President Bush, please listen to the National Guard Posted by Moira Whelan

A story that didn't get a ton of attention today, but is actually quite telling...

At the National Guard convention in Puerto Rico, the governor of Puerto Rico, Anibal Acevedo Vila, had some strong words about Iraq.

From CBS:

Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila said Saturday that the U.S. administration has “no new strategy and no signs of success” and that prolonging the war would needlessly put guardsmen in harm’s way.

“The war in Iraq has fractured the political will of the United States and the world,” he said at the opening of the 129th National Guard Association general conference. “Clearly, a new war strategy is required and urgently.”

Acevedo said sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder.

“By increasing the number of National Guard and reserve troops, we put our soldiers in danger for the umpteenth time since the beginning of the global war on terrorism,” said the governor, adding U.S. territories and states need Guard reserves in the event of natural disasters and domestic disturbances.

It's not unusual that a group of military officers would be against war. Fundamentally, no military officer wants to go to war. What is telling is that this is not a crowd that routinely expresses strong political support, especially when they meet with each other. The military typically tries to remain silent and fight the wars that are given to them by civilian leaders. The fact that they would stand up and applaud these remarks indicates that the sense of the need to bring a responsible end to the war is overwhelming.

This was the Association's national convention--a group that typically focuses on lobbying Congress for better equipment. The idea that Iraq has become such a problem for them should send a clear message about how the President is crippling our military.
 

Comments

[Mike M.]

It's certainly fair to argue that National Guardsmen and Reservists have been the most misused in this war. The National Guardsmen should have expected, when they signed up, to actully serve as a national guard -- to be there to protect the homeland, to be deployed after something like Katrina, not to be used for a foreign occupation. The Reservists should have expected, when they signed up, to be used in a limited capacity in dire straits, not as reinforcements in a war of choice.

[Don Bacon]

It's not unusual that a group of military officers would be against war.

Really. With all the negatives, I had to read this several times to make sure I was getting it. I was an army officer for twenty years and I never observed officers being against war. Well, okay, once. War was what we trained for, what we expected and what we would be tested by. Sonofagun. Any evidence? I guess I missed it. One can't be everywhere.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

Most "misused" in this war? Good gravy, even the comments on this blog are militarily inept.

Moira, I respect your advocacy role. But let's get real. The vast majority of Army National Guard companies HAD NOT BEEN ON A COMBAT DEPLOYMENT SINCE THE BATTLE OF THE BULGE.

It seems to me that if you deploy to a war once every 60 years or so, you might be due for 18 months, six at Shelby and 12 in the suck. Most Guardsmen can't redeploy under current standards. Why not?

Because so many were called up after 9/11 to defend airports, nuclear plants, chemical facilities, et al, in the homeland, typically close to the Guardsmen's actual homes.

That counted for either a deployment or two, then the rest went to OIF or OEF.

Also, the deployments cleared out the detritus that had built up for generations of Soldiers too fat, mentally unstable, drug addicted or physically incapable of performing on active duty.

The term "misused" is hilarious. Want to know who has been misused? The American taxpayer, who funded these "combat" divisions for six decades and got little in return for the investment.

For those who don't know, Title X was tweaked by the Clinton administration's OSD during the 1990s. Previous to the reforms, whenever a National Guard unit could be used, the entire element would have to be activated. Typically, but not always, this unit was a division, and this was especially so in the combat arms.

Pressed by a rising optempo and ongoing peacekeeping missions in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, et al, the changes meant sub-divisions could be raised, such as a brigade, for the IFOR cause.

There was a great deal of kvetching about those deployments by Guardsmen, too, but they were primarily voluntary, and hardly liable to cause any casualties.

The current operating number you should remember is 90 percent. Why? Because nine of out every 10 Guardsman in ground units has spent more than two years on active duty recently, which means that either the president or congress will have to betray a promise to reactivate them.

There seems little political will to do so, and military planners already assume that the so-called "Surge" will have expended most RA units by mid-2008. Obviously, if they're ordered to remain or to return to Baghdad short of their planned 12 months of rest and refit, they will do it. But SecDef Gates thus far has indicated the exact opposite, and Sen. Warner simply added the appropriate punctuation to a sentence that was written months ago.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

By the way, DoD records going back 50 years show only one Donald Bacon who was an Army officer. He got out as an O-4 and his MOS was as an adjutant assistant.

Not exactly a combat position, to put it mildly.

[SteveB]

Want to know who has been misused? The American taxpayer, who funded these "combat" divisions for six decades and got little in return for the investment.

