Morale is a big deal in the Army. If morale is down, people do substandard work, they aren’t as motivated and things simply don’t go as smoothly. That’s why the Army spends millions of dollars on morale boosting programs like MWR (Morale Welfare and Recreation) and BOSS (Better Opportunities for Single Soldiers). Despite all that effort, things like hate mail can be a real morale killer.

Everyone likes to feel appreciated. There are many organizations out there that support the troops by sending them crap. That’s great. I have no problem with free stuff. However, a box of Triscuits and baby wipes very much pales in comparison to a genuine smile or a silently mouthed thank you received for nothing other than being in uniform.

It was December so I got to fly home for Christmas. I was in full dress uniform and it was immensely uncomfortable. I get on the plane and the flight attendant bumps me to first class. “Well, hot diggity dog! First class.” I think, “That’s what the fuck I’m talking about!” At first it was just really cool to be in the cushy chair and being given a wine list, then one of the passengers comes up to me and says, “This is my first time flying since 9/11 and I really feel safer because you’re here.” That makes you feel good.

Hate mail? Not so much.

I received some hate mail on MySpace today.

In it, was the following:

Apparently, this person wants me out of Iraq.

Personally, I don’t give a shit whether random MySpace jerkbag supports the war. Or the troops. Or me. If you pay taxes to the American government you are supporting my paycheck which is really all the support I need from you. The rest of it is nice, but if I don’t have it I will still do my job and do it well.

That said, I very easily dismissed Random MySpace Jerkbag as a bored piece of dog crap who needed to feel important for once in his life and moved on with my own. However when I, in passing, told one of my comrades about MySpace Jerkbag and his ill-formatted piece of correspondence, he was surprisingly saddened by the lack of support.

He said, “That sucks, man. What a shitty thing to do. I get those sometimes too. I joined to serve my country and I can’t understand why people who benefit from what I do could be such assholes.” Incredulous, I replied: “You joined to serve your country? Sorry, man. I most definitely cannot identify with your sentiment. I joined for the free stuff.”

I didn’t join the Army because I was compelled to be a part of some greater good. I joined for the free stuff. Some people join because they need to get away from wherever they are. Some people see it as a legitimate and respectable way to better themselves. Some people join because they need a steady paycheck. Some people join because they have a terminally ill child and they can’t afford the healthcare. Some people join only because that’s what Dad did.

People don’t realize this when they think of the troops, they see us as this huge oppressive singular force; the way they see the government. They equate the idea of the bureaucracy at the top with the troops and they aren’t the same. That’s like blaming the bagger at Wal-Mart for putting the mom and pop shop down the street out of business.

Foremost, what people don’t realize about the troops (or the war for that matter) is that the politics of the situation go out the window once the boots hit the ground. Then it’s about the guy next to you. It’s about making sure he gets to see his new baby. It’s about making sure that the newly engaged becomes the newly wed. It’s about a making sure that he gets the chance to blow all his deployment money on that Audi that he really doesn’t need. It’s about making sure that he comes home.

As I write this piece, I’m tracking a combat operation on the screen in front of me with bated breath. The road they are on hasn’t seen a route clearance team since early this morning and there’s been a large amount of enemy activity in the area in the past week. So far everything has been quiet but something could happen to them at any time. They know I’m here watching them, ready to send help the second they ask for it. That’s all the support they need right now.

We do what we are told because that’s our job. It’s not about what you think. It not about what I think. Its not about what the media thinks. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter because despite what anyone thinks; we will still execute. Just don’t be an asshole.

Oh, yeah. Free stuff is cool, too.

In an effort to force feed the president and show him what his country actually wants the house has sent a bill calling for troop withdrawals to congress. The 218-208 victory came as the top US commander in Iraq told lawmakers that that despite people killing and bombing each other all over the country things are improving. I am paraphrasing by the way.
The bill which the president said he would veto will be on his desk within a couple weeks. And by politician time that more then likely means he will see it next year.

The $124 million dollar bill continues to fund the war but requires troops to begin withdrawals by October 1st of this year.

Non combat missions such as attacking terrorists? Huh. Moving on.

After Bush veto's the bill the Democrats and the two republicans that voted yes will have to convince two thirds of the house in order to veto his veto and to tell Bush to stick it where the sun doesn't shine.

You mean we in war we win some battles and loose others?? No way.

In response to talk of the bill the president had this to say.

Because an army that is actually controlled by its people would be just a horrible idea right? Why again did anyone vote for this guy?

George W. Bush's iconoclastic strategy for military success in Iraq (even more of the same!) garnered more than its fair share of media attention over the past month and a half, eventually resulting in the recent deployment of more troops in Iraq and the public realization that "surge" is far more popular as a euphemism for "desperate military escalation" than it ever was as a carbonated beverage. But once again, lost amongst the Iraq shuffle, is poor old Afghanistan, the neglected front in the "war on terror," where "defeated" Talbani fighters are gearing up for a major 2007 offensive. During her trip to Afghanistan to survey the situation there, Nancy Pelosi encountered a startlingly obvious, but hitherto unasked question from beleaguered Afghani president Hamid Karzai: Where is our troop surge?

