Hi David,

As a bright Cornellian, you're probably aware that our government has not always been totally honest about how it uses its troops, what it tells them about the reasons for war, or how the troops are treated when they come home in terms of adequate physical and mental support services.

You can start with "War is a Racket", from 1935, General Smedley Butler's classic regarding the actual purpose of his military interventions across the globe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

You might then follow it up by reading the Pentagon Papers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB48/

You might want to look over a recent reliable but almost completely ignored Zogby poll done with those troops in Iraq. Many interesting points here, but the one you might want to pay the most attention to is "85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks.” Now, as an educated Cornellian, regardless of your political affiliation, you can't possibly be comfortable with US troops believing a complete lie about why they are there fighting. What will happen to these troops when they return home and many begin to realize just how big of a lie made them have to watch their friends die and get their limbs blown off? If a war was started on false pretense, is it really against the troops to demand that they be taken off such a mission and saved only for when we have a credible, undeniable, and truthful reason for putting them in harms way?

http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

If you don't understand how someone can support our military, but not the civilian leaders who implement bad policies for those troops, then you need to bone up on your history..even your recent history.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070209/REPOSITORY/702090344/1013/48HOURS
So what exactly are these and other veterans doing? Do they hate the troops? Are they against our military's ideals?

Also, I'm not sure if you know anyone in the military, but the decision to serve is not that simple. I have many left leaning friends there right now who hate Bush. They do not believe now, nor did they ever believe the Bush rationale for this war. But they were called for duty, and their friends will be fighting, and they are true patriots and good soldiers who won't leave their friends out there without them. It's not as simple as "believing in the cause," which is why your assessment that a high retention rate implies believing in the cause is a major jump to conclusion.

Lastly, while I don't particularly like the Democrats, can you please cite one of them who is "belittling their cause", making a "mockery of their beliefs," or not supporting their ideals. So far, I have heard them ask for better war planning and some concrete benchmarks we would like to hit, I have heard a couple ask for troops home in a year, something the majority of troops in Iraq also want, I have heard them recently ask why in the world we sent billions and billions of dollars to Iraq in bags of cash that disappeared...an important question since the Democrats have also lead the charge in asking why the hell troops were not given adequate body armor from the start. They have asked tough questions, and right now, many of those questions have the full support of many veterans, active members of the military, and Republicans as well.

I find it very strange that you singled out the Democrats, as the American public and an increasing number of Republican congressman and Senators are joining them in their quest for answers and change. Are they all against the troops

As a registered Democrat, and a proud Army wife, I must respectfully disagree with Mr. Minich. To be blunt, it seems somewhat clear to me that Mr. Minich has very little experience with America's soldiers and their feelings on the war.

My husband, an active duty infantryman at Fort Stewart, Georgia is getting ready to deploy for his FOURTH (yes, you read correctly) tour of duty in Iraq. He was set to be honorably discharged in January 2007 (his enlistment contract has been fulfilled) and was stoplossed, extended, and therefore will be sent over again. He did not re-enlist and yet he will be on his way to Iraq come May. Retention rates may be high, but if the choice is between stay or go AWAL, the choice seems apparent.

I'm not saying that all soldiers do/do not support the war, as I'm not going to pretend that I can know the feelings of all these brave men and women. However, I would caution you to remember that they are soldiers, sworn to follow orders, regardless of their personal beliefs. Also, one must remember that many of these soldiers enlisted long before Operation Iraqi Freedom (including my husband). They did not all see the tragedy of 911 and decide to join the Army like some did... some of them were in long before. So, it's not as simple as "there was no draft, so they all volunteered to go."

I do not speak for my husband as he is a soldier through and through and has not complained once about being extended and re-deployed. He will do his duty to this country with pride in his heart. I just wish that we, as a country, would stop taking advantage of those men and women sworn to protect those of us who will not take up arms and fight.

