Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

War on Iraq

Volunteer Soldiers Devastated by Iraq Weren't "Asking for It"

By Stacy Bannerman, AlterNet. Posted March 10, 2007.


"They volunteered, didn't they?" is a common sneering response to the stories about National Guardsmen whose lives were destroyed by Iraq -- the truth is that going to war is not what they signed up for.
Advertisement

"They volunteered, didn't they?"

As the war in Iraq has gone from wrong to worse, that question, often delivered as a statement, has become the fallback stance of folks who are attempting to silence the voices of those of us who actually have loved ones in uniform, or who died while wearing it. I love my country dearly, but sometimes it's difficult to retain a feeling of love for my countrymen who have said, "They volunteered, didn't they?" in an effort to shut up the growing numbers of military and Gold Star families who are speaking out against this war.

More often than not, the phrase falls from the mouths of people who will send our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, spouses and children to war, but blanch or literally roll their eyes at the suggestion that they send their own, or -- heavens! -- go themselves.

Less than one percent of Americans are in the Armed Forces. Over 1.3 million US troops have served in Iraq, including upwards of 450,000 National Guard and Reservists, surpassing by hundreds of thousands the number of Guard and Reservists that have fought in any other foreign war in this nation's history. In the early years of the occupation, my husband was stationed at LSA Anaconda with the Army National Guard's 81st brigade, so I speak from that experience, my conversations with hundreds of military families, soldiers, and Iraq War veterans, and a ridiculous amount of research.

I had to become something of a layman's expert on the National Guard in order to navigate the stultifying military bureaucracy, advocate for our soldiers and veterans, and speak out against the war.

What citizen soldiers signed up for:

What the television ad promised: "One weekend a month, two weeks a year. Earn money for college and protect your local community." That's what citizen soldiers signed up for. While they were certainly aware of the dual mission, they believed the recruiters who told them that they'd never get deployed; that the only way they'd see combat is "if World War III broke out." Since 2001, "four out of five guardsmen have been sent overseas in the largest deployment of the National Guard since World War II." (Stateline.org, January 12, 2007) Over 400 Army National Guard soldiers have died in Iraq, more than quadruple the amount that died in the entire Vietnam War.

For more than half a century, the National Guard's policy regarding mobilization was that Guardsmen would be required to serve no more than one year cumulative on active duty (with no more than six months overseas) for each five years of regular drill. After September 11, 2001, the possible mobilization time was increased to 18 months (with no more than one year overseas). Then it was increased again, to 24 months. That policy was effectively abandoned by the Pentagon in January of 2007 because it's the only way they can continue to redeploy Iraq War veterans/Reservists. The cumulative number of days Guard soldiers called to duty [rose] from 12.7 million in 2001 to 68.3 million in 2005, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The constant changes to policy, time and terms of deployment, extensions, stop-loss, etc, are, in fact, not what they signed up for when they took an oath to protect the Constitution from "threats both foreign and domestic."

The Army National Guard's charter is the Constitution of the United States: Title 10 U.S.C. 12301 (a) provides that, in time of war or national emergency declared by the Congress, reserve components can be called to active duty.

1) Article I, Section 8; Clause 15: The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

The men and women who volunteered to serve their communities and country did so with the contractual guarantee that they would not be sent into the killing fields unless the aforementioned conditions were met. "There is a contract between the soldiers and their civilian leaders that they will be sent into harm's way under lawful condictions. The Bush administration has broken that contract. Citizens are the soldiers only protection," said Michael McPherson, Gulf War I veteran, and father of an Iraq War veteran. Promises, promises:


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: national guard, iraq

Stacy Bannerman is a contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org). Her book, "When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Citizen Soldiers and the Families Left Behind," will be released by Continuum Publishing in 2006.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from A Soldier Speaks! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Not making my cry!
Posted by: Temporary on Mar 10, 2007 12:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Back in the 1860's thousand of young Americans were called(involuntarily)to service to fight to keep Lincolns precious union intact. Thousand died, and even more lost there legs, eyes or hands all AGAINST THERE WILL! You could however slitter away from that duty by paying 300$(thats was A LOT those days! Has absolutely NOTHING to do with the PAPER MONEY of today!)Most young men didn't, so they were dragged kicking and screaming to fight there fellow Americans. Those who didn't would get shot for treason, so sorry, but that little sob story there didn't really cause any emotions in my at all, except maybe disgust! Wars TOUGH! What were you expecting from a conflict fought nearly 10-000 miles away from home sweet home anyway? A picnick? No wonder America is losing to commy China, with SPOILED BRATS like you as there mothers!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: Temporary
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: Annarisse
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: Temporary
» Should make you cry. Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: LazyEight
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: Temporary
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: Tatarize
» yep. you're temporary Posted by: Rolomax
» Can a soldier have a brain? Posted by: danielgeery
» Can we please ban all Australians from Alternet? Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» What Yahoo didn't like Posted by: sysadmintech
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: libladyco
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: libladyco
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: fuzzwald
» RE: Not making my cry! Posted by: mreilly444
War is ugly...get over it!
Posted by: EagleMB on Mar 10, 2007 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So I am supposed to feel sorry for people becasue they signed up for free college money with the hope of not being deployed, and then got deployed?

That is like me saying: I didn't buy the extended warranty on my car because I didn't think it would break down, but now that it did, I want you to cover me as if I did buy it.

As for better post war care, I agree we should do better. Now if you people will only agree to a larger defense budget, perhaps we can do better in this area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: War is ugly...get over it! Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: War is ugly...get over it! Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: War is ugly...get over it! Posted by: TexasJewGirl
» More military spending? Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: More military spending? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: More military spending? Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: More military spending? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: More military spending? Posted by: weisen
» RE: More military spending? Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: agleMiniBrain and his ilk, Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: War is ugly...get over it! Posted by: helenwheels
They signed up to defend their country.
Posted by: Rolomax on Mar 10, 2007 2:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Before you jump all over me for my subject, hear me out.

I'd sign up to defend my country if I knew that is what I'd be used for. Alas, it is not so.

As a soldier, I'd expect to be deployed in a way consistent with the defense of my country. For instance, if an invasion of the USA were to occur, I'd be ready and willing to fight. Otherwise, I'd expect peacetime deployment, such as training and physical fitness courses to keep me maintained in case I'm needed to thwart and enemy incursion into one of the 50 states or protectorates.

I would not be ready to die for 'revenge' against the Taliban(not quite AlQueda, mind you) and I would not be willing to die for a lie in Iraq.

Much luck to recruiters.. not. The draft is needed when the people are too wise to sign up. Force is needed when lobbyists and corrupt politicians want to make money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Love Affair With Militarism.
Posted by: itchyvet on Mar 10, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find myself concuring with the majority of responders here, and find it difficult, to scrape up any symphathy whatever for the author and any other military personel finding themselves in a similar position.
The article says it all, if there is only 1% of Americans prepared to waste their lives in the military, thereby offering up their lives/future and well being, simply for a few pieces of silver and a promised college degree, clearly, the mentality of the majority is not as low as I previously thought.
It also raises serious questions about the alleged Patriotism and committment the other 99% have for their country and fellow countrymen/women, it also displays very clearly, the majority of Americans can see and indentify very clearly, the military engagements undertaken by their Administration are not for the security and safeguarding of the homeland as claimed in the majority of cases, and the return to serving members is a very poor trade off indeed for their committment, thus they stay well clear of any military involvement.
I applaud them for this insight.
Where people get the idea from, that they can join the military and not be involved in warfare is beyond my understanding.
ESPECIALLY in the U.S. military, which has an unsavoury record of such involvements all over the World.
You put on that uniform, you agree to everything that goes with it, FULL STOP.
What's that ? You say they changed the rules after you joined ? Hey, tough, go see your Congressman/woman and lodge an official complaint and when next, you get the opportunity to have your say at the ballot box, ensure the creeps who did the dirty on you, don't get your vote.
I always wonder, how such people vote when they're availed of the opportunity, or even whether they have the mental skills to work out they've been had big time.
But hey, folks are still lining up to sign on the dotted line prepared to throw away their lives, so I guess there are still, a hell of a lot of brain dead people in America, despite what's going on in Iraq and elsewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Love Affair With Militarism. Posted by: yvonnecarroll
» RE: Love Affair With Militarism. Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Factually incorrect. Posted by: Orsino
time for an audit
Posted by: mazel on Mar 10, 2007 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to know where the billions we are pouring into this fiasco are going. We know the money isn't being spent on the safety and welfare of our service members; nor is it being spent on reconstruction efforts except to the extent of landing in Halliburton's pockets. This administration spends more on defense than anything else. They should have to account for every bloody penny of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: time for an audit Posted by: malaparte
» RE: Know your facts Posted by: kbest
» RE: Know your facts Posted by: HeWhoProfesses
» RE: Know your facts Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Peace thru superior firepower Posted by: freedom_rings
» RE: Peace thru superior firepower Posted by: freedom_rings
» leafsong1 is a douchebag Posted by: greggwyck
» RE: Peace thru superior firepower Posted by: maldissent
» RE: Peace thru superior firepower Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
» RE: Know your facts Posted by: Blade
» 2004 GDP vs. 1960 GDP Posted by: WhatNow?
*Whew* Talk about devouring your own
Posted by: meeper on Mar 10, 2007 5:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stacy: I presume you are going to read the comments on this piece. Please hear me now: the mean-spirited, often vitriolic comments are not representative.