What's really sad about the situation in Afghanistan is that if Bush had decided to exclusively focus on rebuilding the country there and actually defeating the Taliban (Mullah Omar still remains at large) rather than venturing off into Iraq for no particular reason, he almost certainly would have kept much of the international support for the "war on terror" that the US had after 9/11, his approval rating very likely wouldn't be at its lowest point ever and by all rights the Republicans may very well have kept control of both houses of Congress. Live and learn. Unfortunately the Afghanis cannot afford to be quite so glib about the situation, being the focal point of a wave of Taliban inspired violence threatening the existence of Karzai's shaky government.

And while Iraq, which by all accounts remains a clusterfuck, is getting an additional twenty-one thousand troops, Afghanistan, where they would more likely be happily greeted and are clearly also necessary, is only getting a very slight boost in troop deployment and a minor fraction of the financial support. Seems like a fair enough question, president Karzai. So how about it? Where's the Afghanistan surge?

Of all the pundits who have cleared the path to the current battlefield that is mainstream political discussion, few can claim to have held the standard of bitter partisanship more than Rush Limbaugh or have wielded as much influence. His syndicated radio show reaches millions of listeners, and is the centerpiece of a mini-media empire that serves to dish out conservative propaganda to the masses. Constantly beating the drum for war and chastising Democrats and liberals for not supporting the military, it's amazing that someone who maintains positions such as these can take time out of his radio show to disresect and dishonor the women in the military currently serving in Iraq.

So Limbaugh, who avoided military service in Vietnam by virtue of a pilonidal cyst (essentially a boil on his ass) has decided that he will not support the women who chose to volunteer for military service because, in some fashion it's not "civilized."

The war-torn battlefields of yesteryear are long since forgotten in the ever-progressing evolution in modern warfare. The news brings tales of modern super-weapons, soldier tactics, and the ever-popular WMDs.

Canadian troops, however, are battling a haze of war that has yet to be encountered. In Afghanistan, the Canadian troops are fighting Taliban militants through a forest of 10-foot tall marijuana plants. As a preview of the many Canadian jokes to come, the army has retaliated by attacking with at least one armored car... camouflaged with marijuana plants in hopes of breaking through the Taliban's creative cover.

Now comes the bigger question: What's the obvious method of combating this cover? Yes. Burn Them. Chief of the Canadian Defense Staff, Rick Hillier had this to comment:

Not all hope was lost. A select few of the dry, brown plants along the edges of the forests did successfully incinerate, but a select few of the soldiers that happened to be in the smoke's path reported 'ill effects".

Republicans often like to be known as the party that supports the military. With the GOP leadership adopting a bellicose foreign policy and shunning traditional methods of diplomacy, supporting American's military would be the natural conclusion one would draw. And Republicans have made considerable political hay out of accusing their opponents of being wishy-washy and not caring about America's soldiers. But that statement has finally been put the test, and the results may surprise some. The group Iraq and Afghanistan Veters of America, comprised of veterans from America's most recent wars, analyzed the past 300 Senate votes on matters pertaining to the military, and scored Senators according to how closely their votes aligned with the what the veterans supported. The infographic is highly informative.



Not exactly a ringing endorsement for our chest-thumbing Republican representatives. Not a single one outscored a Democrat or Independent in the analysis, so while they were quick to vote for sending our troops out to Iraq and put them in harm's way, when it came to provide for properly equipping them in the field or with benefits when they came home, Republicans were nowhere to be found.

Apparently in England military officials don't need to be retired in order to recommend leaving Iraq.

He's saying what everyone already knows. Iraq is an incredible disaster. With military injuries and casualties building up, Iraqi civilian death estimates ranging as high as 650000 (though that figure is highly disputed) and daily reports of insurgent attacks it has to be painfully clear to whoever's watching. Unfortunately most of the American military brass seems unwiling to admit that pulling troops out could be a viable alternative. Apparently England's leaders don't share that problem.

Immediately removing all troops would probably not be an effective way to help Iraqis transition to self-rule. But a phased removal of them in the near term future would at least show the people who clearly want us to leave that it's in the cards and this is not going to be an indefinite occupation.

Managing the US armed forces is a tough job, so it's a good thing that we've got the entire department of defense, headed by our very own and favorite Donald Rumsfeld to keep things in order. And they've done a splendid job planning the Iraq invasion and postwar reconstruction, as I'm sure the soldiers currently serving over there will agree. Being hailed as liberators and showered with gifts and affection will do that. They've also been keeping a close eye on what our troops are doing and how they can be most effectively deployed to bring us all the victory we know is imminent. And they're working hard to bring them out of harm's way. That is, as soon as they can figure out how many we have there in the first place.

How on earth could the number of US troops be "murky?" It seems simple enough; one is either in Iraq, or not in Iraq. There's not much of a middle ground there.

Are we getting some inkling as to where the slipups may have occurred in the postwar planning? One would hope that a major piece of any planning would involve knowing how many troops are there in the first place.