America's Broken-Down Army
By Mark Thompson

For most Americans, the Iraq war is both distant and never ending. For Private Matthew Zeimer, it was neither. Shortly after midnight on Feb. 2, Zeimer had his first taste of combat as he scrambled to the roof of the 3rd Infantry Division's Combat Outpost Grant in central Ramadi. Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both. Zeimer had been in Iraq for a week. He had been at his first combat post for two hours.

If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training—a taste of what troops will face in combat—that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.

The Army and the White House insist the abbreviated training was adequate. "They can get desert training elsewhere," spokesman Tony Snow said Feb. 28, "like in Iraq." But outside military experts and Zeimer's mother disagree. The Army's rush to carry out President George W. Bush's order to send thousands of additional troops more quickly to Iraq is forcing two of the five new brigades bound for the war to skip standard training at Fort Irwin, Calif. These soldiers aren't getting the benefit of participating in war games on the wide Mojave Desert, where gun-jamming sand and faux insurgents closely resemble conditions in Iraq. "Given the new policy of having troops among the Iraqis," says Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon personnel chief, "they should be giving our young soldiers more training, not less." Zeimer's mother was unaware of the gap in her son's training until TIME told her about it on April 2. Two days later the Army disclosed that Zeimer may have been killed by friendly fire. "They're shipping more and more young kids over there who don't know what they're getting into," Janet Seymour said quietly after learning what her son had missed. "They've never seen war other than on the TV."

The truncated training—the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone—"is absolutely unacceptable," says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. "The readiness of the Army's ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam," Murtha tells TIME. Even Colin Powell—a retired Army general, onetime Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Bush's first Secretary of State—acknowledges that after spending nearly six years fighting a small war in Afghanistan and four years waging a medium-size war in Iraq, the service whose uniform he wore for 35 years is on the ropes. "The active Army," Powell said in December, "is about broken."

Bush warned that if Democrats in Congress did not pass a bill to fund the war on his terms, "the price of that failure will be paid by our troops and their loved ones." But they are already paying a price for decisions he has made, and the larger costs are likely to be borne for at least a generation. This is not only a matter of the U.S.'s ability to defend itself at home and protect its interests overseas, vital though those missions are. The Army is the heart of the U.S. military, practicing what democracies sometimes manage only to preach. All soldiers are created equal; race and class defer to rank and merit. Except for the stars, the general wears the uniform of the private in combat. The Army is the public institution that sets the pace for others to follow, makes the stakes higher, the demands greater. Its rewards are paid in glory and blood.

A volunteer Army reflects the most central and sacred vow that citizens make to one another: soldiers protect and defend the country; in return, the country promises to give them the tools they need to complete their mission and honor their service, whatever the outcome. It was Bush, on the eve of the 2000 election, who promised "to all of our men and women in uniform and to their parents and to their families, help is on the way." Besides putting Powell at State, the President reinforced his Administration with two former Defense Secretaries: Vice President Dick Cheney and, in the job for a second time, Donald Rumsfeld.

So it is no small irony that today's U.S. Army finds itself under the greatest strain in a generation. The Pentagon made that clear April 2 when it announced that two Army units will soon return to Iraq without even a year at home, compared with the two years units have traditionally enjoyed. One is headed back after 47 days short of a year, the other 81. "This is the first time we've had a voluntary Army on an extended deployment," says Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who advises his old service. "A lot of canaries are dropping dead in the mine."

The main consequences of a tightly stretched Army is that men and women are being sent into combat with less training, shorter breaks and disintegrating equipment. When those stories get out, they make it harder to retain soldiers and recruit them in the first place. "For us, it's just another series of never-ending deployments, and for many, including me, there is only one answer to that—show me the door out," wrote an officer in a private e-mail to Congressman Steve Rothman of New Jersey.

Army equipment is wearing out even faster than Army troops. Gear and weapons are usually left in the war zone to be used by newly arriving troops. That grinds the equipment into scrap up to 10 times as fast as in peacetime. The lack of guns and armor back home has a boomerang effect: many of the troops training in the U.S. are not familiar with what they'll have to depend on once they arrive in Iraq.

Today half the Army's 43 combat brigades are deployed overseas, with the remainder recovering from their latest deployment or preparing for the next one. For the first time in decades, the Army's "ready brigade"—a unit of the famed 82nd Airborne Division primed to parachute into a hot spot anywhere in the world within 72 hours—is a luxury the U.S. Army cannot afford. All its forces are already dedicated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Repeated combat tours have "a huge impact on families," General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told Congress in February. Those deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan more than once—170,000 so far—have a 50% increase in acute combat stress over those who have been deployed only once. And that stress is what contributes to post-traumatic stress disorder, according to an Army study. "Their wives are saying, I know you're proud of what you're doing, but we've got to get out of here," says Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star general.

New Defense Secretary Robert Gates concedes there are readiness problems. He told Congress March 29 that next year's proposed $625 billion defense budget—the highest, adjusted for inflation, since World War II—will "make a good start at addressing the readiness" issues plaguing the Army. His first concern before taking the post in December was his suspicion "that our ground forces weren't large enough," and he has urged troop hikes starting next year.

THE WRONG KIND OF WAR
The Army's problems were long in the making, and the extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have exposed them for all to see: more than a decade of underfunding for boots on the ground while cold war administrations from Richard Nixon's to Bill Clinton's spent lavishly on the Pentagon's high-tech wizardry. The first Gulf War didn't help. It lasted 100 hours on the ground, was fought mainly from the air and reinforced the impression that grunts matter less than geeks.

Today's Army was molded for peacetime missions, with occasional spasms of all-out war, not for the lengthy guerrilla campaigns it is waging. "Following Vietnam, a lot of thoughtful officers said, This is not the kind of war that we want to fight," explains Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, a Vietnam-era Army officer. Counterinsurgency wars didn't play to the U.S.'s strong suit—superior technology—and instead demanded patience, which is harder to come by in this culture. Even now, more than four years after invading Iraq, the Pentagon seems to be investing much of its current $606 billion budget in an effort to fight the wrong war. America's potential enemies around the world watched the first Gulf War and learned that the U.S. was unbeatable on a conventional battlefield. But the Defense Department lingered in a cold war hangover. The Air Force continues to buy $330 million fighters, and the Navy $2 billion submarines. (The Army is not free of this tendency. It wants to spend $160 billion on the Future Combat System, a network of 14 ground vehicles and drones of questionable value in the irregular warfare that's likely in the 21st century.) Gates has second-guessed the Pentagon's spending priorities and says he is studying whether the Defense Department is buying weapons "more tied to cold war needs than future needs." Even John Abizaid, the outgoing Army general who commanded the troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for the past three years, acknowledges that he never had the right tools for his mission. "This is not an Army that was built to sustain a long war," he told a Harvard audience last fall. The force was so stretched, he warned Congress at the time, that a 20,000-strong troop surge in Iraq could not be sustained. Now that Abizaid is no longer in command, Bush has ordered 30,000 more troops into the fight.