Well, they did shoot those four college students at Kent State.

Wasn't that enough bang for your buck?

[SteveB]

By the way, I find it absolutely hilarious that "SoldierNoLongerInIraq" is questioning Don Bacon's military credentials after typing the name "Don Bacon" into some sort of DoD database.

Why do I find this amusing? Because, of course, it's impossible to perform the same test on "SoldierNoLongerInIraq", since he hasn't told us his name.

Attacking someone else's credibility while posting anonymously - funny stuff, "Soldier"!

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

Who is questioning his military credentials?

He arrogated onto himself some authority about the combat perspectives of Army officers, mentioning his experience and their views. I have not done this, although I guess I could, despite the military's blogging policy.

If that's his real name, there is a record for him, as he claims. He didn't get out as a combat officer, if that's his real name, but rather someone in the adjutant's office. There's no sin in that, although he might not exactly have been in a position to have heard a lot of officers in the combat arms discoursing about warfare.

Regardless, he has a right to his opinions, just as any other American.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

By the way, if we're continuing on the jihad of competence, it probably should be mentioned that the Ohio Army National Guard troops that shot the Kent State students were NOT activated for federal service.

They had been sent to the campus by Ohio's governor, James Rhodes, under emergency orders.

In other words, that Ohio National Guard unit killed more students at Kent State during that era than they did VC, having never left the US for Indo-China.

Since there was some issue about "misusing" the National Guard, it should be noted that at Kent State they were used in their traditional fashion: As troops operating at the behest of a governor during a declared emergency.

For those who don't know, this use of the National Guard has a longer pedigree than that of their utility on foreign expeditions.

In 1912, West Virginia's Guard was called in to put down the mine strike (Utah's Guard did the same thing in 1903). In 1934, Ohio's Guard killed two Electric Auto-Lite strikers and wounded more than 200 others. In 1922, the Kansas Guard put down the railroad strike there. In 1933, Georgia's Guard ended the textile strike.

This isn't just ancient history. In 1989, Rhode Island National Guard nurses and doctors were brought in to replace striking medical workers from Local 1350 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

I could go on.

So although I've long considered myself fairly liberal, it's quite consternating to see so many on my demographic numbingly incompetent when it comes to discussing force projection, especially when they give such an inane conjecture about the role of the National Guard at Kent State.

They weren't there by Nixon's request, but rather by their governor's.

[SteveB]

Did I say the guard was in Ohio "by Nixon's request"? Well, did I?

You were complaining, as I recall, that we weren't getting sufficient value for money out of our Guard. Since you seemed to be defining "value" as "number of people killed" and not, say, "number of people rescued from floods", I thought I might weigh in with a good word for the Ohio Guard, who had done at least some killin' on behalf of their government at Kent State.

And what do I get in return for my words in support of our brave troops? I get accused of engaging in "inane conjecture about the role of the National Guard at Kent State."

What, pray tell, was conjectural about my description of Kent State? Were four students not killed? Were they not killed by the Ohio Guard? I'm really looking forward to your answer.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

My answer? You seem so unhinged I'm not sure I could understand your question.

Are you happy that the National Guard shot demonstrators at Kent State? What sort of Swiftian notion do you have of the utility of force?

That someone would even invoke Kent State implies, to me anyway, a babyboomer haplessness I shrug off as simply generational cluelessness, but I could be wrong.

Perhaps Swift would have done Kent State right. A battalion of Ohio National Guardsmen, most of whom there to evade the draft, shoot a number of demonstrators after they burn down the ROTC building over a war most wouldn't fight because of their draft deferments, gratis Kent State.

Just as now an online crackpot blurts out something incomprehensible about four dead in O-Hio, a former G-1 officer says something about combatants, and an actual combatant must bring in Swift to decipher them.

Irony upon ironies.

[Don Bacon]

Ah, soldier's back. Soldier, I never said or even implied that I was in a combat arm, did I? The subject was military officers for or against war, and I clearly indicated that my opinion wasn't definitive. But you have trouble with issues, you'd rather attack people. Oh, right, you can't address the issue because of the military blogging policy. Your attack on me then, unless it was gratuitous, implies that you disagree with my observations, and that you believe as Moira indicates that most military officers are against war. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's not consonant with my experience. Of course I've been out for awhile, and things change. Whatever, it's not worth much.

