Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Words from an Army Wife

First saw this on Arfcom. Thanks to DW_Drang, who saw it on Blackfive

Anyways...wanted to make sure credit was given first...so, This Op Ed originated at the Eugene, OR Register-Guard

We’ve marked the end of the fifth year of war in Iraq, and the 4,000th soldier killed there. They hold a peace rally downtown. There are dozens of people there. I’m sure many of them are the same people I see on the street corners — their signs say “Support the troops, not the war.” I watch them with tears in my eyes.

I believe in my heart that the demonstrators are good people. They want what I want: for the war to be over, and for all the soldiers fighting it to come home. They are hopeful, passionate, and they have no idea how much it hurts me to watch.

For some people, the war is a cause. It’s a chant, a picket sign, a march through town. For some it’s a political stance.

But I am the wife of a deployed soldier.

For me, the war is the reason I sleep alone every night. The reason that on most nights I’m not sleeping. It’s the strain in friendships that used to include both me and my husband, Paul. It’s the dinner invitations from other couples that no longer come. It’s learning to ride the tractor and unfreeze the well and remembering to start both cars on a regular basis so the batteries won’t die. It’s doing my chores, and his, and trying not to be lonely at night when the house is too quiet and there’s no one to talk to.

For me, the war is knowing that — best case scenario — these changes will define my life for the next year, and worst case, the changes will be permanent.

I want this war to be over more than anything I’ve ever wanted in my life, but that’s not why I cry. I cry because I am so relieved that Paul isn’t home to see this.

My husband fights this war. He risks his life every day. We have both made sacrifices for it. And to hear them say that it’s “a waste of time,” that it “will never make a difference,” that “we should call the whole thing off” — well, if that’s true, I’m not sure I’ll get out of bed tomorrow morning. There has to be a reason that our family — and thousands of others — are enduring this.

Paul believes that he is making a difference in this world. I have to believe that, too. As an Oregon National Guard wife, there is an unspoken code that assumes you won’t participate in anti-war sentiment, but that’s not what stops me from joining them. As I watch, I feel anger, not kinship.

The fact is, I didn’t really understand war until I married someone who fought it.

When I met Paul, he was already a combat veteran. He had served peacekeeping tours in Egypt and Israel, and tours that were anything but peaceful in Iraq. When he flirted with me, I told him I didn’t date military guys. When I caught him reading “The Art of War,” I thought he was a barbarian. When I met his Army friends, I was disgusted by the glorified battle stories they told. When he quit his civilian job and started wearing a uniform every day, I was proud when people thanked him for his service.When he left for Afghanistan, I quit my job to start a military support business. Sometimes you don’t know how you’ll react to something until you live it.

Lately, I read blogs by soldiers on the front lines. It’s the fastest way I know to be depressed and inspired all in one sitting. One of them writes:

“It’s easy to say we shouldn’t be at war, when you’re not the ‘we.’e_SEnS”

I didn’t become the “we” until Sept. 17, 2006, the day I married Paul, three years into the war in Iraq. And even then, I am only the “we” in the sense that I am joined legally and spiritually with a man who is. I’m the “we” beside the “we.”

The protesters say they support the troops, but not the war. To me, that’s impossible. I spent 10 years as a newscaster. If someone told me they supported newscasters but hated the news and thought it should be taken off the air, how supported would I feel? How can you say to someone, “I support your right to do your job — I even benefit when you do it well — but I think what you do is horrible and wrong and I’m resentful that it’s being done at all”?

How can we support the troops when we’re constantly telling them that what they do every day is wrong and they should be ashamed of doing it? How can we expect them to do their jobs well if by doing their jobs they are carrying out a war that we have labeled immoral? And if they don’t do their jobs well, don’t we all suffer?

Maybe what people really want is for the war to end — but for the protection our troops provide to continue. Without it, they may not have the right to speak out about the war, or the missions that comprise it, or the troops that carry out those missions.

Last summer we were in Ashland for a military ball. All of the soldiers and their dates were staying at the same hotel. When it was time for the party, we emerged from that hotel to a dozen female protesters, dressed in black and lining both sides of the sidewalk. They held hand-made signs about the body count in Iraq. We either had to cross the street, or walk right through them.

Paul and I were holding hands and looking forward to the evening. He was wearing his navy blue dress uniform and I had on a new white dress, strapless with a knee-length ruffled skirt. The air was comfortably warm and the sun had just started to set — the kind of summer evening in Oregon that makes you forget all the rain.

We walked through the protesters. They were silent. So were we. I shook my head in confusion. Why do people assume that if you wear a uniform, you’re in favor of the war? And how could they possibly think that 300 Oregon National Guard soldiers in town for a party had anything to do with planning the war they were protesting? These guys are just cogs in the wheel, following orders and hoping to come home alive.

