Following up on "The Soldiers Speak up--LOUDLY", "The Soldiers Keep Speaking" and "Another Soldier Speaks". We now have an American Soldier, one who earned a purple heart, discussing the "claim" of supporting the troops, but not the war. Written 11/3/06.
American Soldier says,
So no shit there I was driving to work and in the distance I could see some signs on an overpass. I figured I’d pass some ‘Welcome home Soldier or Marine’ signs like normal. Not on this day. There were about 7 anti-war/anti-bush signs. At first I just shook my head and I drove on. I got about a mile down the road and I found myself pulling off the highway to turn around. I could feel the adrenaline course throw my veins.At first I began to get angry because here are some signs that clearly go against everything within my character and what I believe in. The image of me getting out of my car and ripping the signs down kept repeating itself. Yeah I said to myself, go rip those signs down and you will feel better.
I was approaching the overpass and I saw two guys standing in the middle of the bridge on the sidewalk. One was an older man and another a little older than I. I slowed down and rolled down my window. The first thing I said was “Do you see the medal on my plate?” I have a Purple Heart plate. They looked over and began to tell me how they support the troops but not the war. I responded by saying that the medal is more than me being injured. It’s about honor and sacrifice.
I asked how they could support the troops but not the war?
So the dialogue went on for about 40 minutes. I never got out of my car; I just sat comfortably in my vehicle. We exchanged points about the war and what is really going on over there. I explained to them what I did over there. They said it was a fool’s war. I told them that it wasn’t and they were being misled with whatever political slant or stance they have with it. I told them that we needed to have stability in the Middle East and Iraq was the prime place for it. I told them that like most people, we did the right thing by going in Afghanistan. However the Middle East needed to have stability. I explained the strategic reason why Iraq was the prime place. I told them what countries borders Iraq and how it was the center piece for that area. Saddam needed to be taken out regardless; he was a ruthless leader, etc, etc. I explained to them that the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 included Iraq. It was just a matter of time.
I said to them that if they thought this was a fool’s war, then what about the next conflict? Is that going to be another fool’s war? Should we let the people depict what is a fair war? Should we hold votes to decide what kind of war is right for the US? It doesn’t work like that I told them. We are given the rights we have for the sacrifices of men and woman who serve our nation. I told the younger guy that it is a privilege he has to be standing on this bridge protesting the war and our government. I said you know if he were in Iran he would be shot and drag through the streets. I told him how dare he say he supports the troops but not the war that I nearly died in?
The conversation went full circle and I said many times that I disagree with what they were doing. They even invited me to one of their ‘candle light vigils!’ I had to restrain myself from laughing. I simply declined.
Then the older gentleman asked me if I had a problem with them executing their freedom of speech. I looked him in the eyes and I said. There is an organization that preaches the same message outside of Walter Reed Hospital. They go there and defile a sacred ground that today’s warriors go to die or recover from their wounds. I said that he is no different than those people; he is only separated by 1500 miles between his picket sign and theirs.
He didn’t know what to say at that point. He started to say something and I cut him off. I responded by saying: “If I had to do it again that I would willingly volunteer to go fight in any war my nation puts in front of me. The reason is I want to be there for my fellow soldier. If I could save another soldiers life through my experience then I can rest good at night. What makes him sleep peacefully at night?”
I rolled up my window and drove away and went to work.
Visit this Hero's Site.
This next soldier speaks up for Donald Rumsfeld, again, the things the media and your politicians do not tell you. This is from the Air Force Pundit.From Mario Loyola in the Corner:
"The transformation of a nation's military is the rarest of historical accomplishments — vested interests almost always win, leading the nation into the great danger of increasing vulnerability. As Rumsfeld likes to say, "weakness is provocative," and as the Russians learned in World War I and the French in World War II, an untransformed military can look good on paper and prove worthless on the field of battle. In this case, the vested interests are angry at Rumsfeld because they have lost so many battles in their effort to cling to a military capable of defeating a Soviet Union that no longer exists. Rumsfeld understands what his critics don't—as Charles de Gaulle said, no institution lasts unless it is constantly renewed.
People howl that the military is now overstretched because he failed to plan the postwar peace. But by my count, there are at least 10 combat brigades (in addition to those already deployed around the world) ready to roll at any given time — on the order of 100,000 troops — enough for a campaign of massive proportions in addition to what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many experts then wail that these units are "not ready" because many or most are reporting at the C-3 and C-4 levels of readiness (the lowest ones) because of the Iraq war's drain on resources. What people need to understand about the readiness targets is that they are the Rumsfeld's military's futuristic assessment of what would ideally be needed for any of the 39 combat brigades of the U.S. military to enter any of the currently conceivable combat scenarios with their entire wish list — which means all the uparmored Humvees they would need in a theaterwide counterinsurgency environment AND all the artillery they would need in a big mass-on-mass engagement with another army AND all the maneuver forces it would need for massive mobility under fire. The units reporting at C-3 and C-4 many not have the latest and most high-tech equipment in the numbers they want—there might be more casualties and more collateral damage—but they have all the equipment they need to go into combat today and fight and win with overwhelming power.
What Rumsfeld has created is a fully modular, rotational "total force" that achieves division-size effects with brigade-size formations, is vastly more lethal, agile, and integrated than what we had before, and has spread its capabilities across a spectrum of possible challenges. That's how Rumsfeld has helped the country prepare for a future of unknown unknowns. We saw the results in the rapidity with which the U.S. military responded to the Indian Ocean tsunami, orchestrating almost over night one of the largest humanitarian relief operations in history. This saved countless tens of thousands from thirst, disease, and starvation in the critical early weeks after the disaster. It was totally unexpected — but we were ready.
In my opinion, we will have reasons to thank Rumsfeld many decades into the future. And as invariably happens in history, people will quite forget what folks thought of Rumsfeld in his own time—especially those who did not understand what they were looking at and had essentially had nothing to say.
Once again, I ask for the hundreth time. Are you going to believe your politicians and news media or our soldiers in active duty and those that have already served their time?
Shouldn't be all that difficult of a question. It isn't for me.