As a counterpoint, why on earth should we even accept your claim that you're a soldier, the "tip of the spear", active or not? And what difference does it make what you are? Are you suffering from some malady that makes you overly identity conscious?

By the way, your trust of military records is misplaced. I didn't retire as an 0-4 and I was never an "adjutant assistant", which I doubt is even an MOS. It was years ago. Let's drop it. Nobody cares.

[Don Bacon]

Mike M: "It's certainly fair to argue that National Guardsmen and Reservists have been the most misused in this war."

"soldier": Want to know who has been misused? The American taxpayer, who funded these "combat" divisions for six decades and got little in return for the investment.

WaPo: With almost 40,000 troops serving in the unexpectedly violent and difficult occupation of Iraq, the National Guard is beginning to show the strain of duty there, according to interviews and e-mail exchanges with 23 state Guard commanders from California to Maine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18980-2004Jun5.html

More Truth: POPULAR PERCEPTION HAS LONG BEEN THAT THE GUARD SAT OUT VIETNAM. GUARDSMEN DID FIGHT-AND DIE-IN SOUTHEAST ASIA The popular perception was that service in the Guard was solely a "dodge" to being drafted and going to fight. Few reporters bothered to check the record.. . Johnson was finally convinced to issue a limited mobilization. He was given the authority for this by Congress, which enacted Public Law 89687 allowing him to call up selected reserve-component units for up to 24 months. The first units called were 11 Air Guard squadrons Jan. 28. Three additional Air Guard squadrons and all the Army Guard units mobilized were activated May 13. While each unit has its own story to tell, due to space limitations only the eight Army Guard units that served in Vietnam can be highlighted. However, it should be noted that hundreds of men from those units mobilized but not deployed, were levied and sent to Vietnam as replacements. Some were killed in the fighting. . . The only Army Guard unit to see combat duty during both the Korean and Vietnam wars was the 116th Engineer Battalion (Combat) from Idaho. It was the second Army Guard unit to arrive in Vietnam-and with 811 personnel, was by far the largest. . .For the record, more than 9,000 Army Guardsmen served in Vietnam, either in units or as individual volunteers or replacements. Of that figure, at least 22 citizen-soldiers lost their lives in combat in a war that, according to some accounts, no Guardsmen even served.

"Soldier": Previous to the reforms, whenever a National Guard unit could be used, the entire element would have to be activated. Typically, but not always, this unit was a division, and this was especially so in the combat arms.

Truth: "it should be noted that hundreds of men from those units mobilized but not deployed, were levied and sent to Vietnam as replacements. Some were killed in the fighting."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_200209/ai_n9141043/pg_1

"Soldier": that Ohio National Guard unit killed more students at Kent State during that era than they did VC, having never left the US for Indo-China.

Truth: "With the escalation of the Vietnam conflict, the Ohio Guard was again called upon to engage in combat upon foreign shores. Both the Ohio Army and Air National Guard deployed units to Southeast Asia to defend South Vietnam from communist aggression."
http://www.ohionationalguard.com/history/koreavietnam.htm

soldier: "mentioning his experience and their views. I have not done this, although I guess I could,"

Truth: "soldier", who has characterized himself as the "tip of the spear" has purported to be an expert on everything military because of his "experience" in Anbar and elsewhere.

More truth: "soldier's" attack on National Guardsmen is beyond the pale. No true soldier would do this.

[Peace]

What these the commnents to this post fail to emphasize is the lack of equipment in the National Guard within the United States since most of the vehicles needed for national emergencies has been sent to Iraq. This has hamstrung National Guard operations in helping victims of national disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

[SteveB]

You seem so unhinged I'm not sure I could understand your question.

Ah, yes. "unhinged", I am. Also a crackpot, and a moonbat suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

If there are any right-wing ad-hominems I've missed, I'm sure you can fill them in for me.

As for Kent State, a more perceptive person might have understood that he was being mocked for proposing a bizarre value system under which soldiers who aren't killing people aren't giving the taxpayers their money's worth.

Sure, the National Guard has fought forest fires and rescued flood victims, but it's killin' you want, and killin' I gave you. VC, college students, whatever. We got a quota to fill, you know.

If our country actually learns anything from the Iraq clusterfuck, and we go another 40 years without invading another country, no doubt you'll be bitching from your nursing home about how you're not getting enough bang for your buck.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

So, the only Donald Bacon in the Army who was an officer and got out as a G-1 assistant isn't you?

Very well. Then you lied. You weren't an officer. Or you weren't in the RA, Reserves or National Guard? The database is fairly extensive.