“You’ll join us when your husband dies,” one of the protesters whispered.

I wheeled around, but felt Paul’s hand tighten sharply around mine before I could open my mouth. We kept walking. That night, we didn’t yet know about the deployment. What I did know was that my husband was a good man, and that neither of us wanted this war.

Paul joined the Army when he was a teenager — seven years before Sept. 11, 2001. He joined before we knew what the world would look like today. He joined because he feels that it is his duty to serve his country.

And thank God. Because what I now understand is this: The future of our country — our honor, our dignity, our freedom — rests on the shoulders of volunteers. Volunteers! And if my husband didn’t go to defend us, who would?

He didn’t have to go. His brother and father didn’t. My brother didn’t. (My father did, during Vietnam, but I never thought once about his service or sacrifice until I married Paul.)All of us could choose to stay home with our families and wait until the terrorists come to find us individually. I’m pretty sure that in Monroe, Ore., population 680, chances are good they never would.

But instead, Paul and thousands of men and women like him left their families, put their lives on hold, and went to meet the terrorists head on. And shouldn’t our reaction to that be solemn, tearful, overwhelming gratitude?

Forget “support.” We owe them our thanks.

There was a time I might have attended a peace rally. But that was before I became an Army wife. Before I understood the things that only become clear when your husband — or son, or brother, or father, or sister, or daughter, or wife, or mother — is the one fighting the war. When you are part of the “we.” When you have lent your loved one to Uncle Sam to fight for all of those who have their loved ones safe at home and out of harm’s way.

And here’s the dirtiest secret of all. I believe there should be mandatory military service for all of us. Maybe if every American served this country, we would all be in it together. We would all ride the wave of hope, fear, pride, panic, uncertainty and unconditional love that comes with being a military family in the middle of a deployment. We could all support each other.

And no one could condemn what my husband does for a living, because their husbands would be serving beside him. Freedom would cost each one of us exactly the same amount — instead of being a gift bestowed by a very few that pay a tremendous price. A gift that so many of us forget to say “thank you” for.

My husband has lost dozens of acquaintances and two very good friends to this war. One died in combat. The other returned safely from his tour of duty, but couldn’t forget the things he had seen. He killed himself a short time later. Paul thinks of the first every time he faces dangers on the battlefield. And he thinks of the second every time he does what he has to do to stay safe. The guilt from both is always with him.

I want my husband to come home. I want the war to be over, and for no other families to have to go through a deployment. But more than that, I want the 4,000 deaths that we have suffered in this war to mean something.

The truth is, I don’t care about life in Iraq or Afghanistan or what happens there. But I care very much that every American soldier who gave his or her life didn’t do it for nothing. I don’t want our country to make any more sacrifices for this war — but I want the sacrifices we have already made to matter. Unfortunately, I can’t see any way to have both.


This line made my blood boil
“You’ll join us when your husband dies,”

Thursday, April 10, 2008

I didn't believe before...

But this guy now has me convinced.

Does Matthew Mcconaughey know that his little brother is missing?


Genius Interviewed About Aliens - Watch more free videos

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Tours of Duty...

Let me open this with the fact that I was in the US Army and I have done a "Hardship Tour". Not necessarily the hardship of being deployed to war, but nonetheless I know what it is like to be away from family for an extended period of time.

Now some of what I'm about to say is going to piss a lot of you off. And to be honest, I almost don't care. I want to take emotion out of the equation here for a moment and talk about how long we are sending our military members off to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not sure they are staying long enough.

Here's some of my reasoning.

During World War II, a tour of duty was typically for the duration of the war. You were called up, trained, joined a unit and sent off to war. End result being, you were there until the job got done. Usually an additional 6 months after the war was over.

What this produced was well trained veterans in leadership positions. These veterans were in charge by the time replacements came directly from training to the European and Pacific theater. Your Sargent typically knew the lay of the land, knew the enemy, and, well... Knew how to fight.

Some historians theorize that one of the reasons we eventually beat back the Japanese in the Pacific, (aside from dropping a big effing bomb on them) was due to the Kamikaze attacks on our units. This didn't just include planes hitting our ships, but also infantrymen charging into machine gun fire in order to "die with honor". The Japanese soldiers were willing to CHOSE to die, in order to kill the enemy. The end result was that they lost a majority of their seasoned veterans. Nobody with experience to train the new kid in the unit on how to keep from getting his head shot off.

Of course, during the war, units were rotated off the battlefield to the rear for some "down time", but this didn't usually last very long. A couple of weeks to a month. The fact of the matter is, that the longer they were in theater, the more seasoned they became, and the harder they fought through instinct and muscle memory.