Those in charge deny there's a crisis. Schoomaker, the Army's top general, served in the Vietnam-era Army. "I know what an Army that's near broken smells like, what it looks like, how it acts," he said in January. "Drug problems, race problems, insubordination—all kinds of things going on. We're nowhere near anything like that." General George Casey, who will succeed Schoomaker as the Army's top officer April 10, said at his confirmation hearing that "the Army is far from broken." The top brass acknowledge that they have had to husband their resources, pushing soldiers and supplies into combat and shortchanging everything else left behind. But a detailed look at the Army's people and its gear shows that the institution is barely holding together.

THE TROOPS ARE TIRED
Nearly 5,000 soldiers and their supporters met recently in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., at a gathering of the Association of the U.S. Army, a pro-Army group. A retired general spoke privately of a disconcerting change in recent months in the wounded soldiers he visits at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. "Ever since the war started, they'd be saying all they wanted to do was to get back to their buddies in Iraq to keep on fighting," he said. "Now it's more about getting out and wondering about civilian jobs. There's very little chatter about rejoining the unit."

That kind of frontline report unnerves the Army's high command. While they acknowledge that equipment shortfalls and faulty plans have plagued the Iraq campaign, they have always been able to parry such concerns by pointing to G.I.s—including those wounded in action—who believe in the war and are gung-ho to re-enlist.

The soldiers' change of heart is reflected in a poll by the independent Army Times. In December, for the first time, more troops surveyed disapproved of the President's handling of the war (42%) than approved of it (35%). Over the past two years, the number of troops surveyed who think victory is likely has fallen from 83% to 50%. Army suicides, an admittedly rough barometer of morale, show a steady increase, rising from 51 confirmed in 2001 to 91 (plus seven possible suicides still under investigation) last year. Desertions are climbing.

In the field, manpower shortages are everywhere. Captain David Eastburn's artillery company—part of the 2nd Infantry Division—arrived for its second tour in Iraq with only 72% of its personnel slots filled. "It just puts extra pressure on us," Eastburn, 30, says of his troops during a patrol in southeastern Baghdad. "They have to work longer, harder to make up for the lack of personnel." After training to fire the artillery's big guns at foes 15 miles away, his unit is pulling infantry duty. "I love the Army," the 12-year veteran, a native of Columbus, Ohio, says, "but I hate this war."

LOWERING THE STANDARDS
For its part, the Bush Administration boasts of its plan to permanently boost the Army by 65,000 troops, to 547,000, over the next five years. Gordon Sullivan, a retired Army chief of staff and head of the Association of the U.S. Army, says the service's size "should be approaching 700,000" to do the job the nation expects of it. But where will such numbers come from?

True, the Army is making its recruiting targets—but only by accepting less qualified people. Recruits from the least-skilled category have climbed eightfold, to nearly 4%, over the past two years. Just 81% had high school diplomas last year, a sharp drop from 94% in 2003. The past two years have been the first in a decade in which the Army missed the Pentagon goal of 90% with diplomas. (The rest have GEDs.) The Army has boosted the maximum enlistment age from 35 to 42—but 12% of recruits over 35 drop out within six months, double the rate for younger soldiers. To boost its numbers, the Army has had to cut its standards. It granted recruits nearly twice as many waivers for felonies and other personal shortcomings in 2006 as it did in 2003. Such waivers allow prospects with criminal records, medical problems or poor aptitude scores to enlist. They climbed from 4,918 in 2003 to 8,129 last year, Pentagon data show.

One response to difficulties in recruitment: stop people from leaving. Sergeant Isaiah Santopoalo is one of 70,000 soldiers who have been barred from quitting the Army by a stop-loss order that keeps G.I.s in uniform beyond their retirement date or the end of their enlistment obligation. Since 2004, the Army has denied departures for troops headed to or already in Iraq or Afghanistan as a way to promote continuity in fighting units. "I definitely want to get out," says Santopoalo, 22, of the 73rd Cavalry Regiment outside Baqubah, 30 miles east of Baghdad. Three weeks before his enlistment was up last year, the Army ordered him to Iraq for a second tour. He had been planning to live with his wife in Chicago and attend film school by now. Instead, Santopoalo stalks Sunni insurgents through the palm groves. "You start to think about what life could be—sitting on a beach drinking a Corona," he says. "That's when it affects you."

The Army has been turning to its sister services for enlistees. About 20,000 "sandbox sailors" from the Navy and airmen from the Air Force are serving as "in lieu of" soldiers—driving trucks and providing security in Iraq and Afghanistan. Dedicating Air Force personnel to Army missions is hurting the Air Force, its leaders have told Congress. "The Air Force doesn't guard prisoners. We don't have prisoners," Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Congress Feb. 28. "The Army guards prisoners." But the Air Force is guarding them now in Iraq because the Army doesn't have enough troops. The Army is even cannibalizing the other services' officer corps, recruiting 325 so far (in exchange for a $2,500 bonus), with 200 more expected to switch to Army green this year, now that the bonus has been raised to $10,000.

DOLING 0UT CASH AND PROMOTIONS
To keep soldiers in uniform, the Army is spending money like, well, a drunken sailor. It will pay out close to $1 billion this year and next to attract and keep them in the force. The Army is weighing special dwell-time bonuses for soldiers who spend less than two years at home between deployments. It's considering boosting, after one combat tour, the $225 monthly bonus soldiers get for serving in a war zone.

All these incentive campaigns are getting expensive. The service paid more than $600 million in retention bonuses in 2006, up from $180 million in 2003. (If that seems excessive, the Army notes in an internal document, "New York Yankees payroll: About $350 million," although it's actually closer to $190 million.) Nearly all soldiers deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan or Kuwait receive up to $15,000 for re-enlisting. Soldiers and retirees pocket a $2,000 bounty for identifying a prospective recruit who enlists. (Immediate family is exempt.) On March 15, the service extended the bonus offer to its 240,000 civilians.

There's more money to come. The Army is weighing a program that would offer soldiers a choice between a down payment for a new home or money to launch a small business—up to $45,000. "Home-buying assistance is being offered by other employers (e.g., Princeton)," the Army argues in an internal document detailing the proposal, although the Ivy League school isn't quite so generous. The Army expects the program "to be a major recruiting-market attraction—the next Army College Fund," says Lieut. General Michael Rochelle, the Army's top personnel officer.

Attracting and recruiting good men and women is a problem that goes up through the ranks. The Army will be at least 3,000 midlevel officers short through 2013 because of overly deep cuts made in the young officers' ranks a decade ago. It has only 83% of the majors it needs, for example, and has what it calls "critical shortfalls" in specialties such as aviation, intelligence, engineering and military police. To fill the gaps, the Army is promoting green officers more quickly. Captains are advancing to major after 10 years instead of 11; lieutenants can be pinned on as captains after 38 months instead of the usual 42. But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently warned that such fast promotion hurts officers' ability "to master their duties and responsibilities."