You're either the man or you're not. If you're not, then you never received a discharge. End of story.

Very few National Guard ground combat companies were activated during Vietnam. In fact, Ohio's Buckeye Division (37th ID) was closed down during the war. According to Ohio ArNG's official history, not one Ohio Guardsman was killed in action during Vietnam.

Are you sure you were an "officer," because this is easily accessible on AKO?

It's also hilarious to see someone comparing ArNG call up numbers to support some idiotic notion that the National Guard has been unduly burdened during OIF and OEF. A typical RA Soldier in the combat arms already has underwent two deployments to either Iraq or Afghanistan, and because of stop-loss will hit a third and, perhaps, fourth by 2009.

As I mentioned earlier, 90 percent of the National Guard is undeployable because of homeland activations and one rotation to either OEF or OIF, unless we change DoD policy.

"More truth: "soldier's" attack on National Guardsmen is beyond the pale. No true soldier would do this."

This is hilarious. Have you ever even seen the rivalry between RA and ArNG Soldiers? RA considers them part-timers, at best. We always have, always will. They consider themselves "just as good," and sometimes have made good on the boast.

It's part of the terrain, and has been since 1775. One would imagine an "officer" would have noticed this tension. Perhaps "Donald Bacon" isn't your real name, that there was some other "Donald Bacon" who actually was a retired, honorably discharged commissioned officer, but he was G-1 all the way.

There's no dishonor in being a REMF pencil-pusher. But I'm not exactly sure that shaft of the spear really speaks for the tip.

To put it mildly.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

"If there are any right-wing ad-hominems I've missed, I'm sure you can fill them in for me."

This assumes that I'm politically to the right (nope), and that calling someone profoundly "incompetent" is the use of an adjective solely for the left.

It's not. There are profoundly incompetent, seemingly unstable, brain addled conservatives, too.

I can't tell what you are, except abjectly incompetent at questions of military force projection. You're so inscrutable, I'm not sure if you're being serious about killing people or not.

Don't worry. You've got plenty of company. There are a great many people we don't take seriously. Become a serious person, learn about military power and its utility, and we shall give a hoot about what you say.

[SteveB]

You're so inscrutable, I'm not sure if you're being serious about killing people or not.

Damn, you're slow. Just to be clear, I'm laughing at you, not laughing with you. Got it?

And, just for fun, let's revisit the wacky observation that Don Bacon made that triggered your claim that he didn't know what the hell he was talking about:

"I was an army officer for twenty years and I never observed officers being against war."

OK, so Don Bacon thinks that army officers are not against war. Obviously, this man's military credentials deserve some looking into.

Sure, people who are against war might tend not to join the military in the first place, let alone become officers, and fighting in a war seems to be a pretty good route for promotion if you are an officer, and these days any officer in the US military knows that he is going into battle with overwhelming military superiority and a relatively small chance (at least compared with previous wars) of being seriously injured or killed, but would anyone who had actually served in combat say that "officers are not against war"?

Even I, who have served not one second in the military, can understand the logic behind ""officers are not against war". Sort of like "doctors are not against medicine" or "priests are not against religion".

But what do I know? I'm not even in your damn DoD database.

So go ahead, please show us all, using your vast military experience, that Don Bacon is wrong, and that army officers really are against war. Because, if you don't believe that, if you don't actually disagree with what Don Bacon is saying, what the hell is your argument?

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

Moira, I've respected you for years. You did a great job while in the minority on Homeland Security, and the erstwhile Century Foundation's "Forgotten Homeland" project.

But here I think you might have been bamboozled: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/airforce_guard_ovation_070828/

The skinny: They didn't give him a standing ovation.

From the Army Times (Gannett) copy:

Goheen said Acevedo’s speech touched on Iraq, but it also addressed a number of other issues, and it was only when the speech was over that those in attendance gave him the ovation. “To say ... that standing and applauding upon his [departure] was in any way an endorsement of the specifics of his views on Iraq is simply beyond a reach,” Goheen said.

Only once during his speech did attendees interrupt with applause, said Goheen, and that was when Acevedo — echoing the view of all U.S. governors — called for repealing a Bush administration addition to the insurrection act that makes it easier for the president to federalize state guardsmen.

And just so that everyone has the official hard numbers from the US Army, during Vietnam the Army called up 34 Guard units, mobilizing 12,234 of them for federal service, of which a whopping 2,729 went as units and 4,311 as replacements.

This was for a temporary call-up after Tet and they were demobilized in December of 1969.