Somewhere during the Korean war, and all of the Vietnam war, this changed. We were still using the draft in order to enlist soldiers into the military, against their will if you want to put it that way. However to be "nice" they were only assigned to an average of 12 to 18 months of time in an actual combat zone. During this time, many would move up the ranks to E4 or E5. Either due to valor or necessity of the unit.

However, Whether the war was over or not, once their time was up, more often than not, the soldier would leave service. The unit would get back filled with new recruits, with no wartime experience. One other side effect to the one year tour, is the soldier knows when his tour is over. When that end date approaches, "short timers disease" can set in. Causing a soldier to get lax in their duties.

This leaves a gaping hole in one of the most important leadership areas of the military. The Junior NCOs. The corporal and buck Sargent are integral to the guidance of a new soldier in a military unit.

The only bonus to this process is that the unit itself would remain in country. So you would still have some of the more seasoned lifers remaining in the unit to train the newer privates.

Now we're bringing entire units back. A brigade will deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan for 12 to 18 months, do its job, and then get pulled back to the states completely for a 1 to 2 (or longer) year break. So, now once a unit has gotten a good lay of the land, knowledge of the people in the area, knowledge of how the enemy fights, and in this case, who the enemy might be. They are pulled back, only to be replaced by an entirely new unit that may very well have been in Iraq in the past, but not necessarily the same area and to top it off, has been "living the good" life for at least the past year.

If you'd like to challenge me on calling stateside duty "the good life" ask a vet first.

This all sounds very callous I know. I understand that nobody really wants to go to war in the first place. I also don't have a burning desire to send our boys and girls off to war. But, one has to ask question; When war does become necessity, do we want to do it right or do it nice? Some will say that I'm just an armchair commando spouting off from a position that doesn't understand what it's really like because I'm not there. To be honest, I probably wouldn't enjoy being deployed to the sandbox all that much.

Well, again. I want to take emotion out of the equation.

If we didn't want our troops to get shot at, we wouldn't send them to war. As it has become necessity for them to go, the best we should do is make sure they are equipped correctly. This not only means the best uniforms, rifles, body armor, vehicles, tactics, and MRE crackers. This also means the best training. And in this armchair commando's opinion, the very best training is not obtained with blank rounds in Ft Benning's back 40. The best training is experience.

I think we're shortchanging ourselves and our troops by denying them that experience. It would be hard on them, their families, and friends. But I think a lot more of them would come home safe if they sucked it up and fought till the fighting was done.

God bless our young men and women of the military. I thank them from the deepest part of my soul.

EDIT NOTE: I changed the section about Vietnam to clarify 12 to 18 months in a combat zone instead of in service. Thanks to my dad for pointing this out.

A quick note about statistics...

76.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

That is all

Al Qaeda leader Abu Ubaida Al-Masri, dead according to Fox News

Good

No war for oil...

...unless the Democrats say it's OK. Sen. Carl Levin has suggested that Iraq pay for it's rebuilding with it's oil surplus. Yes, I know that this isn't really giving US oil... But who, prey tell, are the going to be selling the oil to?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080409/D8VUB9AO3.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats plan to push legislation this spring that
would force the Iraqi government to spend its own surplus in oil revenues to
rebuild the country, sparing U.S. dollars.



To quote Doc Holiday "It seems my hypocrisy knows no bounds".

Now, I'm one of those guys that didn't believe from the start that going into Iraq was "all about oil". I think that's a ridiculous concept. I think we had real security reasons in going, etc etc. Those facts aside, I can remember the Democrats screaming from the rooftops "no war for oil", "no blood for oil", etc. Now, here they are, asking for oil.

OIL!

These are the same people that want us to drive less, buy hybrids, and not tap into our own resources in ANWAR.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that Iraq, in thanks for liberation, should give us a hefty discount on some of that Texas Tease they have stored up. I just have to chuckle, just a bit at this suggestion by the Dems. Had Dubya suggested it, he would have been raked over the coals.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

Godspeed Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor



On September 29th 2006 while deployed in Iraq with his seal team (team 3) Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor was killed in action.

During a firefight in Ramadi, he and two of his team mates took up positions on a rooftop. Monsoor manning the entrance with a machine gun while his teammates took up sniper positions along the rooftops.

As the insurgents began surrounding the team and rallying civilians in the area to fight, a grenade was thrown at the entrance. Monsoor being the closest to the entrance, had the best chance of escaping. He instead, thinking of his team mates, instantly dove onto the grenade, absorbing the blast. The lives of his team mates were spared due to his actions.

Story about his actions and tribute:


Deservingly so, he was awarded the Medal of Honor, posthumously. The medal was presented to his parents, George and Sally Monsoor. Today April 8th 2007.

Video of the presentation here

Read more below:
Military.com article
Wikipedia entry on Michael A. Monsoor
Wikipedia entry about the Navy Seals


Monday, April 7, 2008

I guess I'm an elitist then...