I am ADAMANTLY against the current conflicts, but for those of us who oppose them, attacking the people harmed by them isn't going to help. That includes servicefolk, their families, the insurgents and their families, ANYONE who suffers because of the imperialist and deluded decisions of the American government.

REGARDLESS of the reason that servicefolk enlist... regardless... nothing justifies the "neener, neener" attitude demonstrated here. What happened to compassion, folks? Because if your response is "these people are too stupid/selfish/conservative/whatever" to deserve compassion, then you can bloody well get off the boat, especially if you are anti-war. Punitive attitudes and callous indifference to suffering are the calling cards of the neocons.

We need to take the high road, here, folks, and that doesn't include a "tough shit, you should have known better" set of values.

I know this won't convince any of the hardliners, because words cannot generate empathy and compassion - only an open and willing heart can.

Hang in there, Stacy, and ignore the naysayers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you Posted by: feduphoosier
» RE: Thank you....also Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Thank you Posted by: Blade
» RE: Thank you Posted by: helenwheels
time for a draft
Posted by: karyse on Mar 10, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I hate war, but going by the posts here, it's time to start drafting those who take us to war but won't participate, and yet show no sympathy for those who have.

to Temporary: Uh, are you military? Didn't think so. You're in your comfy home no doubt. Must be a spoiled brat, hey?

to itchyvet: so you're saying that signing a contract, which includes medical (and the expectation that you will recieve treatment if wounded in action) is irrelevent and the state is under no obligation to hold up their end of the contract? Or if the contract you signed says no more than one year active but changes to: After September 11, 2001, the possible mobilization time was increased to 18 months (with no more than one year overseas). Then it was increased again, to 24 months -- too bad, the government can do whatever it wants without end? You're a piece of work.

Yep, I'd love to see what happens when the kids of the wealthy get their numbers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: time for a draft Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: time for a draft Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Albrechtkraut Posted by: Blade
THIS COMBAT VETERAN ABSOLUTELY AGREES
Posted by: kc10ken on Mar 10, 2007 5:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent over 13 years in the military, both Reserve and Active Duty, and even did 3 tours in the middle east.

This article is RIGHT ON THE MONEY and let me explain why.

I see other posts here that basically repeat the mantra that "they volunteered didn't they?". These folks posting this BULLSHIT ought to serve in the Reserves like I did.

First and foremost let me say that most of the guys in the Reserves would GLADLY volunteer to do a tour in Iraq......just like I did 3 times........that's what volunteering is all about, it's what sacrifice is all about. However, when your government then kicks in STOP LOSS and prevents you from leaving the service (whether you did 30 years and are ready to retire makes no difference, NO ONE leaves till uncle Sam says so) that is a violation of the agreement every reservist makes when he or she enlists. ESPECIALLY when the STOP LOSS is for an illegal and immoral war.