The unit that saw the most combat was Company D (Ranger) of the 151st Infantry (Greenfield, IN). This one COMPANY represents 10 percent of all the battle decorations awarded to National Guard troops.

DTIC has the study archived as ADB086430.

Of the 8.7 million men who served during the Vietnam War era, all of 2.1 million ended up in Vietnam. They comprised 8 percent of the male population capable of serving in uniform.

These were 99.9 percent active duty Army, Marine, Navy and Air Force units, largely built through conscription -- especially for the ground forces -- and the percentage of National Guard casualties was 0.0017.

Joining the National Guard was, therefore, a great way for those facing a certain lottery pick to avoid the risk of combat death. It's perhaps why a certain CINC chose that route.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

"Even I, who have served not one second in the military, can understand the logic behind ""officers are not against war". Sort of like "doctors are not against medicine" or "priests are not against religion".

No sh*t. Really, YOU didn't serve? I can't believe it!

Obviously you didn't. Because if you had served, you would know that the people who most hate war are those who have been most exposed to it.

Since you're not advocating more war, you're not a chickenhawk. Instead, you're probably just a p*ssy, and not a particularly smart one at that.

Enjoy your free ride, courtesy of the US Army.

[SteveB]

if you had served, you would know that the people who most hate war are those who have been most exposed to it.

What a well-worn line of bullshit this is. Sure, officers in the U.S. military "hate" war. They hate it so much that they never refuse to participate in it when asked to. If Bush gives the order to invade Iran tomorrow, how many of your war-hatin' offiers will say no?

What's that? They're just following orders? Doing something they hate, because they have no choice? If that's the case, how many refuse to re-enlist when the time comes? Not many, right?

Enlighten this dumb civilian: don't people join the military because they believe that war is, from time to time, necessary for our "national security"? And when the time comes, how many really look into the justifications for the war, and think seriously about whether this particular war really is necessary? How many just salute and "do their duty" without question?

In that context, what does it mean, what does it matter, for you to say you "hate" war? Are the people we kill any less dead because they've been bombed by people who "hate" bombing them?

Here, read this:
In violence on Sunday, US forces said they bombed a house in the Iraqi city of Samarra on Sunday after fighters attacked them, and police said five children and two women were among the dead.

Saadoun Mohammad, a police officer at Samarra General Hospital, said the hospital's morgue had received the bodies of five children and two women killed in the strike. He said eight people were wounded, including three children and a woman.

Now tell me what solace it is to that family that the officer flying the plane "hated" doing what he was doing.

You argued earlier that the taxpayers were being "misused" because they had spent the last sixty years paying for National Guard units that haven't done their fair share of fighting. Just imagine how shocked those misused taxpayers will be when they find out they're spending $600 billion a year on an army full of pacifists.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

Nope. You still sound like a clueless p*ssy. Don't worry, there are a lot of those around. Kerry, Gore, JFK -- not clueless p*ssies.

SteveB? Yep. Listen, as I typed earlier, if you want people to take you seriously, then start to seriously investigate national security issues. Mumbling something indecipherable about Kent State, asking officers to mutiny over a pretend invasion of Iran, and puffing out a chest that probably could use some exercise ain't gonna cut it.

As a nation, we need men unlike you. Now more than ever before.

[Don Bacon]

It's so obviously intuitive to me that the dedicated people we have fighting our wars (wrongly, I believe) in Asia believe in what they're doing, and aren't against what they're doing, that it's un-necessary to provide evidence. But I'll do it anyhow.

Major General Lynch: "We got a great operation going on right now we call Marne Husky; I want to highlight that for you. And then I got to spend some time to talk to you about the concerned citizens program; you know, we got concerned citizens that are stepping up throughout the battlespace. And then I'll take whatever questions you want, and we'll talk about whatever you want to talk about."

Lt Col Phillips: "Good morning from Jalalabad, Afghanistan. On behalf of the men and the women of the Nangarhar Provincial Reconstruction Team, the PRT, I thank you for this opportunity to share our mission. The PRT is made up of airmen and soldiers from the active duty, National Guard and Reserves, and also includes representatives from the Department of State, U.S. Agencies (sic) for International Development, and the USDA, Department of Agriculture. The PRT is a highly motivated and skilled team with a great variety of skills, particularly from our Guard and Reserve members, who bring the talents of their civilian professions to the mission."