The war in Iraq hurts in other ways too. As the public increasingly turns against the war, what the Army calls its influencers—parents and teachers—are steering children away from military service. "Negative attitudes toward Army ROTC are increasing on college campuses because of opposition to operations in Iraq," the GAO said in a January report. Those attitudes—and budget cuts—meant there were only 25,100 ROTC cadets last year, 6,000 shy of the target. The U.S. Military Academy generated 846 freshly minted 2nd lieutenants in 2006, 54 short of its goal. West Point officials told the GAO that the reduction "may be the result of ongoing operations in Iraq." The war's toll can be seen in how many Army officers stay beyond their five-year required minimum term of service. Just 62% of West Pointers re-upped, about 25 percentage points lower than at the other service academies.

A SHORTAGE OF GEAR
The Army has also skimped on armor. "You go to war with the Army you have," Rumsfeld famously told a grunt who complained of inadequate armor in 2004, "not the Army you might want." Lieut. General Stephen Speakes, the Army's top planner, recently recalled the shock Army leaders felt when Private Jessica Lynch and the 507th Maintenance Company stumbled into an ambush in Nasiriyah that left 11 of her comrades dead in the war's opening days. "We found to our horror that this was a logistics unit that had no ... [major] weapons, no night vision, none of the modern enablers for war," he said. "And we said, Well, they were never supposed to fight." The Pentagon war plan called for a neat conflict with well-defined front lines that support troops like Lynch could be safely stationed behind.

But in a guerrilla war, even those soldiers are on the front lines, and protecting them isn't cheap. A World War II G.I. wore gear worth $175, in today's dollars. By Vietnam, it cost about $1,500. Today it's about $17,000. Amazingly, the Army had only 32,000 sets of body armor when the Iraq war began. The Army now insists that troops don't go "outside the wire"—leave their heavily defended posts in Iraq—without adequate protection. But that's not what the Pentagon's inspector general reports. Some troops "experienced shortages of force-protection equipment such as up-armored vehicles, electronic countermeasure devices ... weapons and communications equipment," an unclassified summary of a still secret Jan. 25 report says. "As a result, service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions." Schoomaker, who declined an interview request, dismissed the inspector general's report at a February congressional hearing as "anecdotal in nature."

But even if they are simply anecdotes, they are not the only signs of a crisis in gear. Beyond the lack of weapons for stateside troops, Army stockpiles of equipment around the globe are shrinking as their contents are siphoned to Iraq, reducing the nation's ability to respond to the next crisis. And what is in Iraq is often not what is needed. The military badly miscalculated what the war would look like. It had plenty of monstrous M-1 tanks and thin-skinned humvees but not much in between. Yet 70-ton tanks don't win many friends in Baghdad streets, and the canvas doors of Army humvees offer scant protection against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The Army said at the start of the war it would need 235 armored humvees; the number is 18,000 today—and each time the Army improves the armor on the truck, the insurgents improve their IEDs. The Army has packed on all the armor a humvee's transmission and axles can carry, so the military is rushing to buy 7,774 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles for an estimated $8.4 billion—more than $1 million each. Their V-shaped undercarriage is designed to deflect blasts from the soldiers on board.

HOW TO FIX IT
The Army and the Pentagon bought into the notions that the war was going to be quick and easy and that victory would come right after the next Iraqi elections or the ones after that. As such optimistic scenarios proved false, the problem of shortfalls in troops and matériel got worse each year. A Republican-controlled Congress, wary of challenging a G.O.P. President on the war's course, added some funds but not nearly enough. Next year the Army is seeking a 19% budget hike, including a 55% rise in procurement dollars, to $130 billion.

The only way to fix the Army's woes is to effect a change in money or mind-set or probably some of each. The Army has been starved for cash since the cold war's end. (Its leaders gripe that from 1990 to 2005, their service pocketed just 16% of the Pentagon's hardware budget, while the Air Force got 36% and the Navy 33%.) Diverting funds from some of those two services' high-tech—and costly—cold war weapons could help restore the Army's health. And the Army needs to change its preferred way of fighting—also a vestige of the cold war—pitting tanks against tanks along well-defined front lines. "The Army still tilts toward dealing with conventional threats, " says Krepinevich, the retired Army officer. "I keep telling them, There's no tank army out there for you guys to fight."

If the Pentagon or, just as likely, Congress prefers not to cut politically popular weapon systems, it could simply ratchet up the defense budget. Many defense experts say about a 4% slice of the GDP (currently $13 trillion a year) should be viewed as the nation's "insurance premium" and be dedicated to the Pentagon. (It is at 3.8% now and dipped as low as 3% from 1999 to 2001.) The downside: as the nation's economy continues to expand, taxpayers run the risk of paying too much for their military. The upside: any agreed-upon slice of the national economy would permit smarter budgeting, since the Pentagon could count on predictable funding. Finally, the U.S. could retool its military ambitions. Emphasizing diplomacy over war, and alliances over unilateral actions, could lead to a reduced need for defense dollars.

"One of my favorite sayings is, Experience is the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again," Gates told a congressional panel March 29. "Five times in the last 90 years, the United States has disarmed after a conflict—World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam and then the cold war." Gates noted that the U.S. spent 9.8% of GDP at the height of the Vietnam war, 11.7% during the Korean conflict and 4.4% in 1991, at the end of the cold war. But after enjoying peace dividends for several years following each war, the U.S. "discovered that the world hadn't really changed" and was forced to beef up military spending.

McCaffrey, the retired general, says the Joint Chiefs are responsible for the state of today's Army. They rubber-stamped Rumsfeld's plan to build a smaller, more agile force while fighting two wars. McCaffrey, a Vietnam veteran, recalls the scolding lesson of Dereliction of Duty. That 1997 book explained how the Vietnam-era Joint Chiefs' timidity in challenging Defense Secretary Robert McNamara allowed the U.S. to slide into that war. Written by H.R. McMaster, an Army colonel now in Iraq, the book has been required reading for many military officers. "Should there be a Dereliction of Duty II?" McCaffrey wonders aloud. "The answer is, Yes, of course."

Meanwhile, far away from Washington and from Iraq, Matthew Zeimer was buried Feb. 12 in the middle of a Montana snowstorm. Hundreds of mourners lined the route his hearse followed from Glendive's Sacred Heart Catholic Church to the hilltop Dawson County Cemetery. They stood in silent salute in the bitter 8° cold. Five members of an Army honor guard fired off volleys of three shots each. The Army bugler stepped from his warm car and played Taps into the biting wind. The Army honor guard carefully folded the flag that had covered Zeimer's coffin and presented it to his family. But a local priest had to conduct Zeimer's funeral and burial. The Army chaplain who was supposed to preside didn't make it in time. His car slid into a ditch about 100 miles west of town.

* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...1606888,00.html

Excellent article Noonan...Thanks!

I second what Frenchy said. Excellent article.

For their corporate masters...