As the wife and I have been discussing the plans to have a 4th child late next year, I came across this article on the Washington Post. It would appear that I am some sort of elitist for having more than 3 kids. The the author of the article, Pamela Paul covers the facts compared to the stigma pretty well.

First the financial stigma:


Last month, the Department of Agriculture estimated that each American child costs an average of $204,060 to house, clothe, educate and entertain until the age of 18.
Then some of the social stigma:

When Elana Sigall, a 43-year-old attorney in Brooklyn, was pregnant with her third, people came up to her constantly, she said, to admonish her: "You've got a boy and a girl already. Why don't you just leave it alone?"
New York, where I live -- having three or more children has now come to seem like an ostentatious display of good fortune, akin to owning a pied-Ã -terre in Paris.
(I have no idea what a pied-Ã -terre is, I googled it, found nothing)

She sums some of cause and effect of the above:

parents can count on spending at least $6,500 on the first year of baby gear alone.
In upscale urban areas and tony suburban enclaves, where luxury families are flourishing, that can translate to $800 a week for child care alone.
A small comment on absentee parenting:

For parents who both work full-time -- or those otherwise occupied with family, charitable and social obligations -- child care doesn't end when the children enter school. If you calculate nanny pay on top of $26,000 annual private school tuition (eventually multiplied by three), you're talking $140,000 just to keep your children safe and reasonably occupied while the sun's up.
Then hits the nail on the head:

Didn't Benjamin Franklin grow up to be a statesman, inventor, printer, author and political theorist without having his vision enhanced by a Stim-Mobile or his sense of spatial relations improved by Baby Einstein Numbers? Somehow young Ben managed to thrive and prosper even though the Teddy bear had yet to be invented.

Today's American children, by contrast, get an average of 70 new toys a year, yet child development experts agree that the best toys are simple playthings such as blocks, balls and figurines that a child can play with over and over, in new ways.


In my experience, with only myself working (a meager salary, no matter what you think a bottom of the totem pole software company employee makes). We seem to do OK. Our kids are fed, and they have a roof keeping them dry. They have toys (most of which were bought by aunts, uncles and grandparents). They don't watch 1000 hours of TV a week, so they don't have the consumerism "MOMMY I HAVE TO HAVE THE NEW SUPER POWER ZORD TOY!!" attitude. And at the end of the day, they appear to be happy not left wanting. I adore my children and enjoy almost every aspect of raising them (diapers suck, always, no getting around it). I look forward to having at least one more.

And if this makes me an elitist, then fine, if the wife can handle it, perhaps I'll have 10 more!

Who was it that said your wealth was not measured by coin but by your family and friends?

Nevermind, the wife looked it up for me, I had it all wrong. Here ya go:

"I don't care how poor a man is, if he has family, he's rich" - Col Potter (4077th M*A*S*H)


Read the entire article here

The greatest show on earth.....

How many dollar bills were lost in the blaze?

EDIT: I'm editing out most of the text due to the fact that something this silly shouldn't occupy most of my blog, I'm sure all 3 of my readers will understand.

To summarize, stripper, Deja Vu, fireball, fireface, cops, permit violations. Click the link for more.

http://www.ksla.com/global/story.asp?s=8122160

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I don't know the geography of Paris all that well...

...but one can only hope this happened somewhere near the Arch de Triumph.



PARIS - Organizers canceled the final leg of the Olympic run through Paris after chaotic protests Monday, snuffing out the torch and putting it aboard a bus in a humiliating concession to protesters decrying China's human rights record.


Isn't that torch supposed to burn forever? I may be mistaken. Oh well, it is the french. It's not the first time they've rolled over to aggression.



EDIT: Let me add, that I am in no way a fan of China and their actions.

I no longer need internet service....

Well, here it is. I have seen the end of the internet. I'm not sure it can go any further.

Quite possibly the gheyest thing I've ever seen.

My apologies in advance.

Sunday, April 6, 2008

The viral internet

Had myself a good laugh tonight when I came across these vids... Oh how far the internet has come (fallen?)

First Southpark's take on the whole thing:


Then a nice montage with new lyrics:

"From my cold dead hands"

Charlton Heston, age 83, died Saturday. Not only an actor in some of the most epic movies of my youth, but also a strong advocate for 2nd amendment rights.

Some of the movies I best remember: Planet of the Apes, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments, Soylent Green, and True Lies.

As a gun rights advocate he, at first was a spokesman, then went on to become president of the NRA. Most memorable for saying "You can have my rifle, when you pry it from my cold dead hands".

I'm sad to see him pass, however, this is one that was expected. He had dropped off the scene quite a few years ago when his alzheimers started to get the best of him.

You'll be missed, but not forgotten.