Lt Gen Odierno: "Well, first off, as I look ahead to the future, the one thing that -- the point I'd like to make is there's no one solution, a cookie-cutter solution that you can move to immediately. Each portion of Iraq is in a different state. We have some areas where Iraqis can take control much faster than other areas, so as we build a plan -- as we build our plan, we must do this and consider that. Where it'll be slower in some areas, it will be faster in other areas, and that will be based on basically the security situation in that area as well as the status of Iraqi security forces."

Are these guys positive or what?

[SteveB]

Ouch! "Soldier" is calling me names! P*ssy? Why, whatever can you mean, sir? Pessy? Passy? Speak in plain English, please, if it's not too much trouble.

Now, back to exposing your bullshit (or bullsh*t, as they say in the Marine Corps).

if you had served, you would know that the people who most hate war are those who have been most exposed to it.

Explain to this confused civilian, "Soldier", why it is that President Bush, when he wants a predictable standing ovation for his latest call for more war, delivers that call before the American Legion?

They've all seen war, haven't they? Shouldn't they be the "people who most hate war"? Yet you'd never know it from the reception Bush got. Seemed to me they hadn't had enough war, and wanted more of it - lots more.

Sorry to be so clueless. I'm sure you've got a simple explanation.

[Don Bacon]

re: The standing O--

Whom are we going to believe, this guy:

Col. David Carrion Baralt, the Guard's top official in the U.S. Caribbean territory, said Acevedo received a standing ovation. ''Maybe the (officers) were not expecting those kinds of comments, but having a dialogue is the point of conferences like these,'' Carrion said by phone.

and the Army Times:

The call from Puerto Rico’s governor to withdraw troops from Iraq was greeted by the cheers and a standing ovation by the 4,000 citizen-airmen and -soldiers attending a major National Guard Association conference Friday.

or this guy:

“Categorically not true,” said John Goheen, spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based group. “To put a standing ovation to the governor’s ... comments are beyond a reach.”

Ah, I'll go with the colonel and the AT.

The cover-up and spinning has begun, and when AP is threatened with non-access to government I'm sure they'll see the light. It really doesn't matter when the Guardsmen applauded, the fact is that the entire tone of his speech was anti-administration and that's what the guardsmen applauded.

According to the AT: Governor Acevedo, who is a Democrat, said the Bush administration has no new strategy or signs of success in Iraq and that increasing the number of Army and Air Guardsmen and reservists in the war places “our soldiers in danger for the umpteenth time since the beginning of the global war on terrorism.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/ap_puertorico_070827/

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

"delivers that call before the American Legion?"

For those who don't know (yes, that would be you), the American Legion accepts membership from anyone who served during a conflict, not necessarily in it.

During the Vietnam War, for example, four times as many Americans served in uniform as the number who actually were sent to Indo-China. Those who were in uniform at the time qualify for American Legion membership, but not necessarily the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The VFW is restricted to those who were sent to an actual conflict. This, however, doesn't mean that they ever fired a shot in anger or even witnessed a firefight.

Why? Because, like Vietnam, 85 percent of the troops are support elements. While some of these do see combat, the vast majority do not, just like in Vietnam.

What we term the "tip of the spear" is the combat arms of the various services. In the Army, this includes infantry, cavalry, armor, combat engineers, etc. They make up a relatively small number of the total force, which receives various other colloquial titles ranging from "REMF" to "pogue," but they're mostly perjorative.

In the various services, awards are given for taking part in combat. The Marines, for example, have a Combat Action Ribbon. In the Army, we have various sorts of devices, the most prominent of which is the Combat Infantryman Badge, which is worn above other ribbons on the right side of the chest.

There is a similar award for combat medics, and another badge recently introduced for those who wage war without being in the infantry. Since WWII, however, the emphasis has been placed on the toil of the infantryman, since it tends to be unremittingly difficult and dangerous.

My CIB has a star in the oak wreath, designating a second award. In the Army, this means something. If I would join the USMC, they would replace the CIB with the CAR, two awards.

This is how esteemed the badge is to both Marines and Soldiers. It is given to those who put their lives most at risk and suffer the most disproportionate casualties. My unit in OIF suffered more than 50 percent casualties by the end of our tour, so there were a number of Purple Hearts handed out, too.

In the military of the United States, the number of men who qualify for a CIB and CMB could fit into the football stadium at Ann Arbor. This is equally so with Marines and their CAR recipients. That's the tip of the spear.

In reality, a very small percentage of American people have experienced direct, brutal combat, perhaps less than one-tenth of one percent of our population.