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who advises his old service:

"A lot of canaries are dropping dead in the mine."

This says cronyism to me and a refusal to say no to defense contractors.



One has to observe that these incentive campaigns are suffering from diminishing returns!

Much as I decry the salaries of professional baseball players, the New York Yankees aren't paid by the taxpayers. It's a private business.




More cronyism on the part of the Pentagon and Congress, a reluctance to change the status quo, a reluctance to make hard choices that would actually be better for the country -- all because of politics.

That's an interesting photograph of a Bradly destroyed in Ramadi contained on your link beamer.

I'd submit that the term IED would be a misnomer in identifying what destroyed that vehicle though, you wouldn't get this kind of damage to an armored vehicle from something cobbled together in someone's garage.

I contend and have for going on three years now the mines and booby traps our troops are facing in Iraq are manufactured with a high degree of technical expertise and carry a "made in Iran" label.

This is not my link. Noonan posted the original article.

Yup, the article is one I posted from this week's Time magazine. There are more pictures in the actual article than what is found online (I subscribe to the print version).

I've still not seen any solid evidence that there munitions being directly supplied from Iran to insurgents inside Iraq. The pictures the military released a couple months ago have been largely dismissed as not from Iraq.

The theme of "made in Iran" also flies in the face of reports from the military making raids on "bomb factories" every couple of weeks. I'm still in the camp that believes if we would've clamped down on the huge stockpiles of munitions as part of the initial post-invasion occupation, we wouldn't be having the problems we are having today.

I'll see if I can reach any of the folks that are in-country right now to see what they have to say, however their lag time between comments is about a week or so.

I talk to folks who have been in and out of Iraq for over three years now. It's been a common perception and observation amongst them the mines and booby traps they are having to deal with have reached a level were the word Improvised in the term IED is no longer applicable.

The mines and booby traps have ever increasingly been more sophisticated in their ability to thwart our countermeasures and are professionally manufactured munitions which are manufactured to a very high standard of precision. I'd like to point out additionally components recovered from devices set to kill and maim our troops have been traced to purchases made by the government of Iran.

A 155mm shell wired to a detonator wouldn't do to that Bradly what was done to it Noonan, that would have taken close to a ton of HE to strip it's hull bare as the picture shows.

Forgive me...but the topic seems to call for the mention
of 15,000 guys being extended for three months in theater,
and 13,000 National Guard being sent for a second tour.

Forget about the Third Army returning after 7 months at home.

The force is breaking...where is the draft?

We should put up or shut up.

Call for a draft and a War Tax...or call this suffering off.
D*amn, I thought it was about the troops.

couldn't be HE grenade self directed to deny use by the enemy?

As for the Bomb factrories Noonan mentioned... those are really just assembly plants where the components are piecedf together to build tyhe final product. What concerns me more recently is the use of Clorine and other toxic gases being used... and the continued attacks on women and children and civilians.

I won't argue against our resident expert just posted.
The question still remains, where are the parts coming from and when were they acquired?

don't forget that would require a few dozen congressmen, senators, and unnamed power point experts at the Pentagon to belly up and come to terms with there favorite pet military projects... the cool fighter jets, nuke subs and starwars... not as sexy as a Hmmv or body armor......... but ask yourself what is more practical.

I guess the Pentagon is following this thread!
New (within the past month) information about Iran aiding both Sunni and Shia to learn how to make bombs. Guess they got scooped by Marine

Still not saying exactly what we're 'arguing' about here - that the material goods are also coming from Iran.

Well, that ain't exactly news to the people who have been to Iraq Noonan. I talked to a Marine three years ago who was adamnant that Iran was providing components and expertise for the stuff his people were having to deal with; matter of fact, he said they shot dead an Iranian Army officer who tried to flee from being discovered setting a IED up.

Iran has everything to gain from chaos in Iraq.

This country doesn't have the intestinal fortitude for a draft Chuck.

There are too many folks who'd be just about as happy as Osama bin Laden to see Bush defeated in the War on Terror in this country. Hating Bush takes priority over loving the USA for far too many folks.

Actually... not a big supprise that the know how and material is with Sunni's as well as Shiites... the area we were in (Hawijah) last year was primarily Sunni...

...Arms dealers and perveyors of weapons have no loyalties.

One could speculate that Iran does have motives to keep Iraq as chaotic as possible.. to keep our "hands" tied there..... so they may be directing traffic....

or it could be a few unscrupulous donkeys out to make a buck... either way it sucks.

Probably a few idoits would vote for the scum if Osama were on the ballot, just to "spite" Bush.

The NY Times pissed me off enough to send a few letters to the editor this week..... "Ten's of thousands of Iraqi's protest OCCUPATION"; -- Occupation implies permanance, taking up roots and enforcing our will on the population....Osama and his radicals are pleased with that headline I'm sure. It turned my stomach.

This guy Muqtada Sadr is a THUG, KILLER and THEIF referring to him as a cleric (as the NYT's did) is like calling Jeffrey Dahmer a Saint. He is a hack living of his father's good name.... So maybe they'll refer to me by my own self proclaimed title if they print my letter..... Pope of Gramercy, Voice of God.

Peace, and I REALLY mean it.

Abu Philip

Just what has bush done in the last six years to warrant any citizen’s respect? Tell us what good deeds have come out of this administration. A very small percentage of Americans HATE bush, a very large percent of Americans simply hate what he’s done to America at home and especially what he’s done to America abroad.

Your resident expert is a a little like a Christmas turkey, full of stuffing and unable to accept facts from outside his domain. If he loved his occupation and country as much as he’d have you believe, he would be dissenting along with the rest of us who have also been warriors in an unpopular war. The truth will set you free, IED’s are not a new phenomenon, the military would have you believe they are being confronted with something unfamiliar. The truth is, the American military was confronted with these same tactics before, yet they didn’t learn a thing. They have such a sour taste from Vietnam they have tossed their lesson book out the window at a time when they could use those lessons the most. We failed to secure the many ammo dumps Saddam had scattered around Iraq, hence the supply of materials for the insurgents. Google “bomb making” and you’ll find the technical advise they need to build quality IED’s. It's not rocket science. Blame whoever you want; it does nothing to help end this unforgivable war. If you are not going to build an Iron curtain between Iran and Iraq, then you better offer a way to enable these neighbors to get along in today’s world.

Some one wake up on the wrong side of the cot this morning. I have been putting on a little weight, but a stuffed Turkey ouch? do a little yoga or something.

Actually he's done a lot Vaughn.

He's the first president to have the courage to confront radical Islam on their own turf. Makes me think about something Jack Kennedy said once about courage; “In whatever arena of life one may meet the challenge of courage, whatever may be the sacrifices he faces if he follows his conscience – the loss of his friends, his fortune, his contentment, even the esteem of his fellow men – each man must decide for himself the course he will follow.” John F. Kennedy

I bet that really chaps you Bush has courage to do for this country what he thinks right. And I betcha Bush don't give a hoot if folks like you hate him.