I am a Democrat... I do not support the war... but I will continue to support my husband and many friends who are currently serving and will soon be serving overseas. I wonder, Mr. Minich, if you are such a huge supporter why you are not currently headed to your local recruiter's office to enlist?

The problem with "I support the troops, but I do not support the war" is that, in the context of this war, they are mutually exclusive concepts. All our enemy in this war has to do is outlast us. Every time someone utters the above phrase, they are making increasingly difficult our ability to win the war and preserve the peace. They are giving active aid and comfort to our enemies. We have defeated Iraq's standing army. If we still were facing a standing army, the phrase would be meaningless, as battlefield results would be all that matter. This war long ago stopped being waged principally on the ground in Iraq; after the initial battlefield victory, it has been waged primarily in the western media and among politicians seeking electoral gain through military adversity. The key to victory for the terrorists is for the US to give up and go home. Iran realizes this; that is why, as recently discovered documents taken from Iranians acting in Iraq establish, Iran is funding both the Sunnis and the Shiites; nothing like a good "civil" war to convince the Yankees to go home.

The objection that this is not principally a democrat issue misses the point that, following the mid-term elections, our enemies overseas universally cheered the results. Prior to the election, the democrats refused to take a stand on any issue, and, when troop withdrawal was put to a vote, did not have the courage to stand up for their alleged convictions by voting in favor. They have advanced no alternative strategy or plan since taking control of Congress. It is all anti-Bush, all the time. The failure to appreciate the fact terror is and will be for the foreseeable future our primary foreign policy issue is shortsighted in the extreme and destined to threaten the foundations of western society.

Don't forget, it took 13 years for America to go from Declaration to Constitution, Iraq has had three successful and largely peaceful nationwide elections, and we still have thousands of troops stationed in Western Europe and Korea despite the passage of more than 6 and 5 decades, respectively, since the conclusion of WWII and the Korean War, respectively.

Due to the actions of our brave soldiers and marines, millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq are now living in freedom, and women are no longer second class citizens in those countries.

As my friends who have served in the marines and army in Iraq like to point out: (1) if they are occupied trying to kill us over there, they are less likely to be able to kill us here at home, and (2) as long as the battle is conducted over there, the terrorists will have to face people who have been trained to kill them rather than innocent American civilians.

Finally, I want to thank Mr. Lacey and all those nobly serving their country for their service in defense of our freedoms. I suggest that the next time you see a man or woman in uniform, you simply approach them and say thank you; go to your local recruiting office, and say thank you to the people staffing the office; say thank you to your ROTC classmates. Those are small steps that will prove that you support our troops, and I'm willing to bet most of you out there have never done it, and probably never will.

Wars and the troops who fight them are highly separable constructs.

The long years of almost pointless trench warfare in WWI led many brave, well-educated Englishmen and Germans to profoundly doubt the political purposes for which they were fighting while continuing to lead and to fight with selflessness and valor.

I sense that some of the writers on this subject may be a little too young, and a little too untouched by war to know what they are writing about. This is a subject best understood by those who have paid their dues and those closest to the dues-payers.

I spent four years in the Indochina war (where I didn’t run into too many fellow Cornellians, I must add), and as that conflict progressed, the numbers of doubters amongst the American forces grew rapidly. But the doubters by-and-large fought hard and fought bravely, as did the true-believers. They fought side-by-side and trusted one another implicitly.

Last week I was a speaker at a Pentagon conference on Stabilization and Reconstruction. My panel included the fabled Marine General (ret’d) Anthony Zinni. Zinni told the audience about the moment in 1962, when as a second LT serving as an advisor in a Vietnamese Marine Unit, his counterpart’s wife talked to him about the brutality and destructiveness of the Diem regime for which we were fighting. Zinni, who rose to four stars and the command of CENTCOM, told us that this was the day he began to understand that the America’s Vietnam war was politically misguided. This did not diminish Tony Zinni’s loyalty, his military integrity, his honor or his valor—in Vietnam and in conflicts thereafter.