They would make up a relatively tiny fraction even of the memberships of the VFW and American Legion, perhaps no more than one out of every 15 delegates at a convention.

If you really believe that these men -- and they are predominately men -- are warmongers who revel in blood, then please walk into the nearest VFW and ask to talk to all the CIB, CMB and CAR recipients.

Then tell them that they're "warmongers" who love war.

I'm sure they will share with you their unique perspective on sacrifice and what war means to them.

It probably would do you some good to actually talk to combat veterans instead of forming apriori opinions of them. You might be surprised.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

"Ah, I'll go with the colonel and the AT."

For the obvious impaired, the "AT" link was AP copy repackaged for Army Times.

A follow on story by the Army Times (linked by me above) is the one that questions the AP's version, quoting the NG Association's spokesman and alluding to a tape of the actual convention that seems to be what puts the AP's account into some dispute.

If you say that you are accepting the Army Times' story, then you are refuting the AP's version of events.

I, personally, don't know which one is right, and I doubt C-SPAN carried it.

[Don Bacon]

President Bush, please listen to the National Guard

They applauded the Governor of Puerto Rico who said that the Bush administration has no new strategy or signs of success in Iraq, that increasing the number of Army and Air Guardsmen and reservists in the war places our soldiers in danger for the umpteenth time since the beginning of the global war on terrorism, that sending more troops to Iraq would be a costly blunder and called for withdrawal from Iraq. “The war in Iraq has fractured the political will of the United States and the world,” he said at the opening of the 129th National Guard Association general conference. “Clearly, a new war strategy is required and urgently.”

[SteveB]

Soldier:
Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my impertinent questions.

I'm still confused, though, about your statement that combat veterans "hate" war. What do you really mean by this? Do you, for example, hate this war? If so, do you think we should end it? If so, what are you doing to help bring that about?

If someone, a soldier, says, "I hate war, and so I want us to end this war as quickly as possible, with complete victory for our side", then how will their behavior be any different from that of a soldier who loves war?

If your hatred isn't backed up with some sort of action, then I don't see how it's anything other than hollow rhetoric.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

I hate this war as much as I hated Desert Shield/Storm and the second phase of Restore Hope. I've done two tours in OIF, in a combat MOS.

War is a dirty but necessary job. It is venom to all that is good, but to achieve foreign policy goals it sometimes is a necessity. The question whether it was necessary to achieve whatever goals were to be accomplished by OIF's invasion and occupation are beyond the scope of the professional officer or non-commissioned officer.

That is a role, constitutionally, delegated to Congress and the Commander in Chief, elected institutions which represent the people, not me.

It's frankly immaterial whether anyone should "listen" a collection of National Guard officers, troops in the field or men in garrison during these deliberations. It shouldn't matter what a Soldier believes about his mission in Iraq.

As a democracy, the collective will should determine the use of force, not those who wield the force in your behalf.

Regardless, it is a bare sliver of the American population which shall bear the fate of your collective decisions. Which is to say, America didn't go to war in OIF or OEF; the military went to war.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

Yes, Don, recopying the AP copy doesn't mean it was thus. That's the question. Army Times, quoting the officials of the National Guard Association, suggest that the governor of Puerto Rico never received applause at that point in the speech, nor was his final ovation a standing one. Apparently, the Association wishes to communicate this very fact, and have presented to AP a taped rendition of the event to prove it.

You might wish very much so that they had interjected themselves into a political debate, but there seems to be no proof that they did. One might suggest that an officer with 20 years in the Army would know that even National Guard officers tend not to arrogate onto themselves the mantle of politicizing issues.

They apparently leave that to the whims of AP reporters on deadline.

[Don Bacon]

I knew "soldier" was bogus, shooting off about real soldiers.

"soldier": " . . the most prominent of which is the Combat Infantryman Badge, which is worn above other ribbons on the right side of the chest."

Fact: The CIB and ribbons are worn on the LEFT side of the chest.

"On the coats of the Army green, blue, and white uniforms, and on the AG shade 415 shirt, males wear the ribbons centered 1⁄8 inch above the left breast pocket. . . On the service and dress uniforms, personnel may wear up to three combat and special skill badges from groups 1 through 3, above the ribbons or pocket flap, or in a similar location for uniforms without pockets."

Ref: Army Regulation 670–1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia
http://usmilitary.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670%5F1.pdf

[SteveB]

The question whether it was necessary to achieve whatever goals were to be accomplished by OIF's invasion and occupation are beyond the scope of the professional officer or non-commissioned officer.