I don’t hate anyone, Why is it many bush supporters are so quick to use the hate word when confronted with the facts concerning this stupid war? I do hate what bush has done to our beloved military and our nation as a whole. Fact; bush is one of several presidents to attack the radicals on their turf, the “right” tried to fry Clinton for his actions. If you dig a little deeper you will find the fact that Thomas Jefferson was the first president to dispatch the American military to the middle east to confront the radicals. Bush is the first to occupy a middle eastern nation. To bad bush didn’t put a little more thinking into this insane idea that he could change 1400 years of middle eastern history and create the impossible in Iraq. It’s a shame we have once again thrown many of our bright young heroes into a fray America can not win. Is bush still your hero regardless of his complete lack of understanding both of our military, their capabilities, and of world history? Crikey mate, I was with bush when he invaded Afghanistan, then he lost me when he lied about Iraq and it’s true threat to America. Now that all his lies concerning Iraq have been proven to be just what they are, lies, how can anyone in their right mind continue to support him. He has devastated our military and our militaries readiness, and he and Cheney are refusing to come clean with the real reason they took our nation to war, the lies continue. Iraq was never a threat to anyone outside the region and had been held in check for decades, and yet many Americans have and will continue to give their all for little more than the white-houses egomania. The only courage bush has ever known, came straight out of a bottle. The Americans who still offer bush unconditional support are now part of the problem, which is driving us farther and farther away from any real solutions. At the rate bush is going we will be forced to outsource all of our military responsibilities to Mexico or anyone willing to fight an unjustified war that can not be won, or even fought to a draw.

You can't win, if you don't beleive you can. You can't win if you're not willing too.

If your "real" solution is still time table led pull out I do not see how that will benefit this country in the short term... nor long term.

Bush bash all you want....... till the cows come home.

I beleive that there is much more at stake on the ground in Iraq then anybodies ego.......

Peace

Hitler believed he could win, the Confederacy believed they could win, many a bully believed he could win. Just what can be won in Iraq? Democracy for the Iraqis, an ally in the war on the tactic of terror, doubtful wouldn’t you say. Bush has proven we don’t need an “A” bomb to send them back to the stone age. All that was needed was to befriend the Iraqis and brain wash them like they’ve tried to do to the American people, whammo bango and you’ve got a return to the stone age for the poor Iraqi citizens. Now you and others are thinking we can rescue the situation and these people from being devastated, oops too late, the devastation has already happened. For four years, the second longest military engagement in American history, the situation has continuously degraded and declined and you still believe more is better. Fortunately sixty some percent of the American people have been led to the truth and had their eyes opened up by the bush administrations mistakes. From here on out you will find the will of common peoples common sense dictating the future for both Iraq and America, and I say it’s about time we applied common sense to our common goals, don’t you? We who advocate leaving are not advocating loosing, we believe Iraq and America will be far better off after we’ve recommitted our resources to deal with the real problems facing our two nations.
The problems and differences between the warring factions in Iraq, (excluding the US), will continue to exist long after we are gone, just as they have existed the past thousand years or so. We could leave today, or ten years from today, their differences will be violently addressed whenever that day arrives, regardless how long it takes. Some believe we can prevent the inevitable by placing more shooters and targets on the ground in Iraq, a foolhardy mindset at best. Believing “they” will follow us home is like believing tomorrow will never come, and so what if they did, we are much better prepared to take care of such problems here than we are anywhere else.
Besides oil, what is at stake on the ground in Iraq? If it were not for our thirst for oil, there wouldn’t be any stake in this for America. For that matter, we were better off when Iran and Iraq spent most of their energy screwing with each other. Now bush has changed the Middle Eastern dynamic, and we will all be paying for this stupidity for generations to come.

What did Bush lie about concerning Iraq Vaughn? Cite me something Bush lied about.

And why don't you think something good might come out of Iraq?

Since your finding yourself in the 6% who are not aware of this administrations misstates concerning this four plus year war, I’ll give you a couple of highlights. Third graders in third world countries are reading about the American fiasco in Iraq, so I guess you haven’t had the time to stay on top of the facts. This administration cherry picked the prewar intelligence and took us to war on false pretenses, ie; WMD, Al Qaeda and Iraq’s participation in 9-11 all turned out to be untrue. Statements like; this war may take six days, or maybe six weeks but we doubt if it will last even six months, didn’t hold any truth either. Standing in front of a banner that read “mission accomplished” while saying we had defeated the enemy didn’t quite make it as an honest statement. Not to mention bush’s comments before the war on what the war would cost, maybe a couple of billion because the Iraqi oil would tote the note, another lie. The lies go on and on, I don’t have time to run you through the whole catalog of bush lies, untruths and mistakes, Google “bush lied”. Everything said by any administration official is the same thing as if bush had said it himself, he is responsible and regardless of his personal opinion, the buck stops with george bush nobody else.
I just asked my very religious republican neighbor if he had any comments to add here. His first reaction was to say he was sorry for voting for bush, twice. After that he responded with a question, what has gone right in the last six years? Good question, I’m hard put to think of one thing bush has done that impacts my family in a positive way. The number of terrorist around the world is on the rise, the real threats to America are far more numerous than pre-bush, our military readiness is at the level we maintained in the twenties and thirties, the number of Americans without health care has risen dramatically, in 8 years of Clinton we were up 20 million jobs, under bush 5 million jobs with a lower mean wage than when he took office. I’m just getting started, but in the interest of brevity I’ll cut it off here. Plenty is being said by a wide range of thoughtful people on this subject.
If one could change the impact of 1400 years of religious dogma dictating these peoples lifestyles, one might find a few Persians or Arabs who would be willing to discard their difference and become good world citizens. The look of today’s geopolitical situation driven by the bush administration doesn’t create greatly towards optimism anywhere.

Who says the administration cherry picked the intelligence Vaughn? Every thing I read was thoroughly consistent with what the previous administration said. Matter of fact, I can give you numerous quotes from the previous president, his upper echelon aids, and his cabinet officials telling us exactly the same things that Bush did.

Yeah, I can google "Bush lied" but I really don't care to read any wing nut sites.

What country are you citing the job statistics for Vaughn? As I remember it Bill Clinton handed off an economy loaded with lay-offs, business failures, and recession to Bush. Put on top of that the shock to the economy that 9/11 created and Bush has presented a stellar performance pulling the USA out of a major recession. The dot-com bubble burst, numerically, on March 10, 2000, when the technology heavy NASDAQ Composite index peaked at more than double its value from just a year before. I sure remember that time, I was in Seattle interviewing a pretty well known software developer looking for a job when I retired from the Marines six months hence. Sitting out in the HR waiting room some kid went running by out in the hall yelling the stock market had tanked and the company was bankrupt. Well Microsoft wasn't bankrupt but I bet that kid lost his job (along with about 20,000 other people Microsoft laid off).

