments are 100% in agreement with his/hers.

Alisa in Tillamook

Wow, TA, what a piece of work you are. Your personal insults speak volumes about the type of person you are. Yes, I'm a military wife - proud of it, and I know the meaning of sacrifice. My children have also sacrificed, and you have NO - idea. It is just as appropriate to state that, as you state that you are a military "father." Thanks to your son for his sacrifices, and for having the strength within to do what he wanted in life as far as enlisting, instead of listening to his father's view and basing his decisions on them. I'm not going to respond further, but feel free to let you personal insults fly, because all it does is prove the point that you are not supportive of our military members, no matter how much you waive your flag and toot your horn.

A couple more things, TA - I KNOW OPSEC - we have been through it several times in our home. If they were told they can email their families, it is assumed that their families are not going to post on a blog the day they are leaving Iraq, as it is assumed that the soldiers will remind their families about OPSEC. I reponded initially about my concern for you breaking OPSEC. The only reason I stated I was a military wife is to affirm that I know about the terms of OPSEC - not to play the "military wife" card. What is the military wife card anyway? Does it state that I am a special wife because I "get" to deal with a PTSD and TBI plagued husband who also has physical disabilities now? Does it state that I am lucky enough to wake up every morning during a deployment wondering if my childrens' father is going to be killed? I didn't get my special card - maybe its in the mail. Ummmm....have you read through your own blog - because you have played the "parent of a military member" card as though you have some type of special rights because your adult son joined the military. Do not EVER insult a military wife because as a parent, you don't know what its like to walk in our shoes. I don't know what its like to walk in your shoes, either, but I didn't bring out the personal insults of you being a military "father" - you did. Thanks for giving me a sample to demonstrate someone who says they support our military members but in reality they don't. Best wishes to your son - I hope he is able to adjust back to "reality" smoothly and that he has no long-term negative effects from Iraq.

my kid leaves Iraq tomorrow. you got off lucky, bin Laden.

I agree with you 100%, Pat, in your reply. Since we agree on the mechanics, I don't see why one would make a global attribution to the character of soldiers. It's a reduction of data. On the process level we agree.

"Yes I watched the entire WikiLeaks video, and saw classic confirmation bias end in the deaths and injury of a bunch of civilians, including children."

My point in mentioning that was what if they had been insurgents? Does that make it OK to dehumanize them? I wasn't debating the killing, but the personality of the killers. The idea was, are you sure the work ethic you imagine is operating? What I saw was very similar to PDX police shootings. In those cases, attitude is the first thing mentioned. Why not the military?

I hate to pick at words, but the role competition between Cindy and t.a. is disturbing. I happen to agree with Cindy, but am alarmed by the trend it illustrates, to judge personal worth in terms of role. It's also used to demand a certain reaction and response from the listener. Creating extra levels of reference can't be about communicating meaning. Eg. "my childrens' father" for "my husband". Like the video, regular old humans don't count for much. Children are precious. As a result "my childrens' father" ostensibly garners more social acquiesce than "my husband". Just like the video. I'm reminded of Branagh's line in "Swing Kids", "Today, it is the youth who lead." We already hae "internationally protected persons". Kids have become societally protected persons. Meanwhile, all the people creating their own life suffer continual erosion of every right. Just like the Nazis, you have to ask yourself why ANYONE would want to run a society based on the military and kids. There are no nice answers to that one that I can see.

I agree about the rude tone, Cindy, but we were warned. To my reading when you start a post with "our people" that said to me "and if they're not your people then I'm not talking to you". Maybe that was the OPSEC. For "our eyes only". You make the point that they are our people.

Alisa in Tillamook

<hr/>