Response to an "anti-troop" blog.

Dear Scott in Connecticut,

I joined the National Guard in July 2001. I signed the minimum contract: 6 years, plus 2 years in the Inactive Ready Reserves. Many of the soldiers who served with me in Iraq during 2004-2005 joined in the aftermath of 9/11. They believed (quite nobly) that they were responding to the call of duty during a time of national insecurity. Most of them are scheduled to get out of the Guard in Sept. Most of them would not re-enlist, were it not for the fact that we were all recently stop-lossed. I don't know who you associate with in the military, but I assure you that I have seldom encountered anyone who joined to "kill in [your] name"; rather, those with whom I serve are committed to fulfilling their contracts and following the orders thereby implied. I am one of them. The occassional soldier who expresses a desire to hurt others is usually young and inexperienced, not to mention quickly silenced and chastised/ostracized by those soldiers who have had the unfortunate experience of living in a combat environment. Were you to take a more vested interest and, say, read some of the SOPs and the Rules of Engagement for the Iraq theater, you might realize that pulling the trigger is a very rare occurrence, and when soldiers must make the decision to fire their weapons they make sure to identify their targets very well, and they make sure to avoid collateral damage. The U.S. military has never in history taken such a firm approach to restraining unneccessary casualties; many soldiers fear even to fire when fired upon because they have seen the legal consequences. Can you imagine getting charged with murder after defending yourself in a combat zone? I can. I have seen it happen, and I can tell you, it weighs heavily on every soldier's decision making process.

Speaking of soldiers, combat, and Iraq; do you know that 60% of combat troops in Iraq and Aghanistan (read:trigger pullers) are National Guardsmen? These are not soldiers who serve four years and then get out; we are in for the long haul regardless of the changes in the political climate. And as for those men and women who join the active duty for four years, do you honestly believe that soldiers serve one tour in Iraq and the rest are by choice? Quite the contrary: soldiers, active and reserve components, have served multiple tours because of the fact that the military is stretched painfully thin, recruitment is low, and so many soldiers ARE getting out after their term of service expires. Your estimation is perfectly WRONG: soldiers and marines serve so many tours precisely because people are NOT joining with the intent of "killing" or any other intent for that matter. Stop-loss only affects several thousand soldiers? Really? If by several thousand you mean tens of thousands, which over the course of several deployments cycles is the makeup of several divisions! For someone I assume to be very anti-war and probably angered by Bush's ignorance and arrogance while uninformed, I must say I am disappointed by your willingness to wage verbal combat against the armed forces when you are clearly operating with "flawed intelligence," both informational and intellectual.

I am a senior at a top 25 University: I'm no fool, and I write and research obsessively in an attempt to bring about a creative and productive end to the unfortunate mess that we have created in Iraq; however, I am also a part-time soldier. Sure, I could go to Canada. I could say that I hear voices. I could complain about the nightmares I frequently experience in hopes to get a PTSD discharge. But then I'd be dishonest; I'd be betraying my fellow soldiers who depend on my experience and leadership to bring them home safely from future deployments which we have no choice but to endure; I'd be breaking the promise I made to my nation to toe the line when the orders come. You clearly have no concept of how the military works, what impels people to join the military (it's one of the only escapes from poverty, the most integrated institution in the United States, a truly meritocratic space, and a road to U.S. citizenship, not to mention a means of "serving the country," a call which thousands of young men and women still answer despite the political consequences); I wonder if your ignorance and lack of insight carries over into your own role in society, your work, or your personal relationships? I suggest you read a recent article in Harper's (Jan. 2007) which explains the "answer to the call of duty" in terms of a desire on the part of young Americans from the underprivileged demographic to do something positive and to contribute to global society. Most young Americans do not have the opportunity to take an internship with a non-profit or NGO, the education to serve in the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps, or the financial wherewithal to dedicate themselves to "selfless service" (one of the Army Values), while their parents foot the bill; for these people, military service is just that: selfless service. Most of the people I served with believed that our mission was to help the Iraqis bring their government to salience, not to wage war against the Iraqi people themselves. You have likely watched too many war movies, and with a lack of actual combat experience you likely mistake the cover of Full Metal Jacket -- displaying a helmet with "Born to Kill" scrawled across it -- for a statement of intent, when in fact it is a statement of tragic irony. If you are truly interested in the sentiments of soldiers, take a look at the Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome statistics of soldiers and marines returning from Iraq and Afghanistan; the statistics and testimonies clearly illustrate the service members' horrors and pyschological pain. You do them a great dishonor and a great disservice by silencing them even further.

Do you not understand the power of nationalist propaganda, partially based in real world events which are difficult for even the most critical and well-informed minds to decipher? Do you not understand that many soldiers and marines join and risk their lives because they truly believe that they are helping to make the United States safer while assisting the Iraqis (and, by extension, the world) to rid themselves of terror and establish a legitimate government? I do not believe that the United States will achieve either of these objectives, nor am I even sure that these are objectives of U.S. foreign/Iraq policy; however, I am a well-educated older soldier from a liberal family background in which I had access to cultural and intellectual resources at the highest level from birth, i.e. I did not join the military as a way out of a bad life, as a stepping stone to the future, or to serve my country honorably (these are all byproducts), I joined because I failed out of college the first time and had to find a way to grow up! And now I'm stuck, but I'm proud to serve next to the soldiers in my platoon, and I'm dedicated to their wellbeing in a way which I doubt that you will ever understand. The least I can ask you to do is try. While you're at it, try to get a grip on reality. I suggest picking up some literature written by vets: The Things They Carried, by Tim O'Brien; All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Remarque; A Farewell to Arms, by Ernest Hemingway; Doing Battle, by Paul Fussell. All of these should help you glean some perspective on what goes on behind the eyes which sight the target, the finger which pulls the trigger, the heart that misses its mother, the brain that cannot fathom the horrifying situation, and the human who must deal with the physical and psychological consequences for the rest of his or her life.