Gee, too bad the economy didn't have the common decency to wait a year so you could blame that on Bush too.

You know, all that stuff you are saying about a thousand years of this or a thousand years of that? I've heard that all before, I heard it out of republicans when Bill Clinton decided the folks in the Balkans had been killing each other for long enough. And I pretty much believe Bill Clinton had royally screwed up when he undertook that noble endeavor. But I was wrong and the people in the Balkans ain't killing each other now thanks to Bill Clinton.

Four years is a drop in the bucket, outside the nanosecond, caffeinated, blackberry, consumer driven culture we have the pleasure of surrounding ourselves with.

There is no doubt that we'll be better off in the near term, narrow scope by withdrawing from Iraq. Our troops will all be safely back at home station, we won't have to spend money, effort or time with Iraq, but I dare say that you'd be making the same mistakes that led us to where we are today......... that is by not looking at the broader consequences of our actions.

What happens the broader region?
The riff between Sunni and Shia... does it spread across geopolitical boundaries?
What's the message we would be sending to moderates in Iraq and the Region?
What's the message to the radical fundamentalists and organizations that use terrorism to effect change?
Are you recommending an isolationalist policy and a big wall to make sure the bad guys stay out? Do we stay safer and tell the rest of the globe to F__ Off?
and unfortunately yes what does happen to the price of fuel that drives the global economy? If say Saudi Arabia and Iran go head to head?
How does that affect our pleasure palace that we live in? How does that affect you? Your family? And your kids?

I'm not claiming I know all the answers... and if 60% of the people say get out, well I don't agree.... I've always been a contrarian and prefer to make my own mind up.

Quite frankly I'm closely tied to friends that I made in Iraq and I want them to succeed regardless of how and why Sadaam was removed and which party did it. IMHO I think your raising your hands in the air and saying that's the way its been for a thousand years so there is little that can be changed is a self defeating prophecy. I saw more hope... and see more after the meetings of the Imman's in Jordan recently.

All and All I'd would like to hear more questions and thought come from Washington, the press and the people then the typical knee jerk reaction that got us here to begin with.

PEACE

Yeah, a program i saw in the past metioned that some of the IED's can even penetrate an Abrams. Ba-jesus.

We are really at a point in the Middle East where America can not afford to turn tail and quit. Islamic terrorism is like nothing we have faced in our history and has to be defeated.

The anti-war movement tried early on to cast Iraq as another Vietnam. Well, let's see a cite from the anti-war movement where communists came to America and killed better than 3,000 Americans as they went peacefully about their daily routines. We are fighting a dark force representing evil in Iraq, men who in order to gain their wishes resort to the killing of innocents as the primary means off achieving their goals.

Every car bomb, every suicide bomb, and every indescriminate killing in Iraq reenforces what I am saying, we can not let terrorism win.

Scratch the word “Iraq” and insert “Vietnam” then scratch the word “terrorism” and insert “communism” and you have a statement right out of 1967.
The differences are negligible. The ultimate result will be quite similar as well.

A little simple mad lib; as I said in the previous post... the same simple thought pattern (assumptions) that led us to the invasion of Iraq.

PEACE

I agree, the goal is to arrive at the best answers and solutions, not follow public opinion but inform the public so their opnion willforce better decisions.

All I'm seeing from Washington is people willing to screw things up worse in both directions so they can look like leaders. If congress would force a few policy changes Petraeus would have a chance of at least marginally reaching an acceptable outcome. I guess issues like making it so Iraqis can feed their families, getting the "security contractors" out of there, securing the borders and having realistic negotiations with neiighboring states aren't sexy enough.

Apparently you did not read what I wrote Vaughn, else can you site where communist flew several commercial airliners into buildings killing over 3,000 Americans?

I can cite where the “domino” theory was bogus just like the theory of Saddam being an imminent threat to our way of life. War mongers always need a target they can use to set off the alarms of “Joe Six Pack”. The more powerful the alleged threat the more money for defense contracts and isn’t that exactly what Dwight D Eisenhower warned us about.
At one point in our history the Japanese flew many aircraft into a multitude of Americans with high casualties. How did we respond to such atrocities, with the reaction of nearly every American getting involved in one way or another in the war. That’s not what we have today because bush has encouraged you to go shop instead. Bush has discouraged the involvement of all of Americans, leading us to believe this war is not worth the attention and efforts of the American people. Americans, myself included, will fight to the death for almost any cause the majority Americans agree on, (when the intelligence hasn’t been cherry picked and the people led to believe things that just were not true), Iraq is not a just cause for the people of America. Al Qaeda is a different scenario all together, by bogging down in Iraq we have played into Al Qaeda’s hands. Like the best gift possible we have played right in to Al Qaeda’s game plan. Iraq is a civil war that we enabled, Al Qaeda is using Iraq to recruit and train bad guys who are then dispatched throughout the world to further train more bad guys. The longer we pretend Iraq is a central front on the war on terror, the more enhanced the opportunity for Al Qaeda to recruit, train and raise money. We need out now to put an end to this vicious circle. We need to immediately withdraw from Iraq and move our forces to Afghanistan where we really are fighting the front of the war on terror.
We lost this Iraq war when we invaded on false pretenses. Then we screwed it up worse when we disbanded the Iraqi bureaucrats and fired the cops and military. It’s bad now, and Iraq will get worse when we leave, regardless if we leave now, next year or ten years from now. They will finish their civil war regardless of how long we prolong the inevitable. The Iraqi’s destiny is in their own hands now, morally we would be wrong to design an outcome that doesn’t consider withdrawing to allow the Iraqis their own future.
All the resulting casualties can be blamed on following orders. Just like Vietnam, these great Americans were led to war for reasons only a very few politicians and corporations could justify, there is no moral high ground to support any rationale for the loss of our Soldiers and Marines, back in the day or even more so now.
Support our troops and bring them home today!

Tell me Vaughn, you keep using the term "just like Vietnam".

When did the communist come here and kill 3,000 civilians whilst they went about their daily lives?

When did anyone affiliated with Iraq do that? Don't tell me 9-11-01, we all KNOW that argument is bogus, Saddam supported Hamas and the Al Aqsa Brigade, NOT Al Qaeda!

Y'all keep responding with false arguments.

Iraq was invaded because we (as well as most of the rest of the world) believed Iraq had WMDs and we could gain no assurance from the government of Iraq they would not make them available to al Qaeda.

Y'alls argument against that premise is Bush cherry picked the intelligence to take us to war, the counter to that is the intelligence Bush relied upon is completely consistant with the previous administration's public statements.

I have yet to see any argument made which would cause me to believe the United States went to war with Iraq for any other reason than the security of the United States. But I can readily see as y'alls arguments fail there is an underlying reason for y'alls argument; blind hatred of George Bush.

I didn't respond with a false argument, you used one and I responded to it! You asked when the Vietnamese killed 3000 Americans on our soil, either you were using the PROVEN LIE that Saddam was in any way associated with thatnor there was a similar attack that he was involved in the public has been kept ignorant of. Was it one of those two or was your statement PURE bullsh*t?