Should officers ever question their orders? Should the German officers ordered to undertake an illegal war of agression against Poland have questioned their orders? Would you have?

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

You're right. It is the left for the person who is wearing it, not the one looking at it. I should have expressed that better.

I know for a fact I'm not bogus, but I strongly suspect that you are.

I would give my name and my public record, but then I would be in breach of our official blogging policy.

Don't worry, Don, your discharge is a public record. And if you're not that one Donald Bacon who was an officer in the US Army, then you're a liar.

That's proven.

[SteveB]

ribbons centered 1 ⁄ 8 inch above the left breast pocket. . .

No wonder we're losing in Iraq. Such imprecision! Why, I hear our enemies are able to place their ribbons to within the sixteenth of an inch.

[Don Bacon]

Officers do not swear an oath to follow orders, but to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic. One can argue that George Bush is an enemy domestic.

"I, _____ , having been appointed an officer in the Marine Corps of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Lt. Ehren Watada is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. His court-martial ended in a mistrial on February 7, 2007. A second court-martial, originally scheduled to begin July 23, 2007 has been postponed until October 9, 2007.
www.thankyoult.org/

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

"One can argue that George Bush is an enemy domestic."

Then let Congress have that argument. That's their constitutional right. It is NOT the right of the military to determine that George Bush is an "enemy domestic."

If you want us to start arrogating onto ourselves that right, then people like me will start taking over people like you.

Also, LT Watada accepted a commission into the US Army SIX MONTHS after the invasion of Iraq. If it was an illegal invasion, he might have noted that before swearing an oath obligating himself to protecting the constitution.

Not that it matters. He is a MLRS commander, not exactly in heavy demand in OIF.

Also, it's hardly a question of illegal occupation. The US exists in Iraq under a SOFA with the democratically elected Iraqi government. This government has been recognized as the duly-elected and constituted government of Iraq by UNSCR, and another UNSCR specifically names the US as the leader of a coalition serving that government.

There is no UN order calling for the US to leave Iraq (quite the opposite). There is no international court ruling declaring the invasion or the occupation of Iraq to be illegal. There is no change in the SOFA between the US and Iraq.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason under domestic or international law for Lt Watada to refuse a legal order to deploy to OIF.

But if you wish to defend a piece of crap like that, go ahead. Just remember that if you want us to start deciding which deployments we will honor and which ones we won't, don't expect the military to follow ANY civilian orders from now on.

[SteveB]

On what basis are you calling Ehren Watada a "piece of crap"? It's not like the guy ran off to Canada; he took his stand and he's willing to face the consequences. But, then again, maybe that's just your proven inability to engage in an argument without hurling insults. Why don't you call him a "p*ssy", while you're at it?

And it's hardly an indictment that Watada was late in coming to his conclusions, given the concerted efforts by the media and government to bamboozle the public about this war. Better late than never, I say. Why, I hear there are people in the military who are still meekly following orders, despite the fact that some of these people claim to "hate war."

As for "don't expect the military to follow ANY civilian orders from now on", how soon do you think you could get something like that organized? Because, with the Congress we've got, it looks like our so-called "democracy" isn't going to be much of a check on our megalomaniacal President.

[SolderNoLongerInIraq]

We've sent LT Watada to court martial. He is a disgrace to professional Soldiers. Not because he doesn't like this or any other war, but by his assertion that he can opt out of legal orders.

He'll take his lumps. Good for him. But he's no better than a PVT caught buying drugs. Both violated orders. Both disgrace the uniform they purport to wear.

No one is above the law in this country, even Watada.

[SteveB]

Here's a hypothetical you probably won't bother to answer, but I'll ask anyway:

President Bush gives the order tomorrow to invade Iran. No authorization from the UN security council (as required by the UN charter, a treaty we have signed) and no "authorization for the use of force" from Congress.

Would it be a "disgrace to the uniform" for an officer to disobey this order? If so, can you imagine any order from the Commander in Chief that would be so illegal that officers would be justified in disobeying it? An order to nuke Canada, perhaps? Would you draw the line anywhere? Or do you stand by your previous statement that such questions are "beyond the scope of the professional officer or non-commissioned officer" ?

[Don Bacon]

off topic

Soldier, I usually disagree with you, but you're a scrapper. I like that. You can hand it out, and you also can admit that you're wrong if necessary. Sometimes (when you're right) I agree with you.

I salute you. (Don't tell anybody.)