INVOLUNTARY EXTENSIONS. I knew of a reserve unit that completed their tour, had their bags packed and on the tarmac waiting to leave Baghdad Airport, only to have the Pentagon issue an involuntary extension at the last minute to keep them in Iraq indefinitely.

When you sign an enlistment contract it SPECIFICALLY STATES that the government CANNOT keep you on active duty for more than 1 year during your 6 year Reserve enlistment. This agreement has now been broken many times in the past 4 years of war in Iraq. The Pentagon just rescinded and went back on this agreement 2 months ago so it may keep Reservists in Iraq INDEFINITELY.

ALSO, when a Reservist VOLUNTEERS for a tour in Iraq, when it WAS applicable, that volunteer tour did NOT COUNT towards the maximum 1 year that the Pentagon WAS allowed to keep you on active duty as a Reservist.

Let me tell you what happens to Reservists, like me, who get activated, stop lossed and involuntarily extended in a war that never should happened.

They lose their businesses (if they're self employed)
They lose their homes (can't pay the mortgage's on military pay)
They lose their familiies (marriages end up in divorce)
They get treated like shit when they ARE on active duty because one of the military's dirty little secrets is that it treats Reservists and National Guardsmen like second class citizens.
They get paid LESS than active duty personnel.

Our current administration and the pentagon have violated the trust that our government once had with Reservists and NG. When recently polled in Iraq our soldiers stated overwhelmingly (over 70%) that they would NOT be reenlisting when their current tour was up. Think we have retention and recruitment problems NOW? Give Iraq another year and watch SERIOUS talk about the draft begin.

What it boils down to is this. If Iraq was a LEGITIMATE war I really don't think there would be a major problem with pissed off Reservists and NG.......but it's NOT. And THEREIN lies the problem....most Reservists and NG are intelligent enough to know that the QUAGMIRE in Iraq is not getting any better and that every American life lost in Iraq is, in the words of John McCain, a "WASTE".

NO ONE in the Reserves or NG wants to waste their life on demented delusional neocon dreams of a "Pax Americana" or OIL.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well Said- Posted by: djnoll
I do not pity the losers
Posted by: HeWhoProfesses on Mar 10, 2007 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who return shattered from Iraq and act like they had no clue of what they were getting into. Any person who enters the military knows the risks; anyone with a military spouse knows the risks.

You write another article whining about your marriage? Notice how you are not garnering much sympathy on here.

Poverty is no excuse to voluntarily join the military if the person does not want to fight, let alone is the desire for cushier benefits like extra income, health insurance etc. an excuse.

For the desperate youngsters there are usually other ways to obtain money and benefits, even if these ways are undesirable, degrading, or even illegal. Suck it up! As for the money-for-college argument, tough! Not everyone gets to go to college and that's life.

As for people with established careers who enter the reserves or Guard for a few perks, they are even worse.

We do the best with the options we have even if this means becoming a janitor due to lack of opportunities. Clearly it would suck to be looked down on or have opportunities beyond one's reach due to factors one cannot control or due to poor and renounced actions earlier on, but happiness comes from within, and anyone stuck in a crap job and lifestyle who is looked down on by someone who does not understand the factors that drove them there can go to hell. This is the attitude those struggling to scrape by should take; they should not take the path to the military unless they truly care to fight, no matter the MOS they sign for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I do not pity the losers Posted by: boing007
» RE: I do not pity the losers Posted by: yvonnecarroll
» RE: I do not pity the losers Posted by: Revvy1337
» RE: I do not pity the losers Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: I do not pity the losers Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: I do not pity the losers Posted by: helenwheels
I would be more sympathetic except...
Posted by: logansafi on Mar 10, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would be more sympathetic except as a nurse, I have worked with lots of medical personnel (reserve) that got their carrer start in the military. That was most educational. Often times (and this was way before the invasion and occupation) these people would sit and discuss their benefits and opportunities before me at nights, and it was if they were discussing career moves within the post office instead of 'careers' in Uncle Sam's killing machine.

Any attempt put out to them explaining that the military was something they might should feel somewhat ashamed about being part of, received absolutely no response what-so-ever. They just did not give a damn about the morality of what they were doing and being a part of. That was without exception, in my experioence, and is what the voluntary military was totally about: a ME FIRST selfishness and total societal irresponsibility.