Iraq is like Vietnam in that a long-term occupation several thousands of miles from our continent,
against a continously developing insurgency made up mainly of residents of that country (with support
from their "friends" from others) are fighting us to a stand-still despite superior forces and fire power.

The problem is we have no "invader" as such to drive out, turn the country back to it's people and (for the most part) leave, like WWI and WWII.

I also believe GW Bush began cherry-picking intel when he asked Richard Clarke to go back and review 9/11 to see if he couldn't find a way to tie Saddam to it.

Y'all are right we are fighting Islamic terrorism. But, we strolled right into an ambush in staying to occupy Iraq rather than focusing resources on Afghanistan. When we assumed control of the country we also assumed responsibility for all the bad stuff - in the minds of many of the residents of that country.

If we are equipping and training Iraqi troops which have not run a single major op successfully, but
form hit squads for Mullahs, we aren't accomplishing a mission. When a bombing of a Holy Mosque
can trigger continous sectarian war - then terrorists have the upper hand.

Can we be beat? Not as a force, only if we define the mission as an impossible task.

I'm just of the opinion we had Iraq better controled in 2002 then we do now.
Hell, I could well be wrong...but the idea of open-ended continuation of the war won't play
with the American people...that I'm sure of. That's the reality we will have to deal with...
in a year (or a little more) this deal is done...so what can we accomplish in that time?

What part of "Iraq had no connection with nine eleven" do you fail to understand? What part of "Iraq had no WMD’s", zip, nadda, nothing, zero, do you not comprehend? What part of the fact "Saddam didn’t trust or care for or support Al Qaeda" did you miss? It is true, unfortunately it’s all true.
Back to the hatred argument again eh, is this best you can offer to this discussion? The only serious hatred going on here or anywhere around our America concerning our future is in your imagination, we all love our country. Hatred is for atheists, the uninformed and the ignorant.
Prior to invading Iraq there was a debate about the validity of the WMD claims. There was an effort by many to support the international inspectors pursuing the facts on these issues, until bush decided to bypass the inspections and take us to war preemptively along with the so-called coalition of the willing. The worlds leaders, aside from bush, were in lock step with their pessimism and doubts regarding the claims of Iraq’s WMD’s. Most of the rest of the world did not believe what you are saying, most believed the inspections would show Iraq had nothing to use to threaten the region, much less the USA or the rest of the world. You do recall what countries sat this one out? Remember why the coalition of the willing was so minuscule, the world thought as “Knight-Ridder” and others thought, that we were being fed one lie after another.
The Clinton administration not being bashful about warring with someone; (see Bosnia), found no valid reason to stray away from the containment box they already had Saddam in.
Take yourself back to September 01, what was Iraq doing that would justify the loss of so many good Americans and our valued treasure? What were the Iraqi’s doing to us that the deaths of over three thousand Americans is justified. Were the actions of the Iraqi’s worth the injuring of twenty eight thousand more Americans? Was killing Saddam worth a trillion American dollars? Is it smart that we have depleted our military and our military readiness in the name of this fiasco?
Hatred is very rare amongst the thoughtful, yet I see you using this term consistently here lately. Are you sure your bias is not influencing your well disciplined rational side? Hate is far less common than you would have some believe.

Well gee Vaughn, a buddy of mine sent me a package of declassified material, UNMOVIC reports, ISG reports, and corresponding analysis; in all about three inches thick printed on both sides of the page. Something the folks at Henderson Hall worked on trying to determine why things were so wrong about what we believed was going on in Iraq prior to the war. I've been reading over it for about 2 months now.

I'll say this as gentlly as I possibly can. Can you say FRAUD?

That's what you are buying in to when you buy in to the dribble by the anti-war movement. You can posture and repeat what you've been told but when you read the facts either you are a liar or terribly deceived.

It’s a historic ignominy that the ‘fraud” you believe is coming from the so-called anti-war movement, (anyone who defines themselves as “all for war” is just plain crazy), has in reality been perpetrated on our excellent military who has performed a stellar job in the middle east thus far, as well as most of our fellow citizens. The far-out right wing of our America has had their day; fortunately the truth of our current circumstance is once again regaining dominance, and once again the truth will guide us, this time out of this Iraq dilemma.
A dilemma because our being in Iraq is a mistake and people are dying as a result of said mistake. Even if your three inches of paper, (fashioned by bush’s people) decree a Saddam who kept his WMD under his bed, invading Iraq was still foolhardy. It doesn’t matter if Henderson Hall had cams and wires in every building in Baghdad it was still unwise to commit American troops into Iraq. The “pro-war” right just doesn’t get it, the amount of blood and treasure could have been avoided and we could have gained better results had they taken an intelligent look at Iraq, the region and its history. See Kosovo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnia for an example of doing it appropriately. The lines in the sand our people are giving their all for, are arbitrary at best and have no impact or influence on the structure of our enemy, Al Qaeda. The percentage of Iraqi’s who favor and support Al Qaeda is minuscule at best, and like any people with foreign fighters in their back yard, they will deal with it themselves. Hundreds of years have passed with the same internal conflicts dominating the region, borders drawn and redrawn. You and bush think we will change all of that by using our troops to force a lifestyle on to these people that they don’t want. Maybe these people will come around someday, but not at the end of a gun.
Both sides of the civil war in Iraq have openly stated they don’t want Al Qaeda or their influences to remain in Iraq, they want them out and given the chance they will run Al Qaeda off. Shame bush has done such a poor job of getting the Iraqi troops trained; they may have already run off Al Qaeda by now. The Americans have become such attractive targets that we have become too savory for the haters to resist. What I find sad about this is the fact that the numbers of Iraqi’s who support the Americans is quite similar to those numbers who support Al Qaeda being influential in Iraq.
So marine, I suppose I’ll just go on either being a deceiver and/or a liar about the “facts”. Unfortunately this whitehouse has no credibility when dealing with facts, but then again they are good at believing their own insane nonsense. As far as this “ol” soldier is concerned, all the dead and injured from this “bush war” are in no way justified, just go ahead and add these casualties to the list of the 58,000 that we started in Vietnam.

I really am sad that I even started this thread, it's gone so far from where the original article started.

My wife was shocked and understandably angry when our 19 year old son, Justin, informed us of his intention to enlist in the the United States Marine Corps Reserves. Maybe it was the man in me, but my own shock was tempered by an inner voice saying, "I wish I were that brave when I was his age".

Justin had told us that being a law officer was his dream. He was attending a local university looking forward to a degree in criminilogy. An a acquaintence of mine, Bob, is a US Marshall. He had advised Justin not to expect a degree to guarantee a job in that field.

"Specialize", he told him. "Either learn computers or finance or get some 'real world' police experience".

Justin signed up and was scheduled to report to Parris Island after his sophomore year.