Troops in Vietnam found it easy to distinguish between Jane Fonda (who wished ill for American soldiers and victory for the NVA) and Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon who doubted the merits of the war and wished the American soldiers were home and safe, rather than in harm’s way on a fool’s errand. The former did not support the troops. The latter did.

Soldiers can and do distinguish between supporting the war and supporting the troops. They do so today. Amongst our soldiers and marines on the ground in Iraq are true-believers, doubters, and outright critics of the war. They live and fight together and they trust each other. I have a daughter (a Cornellian) who is an officer and who has deployed to Iraq. She has no trouble with the distinction.

As I suggested at the outset of this comment, opining strongly about who is a patriot and who supports the troops is probably best left to those who have been there, done that, and gotten the T shirt. For those who have not yet done so, I counsel you to speak softly, listen carefully, and perhaps to consider taking up arms for your country and for your own sake.

There are few better paths to gaining a granular sense of your era and of your fellow countrymen and countrywomen.

John Stuart Blackton
Cornell ‘66
Washington DC

I spent 6 years serving the US Army. I saw high ranking officers that were very respectful and held all of the Army values to heart...I also saw the most despicable behavior by some of the highest ranking officers around. Morals were hit or miss with many, and the driving incentive was how could they pin on the next rank no matter who they smashed in their path. One of them was responsible for many of the mistruths about WMD (look him up, then Brigadier General benjamin Freakley), whether he was directed by higher authority or not. The "voluntary" word is used quite a bit by folks who never served a day. You can volunteer in one moment in time and find out in the next moment your mission is really messed up. I was an officer that was glad to leave and didn't feel that way when I started at all.

When in doubt, hurl invective. To which rich white-boy fraternity do Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice belong?

My friends in the military only feel mistreated and abused by "know-nothing" journalists and politicains trying to advance their careers at the troops' expense, and ungrateful citizens who do not value their efforts. And yes, they do feel that the sentiments expressed by the media and politicians have in fact increased the csaulty rates suffered in Iraq, have made thier jobs more difficult and have prolonged the conflict. And yes, they believe we are better off fighting them over there. These are the views expressed to me by friends in the military; regardless of whether you believe them to be "garbage".

The US did not act against Iraq out of fear; it acted against a state that had flouted interantional law and treaties into which it had entrered, including those on which the termination of Operation Desert Storm was predicated. It acted in the US's interest. Colin Powell's major speech to the UN General Assembly shortly before the war identified more than a dozen reasons for engaging in the conflict; depsite revisionsists' claims, "wepaons of mass destruciton" was not the be all and end all for the campaign. By the way, there were 27 countires who participated in the coaltiion. I guess there must be rich white frat boys ruling all those countries as well.

Iraqis have pariticpated in 3 more free elections than they had in the last 30 years. So, too, the Afghanis. No reasonable person can believe that the coniditon of the average citizen in those coutnries -- particularly the average female citizen -- has not improved in the past few years as a direct result of the efforts by the US and her allies.

I'm sensing a lot of hostility here. Is your problem with (a) fraternities; (b) republicans; (c) rich people; (d) boys; (e) white people; (f) the military; or (g) all of the above?

The letter by David Minich gives me pause. As a lifelong Democrat and a 6 year veteran of the USMC, I get the impression that Democrats need not apply and are just not welcome in the military.

When I joined the Marine Corps, they didn't ask my political leanings or ask me to sign anything indicating the same. I get a little ticked off when I read this stuff and 'Democrats don't support the troops' nonsense. My parents are Democrats, I'm a Democrat and will remain one.

They support me as many of my Democratic friends and family do. I look to the US flag and the flag of the Marine Corps and I do my duty.

How far are we away from not accepting enlistment from Americans unless they sign a Republican Party form first?

Your misguided thinking all military members are Republicans - or need to be before they believe in and fight for America.