One of the few good things about this war, is that it is permanently breaking up this mercenary attitude, I think. Mercenarioes want low risk, and I think that from now on it will be harder to persuade mercenary signons that all will be safe for them as they go out killing others. That's a good thing and will help roll the Pentagon war machine to a stop over the long haul!

Thank you Iraqis and Afghans for helping out us US civilians who oppose the militarization of our own society by resisting our careerist evil doers. It is you who my heart goes out to.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess the right wingers are right afterall...
Posted by: D_comp on Mar 10, 2007 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judging by the comments here, I guess the right wingers and neocon nuts are right afterall: Progressives/liberals/anti-war types really do hate American soldiers. So much for having any compassion for those directly harmed by this war. I can read posts all day from people complaining about domestic laws restricting rights and how much they are being harmed by this (and I agree), and yet when somebody posts about soldiers being physically and psychologically damaged by the war all I see is 'who cares, thats what they get.' Is this how you would respond if any of your family members joined the military, even against your wishes, then came home missing body parts and being mistreated by our own government? Would you be saying these same things then? Would you look them in the face and say 'too bad, you should have known what you were getting into. Stop complaining'? Makes me ashamed to call myself liberal or progressive or anything else that might associate myself with ignorant and compassionate people like this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compassionate Conservatism
Posted by: boing007 on Mar 10, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All of you who think that the soldiers who have been shafted deserve whatever happens to them are the most despicable excuses for human beings that I have ever encountered. Either go immediately to your Army Recruting Office and sign up for three or four tours of duty or STFU. Disgusting cretins.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not war...not fighting terrorism
Posted by: scott balogh on Mar 10, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, the US military is not engaged in war in Iraq and never has been. We attacked that country, destroyed their infrastructure and effectively destroyed their military. Then we invaded their country and are now occupying it. We are engaged in a struggle against insurgents who are trying to drive us out. Not War! There is no such thing as a war on terrorism. That phrase is used to keep the US citizenry afraid of the unknown thus allowing the US, how else can I say it, the military industrial complex to advance their agenda. You rotten-hearted individuals whose mantra seems to be "you bastards joined the military so what is happening to you is just tough shit". This mentality is shameful and sickening. These military people are being used like disrespected slaves who are worth little more than the weapons which they are issued. the leaders who have sent these precious humans to do their filthy, disgusting work for them should be dropped into pits in the ground to live out their days. But instead, they live like sultans and emirs while addessing their subjects (the US citizenry) in their condescending tones with smirks and sneers on their damned faces. You black hearted, soulless supporters of this Bush bunch of neo-con crusaders, are the most dispicable of the US citizenry. You are the "good Nazi's" of our country, for that you must be very proud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not war...not fighting terrorism Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
Comparing GDPs
Posted by: boing007 on Mar 10, 2007 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Know your facts

Posted by: kbest on Mar 10, 2007 5:59 AM
Know your facts before you spew. This administration spends 2.5% of the GDP on defense. Kennedy's spent 4% of the GDP on defense.

The GDP in 1963 was around 620 billion dollars, so about
$25 billion was spent on the defense budget. In 2005,
it was around 12 trillion dollars. You do the math. Don't forget
Homeland Security and all the other hidden supplementals
that the GOP added to the regular defense budget last year and the years before. Comes out to at least $2 trillion dollars.
Hey, that looks like more than 2.5% to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know a young man who volunteered
Posted by: Lizmv on Mar 10, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He joined the National Guard before Bush chose to attack Iraq. He volunteered because he felt it was his duty to help GUARD his country, NOT because he wanted to kill Muslims. He was conflicted when he was called to Afghanistan after 9/11, but felt it was the right thing to do. He was outraged that he was in Iraq after Katrina hit the Gulf so badly. Helping his fellow citizens is what he signed up for.
I can't help but feel that our young people who sign up aren't fully informed before hand. Maybe it's because I'm getting old and it uses too much energy to engage in being angry. Or maybe it's because I've raised 2 children and understand that there are life lessons kids need to learn for themselves. But, I strongly feel, no matter what their reasons for signing up, or their ignorance about life in general (due to their youth) they deserve every bit of support we can give them. How on Earth does berating them and turning our backs on them help in the healing of our world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only rightwingers feel sorry for the troops
Posted by: boing007 on Mar 10, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess the right wingers are right afterall...
Posted by: D_comp on Mar 10, 2007 7:05 AM
Judging by the comments here, I guess the right wingers and neocon nuts are right afterall: Progressives/liberals/anti-war types really do hate American soldiers. So much for having any compassion for those directly harmed by this war.