We didn't think he would take Bob so seriously. Justin's first choice was to become an MP in the Marines. We wondered how 'safe' it was. After all, MPs were getting killed by roadside bombs and snipers as much as the 'real' solders. He enlisted and left for Parris Island, SC in May of this year.

As we said goodbye, I knew my baby boy was going to change.

During his time in basic training, we could communicate only through letters. No phone calls. He could take only the clothes on his back and his eye glasses. That was it. We received a form letter from the batallion commander warning us not to send anything other than letters and personal photos unless otherwise informed.

Through his letters, we found out that the had actually selected his MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) as 0311 (rifleman). He was a 'grunt'. He was part of a fire team. These are the men who engage the enemy directly. They LOOK for a fight and will run to the sound of gunfire. The hair stood up on the back of my neck, and my wife was crying.

After 13 long weeks, it was time for graduation. We met our other son at the Savannah/Hilton Head airport for the graduation. As we drove onto the recruiting depot, we could not help but be impressed by the professionalism and courtesy of the sentries, officers we passed by and recruits whom we saw marching past.

"Good morning, Sirs. Good morning, Ma'am."

"How are you today, Sir? Can I help you?"

"Welcome to Parris Island".

During the emblem ceremony (which was held indoors) we could not get close enough to tell where Justin was. Anyway, they all looked the same. The standard issue "portholes" that a lot of them wore for eyeglasses made it even more difficult. The ceremony was simple and elegant. After dismissal we were finally able to meet our son.

I broke down as I spotted him. The 30 lbs he lost and the new demeanor worked as a clever disguise for the teenager we said goodbye to 3 months before. In that time, he had turned 20. We were warned not to send birthday cards since mail call would have resulted in a barracks—wide hazing for days. He had advanced much more than just that one year in his young life.

We met his Drill Instructors. These men ranged in age from 23 to 25. Two of them had served two tours in Iraq. I was almost too shy to approach them when Justin introduced us to them. For the first time, he could say, "I" and not be yelled at.

After a 10 day leave, Justin reported to Camp Lejeune, NC and the School of Infantry. At least this time he had weekend leave and could call us every Friday. He told us each week how the physical work was much tougher than boot camp. Marches ('humps") of 10 miles or more with full armor, weapons and equipment in the humid North Carolina summer.

Not everyone could hack it. I felt so sorry for those boys who volunteered for the duty and had to give it up. But that's the Marines. They don't allow you to take on a duty you cannot perform. Some of them were re—assigned. Some were rotated back to the beginning of the training schedule. Some were mustered out.

Each week, I grew prouder of my son. He was hanging in there. He was doing it. He was sore, tired and had suffered some injuries, but he was progressing. His voice filled with excitement when he told us that the first sergeant had selected him to train with the SAW (squad automatic weapon) because he showed he could carry the extra load.

This time when graduation rolled around, it was a more solemn and simple occasion. The airport at Jacksonville NC is so small it has but one short runway and only one airline flying regional jets and turboprop aircraft.

As we approached the gates, we were met by several fully armed sentries with rifles "alert to the dirt". Again, the courtesies extended set us at ease.

"Good morning, Sir. May I see some ID?".

We drove past the memorial for the the Marine Airmen (consisting of two huge
helicopters) to the place where we got our passes. Again, more courtesies, a search of the car and a

"Have a great day, Sir, Ma'am", from a young sergeant.

Signs informed us of the graduation site for ITB (infantry training batallion). Along the way we passed by simple living quarters, buildings for training, displays of ordnance, the recreation center. A simple sign — 5mph when passing troops — seemed almost quaint. The sounds of Marines training filled the air on this sunny morning.

We parked the car and walked to the small parade deck where the ceremony was being rehearsed. Again, we could not pick out Justin. We just took our seats in the bleachers. About 100 young men would graduate this day from "Grunt University". As the ceremony drew closer, officers began to appear. Young officers. Tall and short. From Lieutenant to Captain in rank.

After the final, "Aye, Sir! Oooh—RAH!", we again found Justin. He was a little more tanned and seemed somehow a bit taller.

Maybe I just think of him as larger than life. He told us he had to change into civilian clothes since he was going home. Some of the active duty soldiers were to report to their next assignment... more training. He wanted to say goodbye. We told him to take all the time he needed.

We saw many Marines in the "Service Alphas" (the green coat and pants with the round cap). This meant they were to report to their new duty. Justin told us that most of them were going to the 3/8th regiment (Third Batalion, Eighth Marine Regiment).

"The three—eight just got back from Iraq. They lost 97 guys in their last tour."

We could only respond with silence.

As we left the base, we decided to drive around a bit in Marine Town (not an official name, just mine). As we drove past the off—base living quarters, we say dozens, maybe hundreds of sheets hanging on the fences separating the housing from the highway.

"Welcome back, LCpl. Johnson"..."We love you SSgt. Gomez!".

Justin told us that these were for the three—eight. I wondered where the
97 missing sheets were. Did their wives and family join in the celebration? The sheets went on for at least a mile, until we ran out of fence. We turned back towards town.

The names flashed by too quickly for me to remember. How happy those who greeted their men must have been.

How sad those who did not must be.

As we drove to a restaurant to get something to eat, we passed by countles business marquees thanking the troops for their sacrifice and resolve. Do they ever get used to it? Does the town ever take them for granted? What is it like to see so many young Marines on a daily basis?

A Jeep Wrangler beside us held a young mother with her baby in the car seat next to her. As she drove past, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I saw the bumper sticker.

"My other ride is a United States Marine".

As we switched planes in Charlotte, I smiled as Justin was thanked by strangers for "being there for us". Unlike the time we picked him up from boot camp, he was not in uniform. But his sea bag, camouflage luggage and T—shirt gave him away.

I began to think... no one but the family of a Marine knows what this is like. They don't see the young men and women who some think of too stupid to get a 'real job', casting their lot with the heroes of Iwo and Inchon, ready to walk in their footsteps.

I have visited Germany on several occasions. The plant I would travel to was directly across the street from the main gate of the concentration camp at Dachau. During one trip, I visited the camp.

Nothing was held back. Photos and descriptions told the story of every atrocity that was committed there. The crematorium still stands. One of the managers at the plant served as our tour guide. He was appropriately solemn in his translations.

I asked him how it felt to describe what went on there. He told us that, as school children, every student in Bavaria is required to make a field trip to Dachau at least twice and must write a report on it.

"No one wants to forget what happened. We can't deny it. It's part of our history".

Part of their history. The USMC, the US Army, the US Navy... they're part of our history. I wonder what would happen if we required our students to visit a Camp Lejeune or a Fort Bragg or a Pearl Harbor. What would happen if more people experienced first—hand the life of a Marine, soldier or sailor.

See these men and women in their military garb. Watch them perform their close order drills. Experience the respect and honor they extend to unknown civilians because it is their code and they are sworn to uphold it.

They respect themselves, their uniforms, their corps, their superiors and those whom they protect.

They are at our service.

Get to know them.