Reporting from a deep red state, I had a conversation yesterday with a neighbor who just finished up his active duty service as a reservist. While he didn't serve in Iraq during the past two years, he does have buddies who are over there.
Below is my paraphrased conversation (he doesn't have a problem with me sharing it anonymously) with him. The purpose of my diary is to draw a stark contrast between reality in the ranks and what we're told by Right Wing windbags on the radio and on TV...
Begin:
Me: So, a lot of people have been called out of retirement to fill in gaps, no?
Him: yes, there's that. But the bigger issue is the cycle of deployment. For a while, it was mostly reservists and national guardsmen over there. But with those tours ending, it's now going to be more on the career active duty side - soldiers have been seeing their families much less with the added load.
Me: So even though we're not increasing our deployment, the strain is growing?
Him: Absolutely.
Me: Do you think our civilian leaders understand that?
Him: I think our leaders had one view about how easy this would be, but reality turned out to be different. It's tough, because you don't want the enemy to think we can burn out...
Me: Yes, in the political mainstream, most leaders oppose immediate pullout, partly for that reason.
Him: But my point is that I don't know how long we CAN hold out, given the realities of the strain...We're gonna have to leave at some point - maybe soon - to avoid total personal burnout in the ranks...
Me: You've heard me say it before: I've opposed the Iraq invasion from the outset, and will always criticize my civilian leadership when I think we're being led astray. But my criticism is never directed at the troops themselves...
Him: Speaking as an army guy, most soldiers care about two things: 1) am I going to die for a less than worthy cause? ... and 2) I hope I have something to do while I'm over there...
Me: I noticed you didn't mention anything about "feeling supported" by citizens back home... You didn't mention anything about war opposition hurting troop morale...
Him: Right... because that stuff really doesn't matter... there are a lot of educated people serving in the military these days. And they understand what we're defending...
Me: So my opposition doesn't "hurt" morale? ... If you listen to talk radio, I'm helping to defeat us by opposing our policy...
Him: Hell no... In fact, a lot of people, especially officers, find comfort in the debate - they feel that our system of checks and balances is working when there's discussion... they don't want to be led by a dictator (hypothetically), no more than you...
Me: Interesting - so to a degree, vibrant debate is GOOD for morale...funny, that's very disconnected from what Hannity or Limbaugh would say...
Him: yes.... We know that people aren't criticizing the troops when they disagree with the president... those radio guys are just entertainers...
Me: well, what DOES hurt morale then?
Him: If people kind of forget about the war... if it becomes a lesser priority, that feeling of isolation would be very harmful... soldiers don't want to feel that they're simply left out there...
Me: Wow... so the WH would like nothing more than to get the news cycles off Iraq; they'd rather push other items in the domestic agenda... and you're saying that success here - making Iraq a lesser priority in the media -- would HURT troop morale?
Him: Yes...
Me: So troops would rather have negative debate than no debate?
Him: not sure about that, but again, they feel comfort when there's honest debate...
Me: What's next...
Him: well, we've fucked up a lot of things... the biggest failure in my mind was not paying the former army... that created the insurgency... you can't disband the current army and just hope things go well... we've always put people to work in past wars - the Germans guarded the borders after we won WWII...
The biggest problem in all of this is Iran... From what I'm hearing, they feel very emboldened... and we simply can't handle a confrontation on that front...