Wrong! I am not a right winger or a neocon nutjob and I have
lots of compassion for the American soldiers who were duped
into fighting this coup d'etat on false pretenses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this is just another example of ordinary people being screwed
Posted by: xm55 on Mar 10, 2007 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You sign up to serve because you think you have an obligation to your country. This administration and its neo-con lunatics exploits your willingness to sacrifice. This is not a big surprise to those of us who tried to point out the dangerous course of action being embarked upon when we invaded Iraq. A lot of people signed up anyway. We need to vote these people out of office, not sneer at the people they tricked. Just remember this next time they tell you to shut up and salute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Your country ain't your blood"-Sonny Corleone
Posted by: Torgo on Mar 10, 2007 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a way to end all wars, and the means of doing so can be stated in the following words: we must learn to love our children and grandchildren more than we do the state. That’s it. No international treaties; no candlelight vigils; no referenda by the electorate; no abstract philosophic doctrines to recite. All that is required to end the wholesale butchery that most of us are eager to celebrate with the waving of flags is for each of us to put the faces of our children and grandchildren alongside the image of the state and ask ourselves: which am I prepared to sacrifice for the sake of the other?


There is a common assumption, the falsity of which is most often revealed in times of crisis, namely, that parents have an intense love for their children. When the costs of protecting and fostering the interests of our children are relatively low, this statement probably finds a great deal of support in human behavior. I would go even further and, consistent with Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene, add that most parents would likely risk their own lives to save those of their offspring. I have seen mother birds fake an injury to themselves in order to draw a predator away from her nest of chicks, a practice as instinctively based as that of a human mother putting her children behind her when confronted by an attacker. What we think of as our “free will” is not always the product of our conscious thinking, but is often driven by a genetic disposition to continue itself into another generation.

If this is so, what kind of “crisis” could cause parents to override these natural tendencies to protect their children from harm or death? This inquiry raises the question of “who” we are. If, as I believe to be beyond all doubt, each of us is motivated by self-interest, “who” is the “self” whose interests we are fostering? Is it our protoplasmic and/or egoistic sense of being? Does it include our extended family relationships, and perhaps that of our friends, neighbors, and work associates? In the words of Alice’s caterpillar, “who are you?”


Let's get those ego-boundaries up, people!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leftist narcissism exposed, in case you missed it
Posted by: Torgo on Mar 10, 2007 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm comfortable with my self-esteem and self-interest, so I'm not impressed nor harmed by an accusation of narcissism, or any other baseless or guilt-tripping manipulative accusation, for that matter.

Courtney Martin recently wrote an article here on Alternet that was amazing in its confessional tone:

"People who want to see the world bettered -- made more just and honest and kind -- often set their gaze on the farthest horizon. Our instinct, as progressives with global perspectives, is to obsess over situations far afield of our own backyards -- Indonesia, Sudan, the Middle East. These situations stir a sort of Peace Corp romance within us, a love affair with that which might make us feel gallant and extraordinary for caring.

I am as guilty as the next bleeding heart of focusing the majority of my energies on problems I see as compelling in large part because of their strangeness to me. But when I sit with myself, quiet my righteous indignation, my whiny white guilt, my attachment to the idea that I am a humble truth teller among powerful fibbers, I realize that it is not the world outside of me that is in most desperate need of my world-changing instincts. "


Several dozen posters replied without condemning the above idea.

No one wrote to assert the objective worth of leftist activism.

So, to repeat Ms. Martin's assertion, all the righteous indignation and guilt-tripping hectoring and nagging and whiny white whining is all merely a means to the end of subjectively making the offender feel gallant and extraordinary for caring.

If any posters want to raise their voices in defense of the objective value of the above-described activism and agitation, then please do.

The frequent abse