The House has passed its pro-defeat in Iraq bill.  The much debated bill that Democrats claimed was committed to pulling United States service members out of Iraq, turned out to be nothing more than a pile of pork.  House Democrats have proven that they have no real interest in our troops and no desire to win the war in Iraq.  Democrats who publicly claimed that they were worried about the men and women serving this country, quickly showed their true colors behind closed doors.  While they told the media and their anti-war supporters that they wanted to bring our troops home, they were truly only concerned with getting their share of bacon. 

How else can we explain a bill that is meant to be about the war, but has more than $20 billion in domestic spending hidden within its pages?  If the Democrats were really only concerned with the war, there would not have been any spending for peanuts, spinach and shrimp included in a bill meant to address our troops in Iraq.  This bill is concerned with only two things:  rewarding Democrats with supplemental funding for their pet projects that couldn’t other wise get a piece of the pig, and ensuring our defeat in Iraq to help the Democrats win the White House in 2008.  This pork filled defeatist bill will undermine the ability of our military to fight the war, give aid to the terrorists who want to take over Iraq as soon as we leave, and give the Democrats a platform in the next Presidential election. 

The most maddening part of this bill is the fact that these members of Congress are willing to sacrifice ever victory we have won in Iraq.  They are not concerned with the morale of our troops, they don’t care about those who have already given their lives in this war and they certainly don’t care about the stability of Iraq.  This is just another example of how our service members are being used as pawns in a political game.  The Democrats want us to lose in Iraq so they can blame the President for our defeat and move their own candidate into the White House next year.   

We should not stand for our politicians engaging in such game playing.  No matter which side of the aisle you are on, the well being of this country should come first.  We are in a war.  Orchestrating defeat will not erase the war.  It will not bring back those who have died.  It will only undermine our strength as a country, damage the morale of our troops and leave the Iraqi people at the mercy of terrorists.   Our troops are committed to victory, we must do the same.

One of the arguments against the war we often hear is that the war is taking to long.  The American people are tired of hearing about the war, casualties, bombings and the instability of post-Saddam Iraq.  The sense is that we should have crossed into Iraq, deposed Saddam, established the democracy, repaired the infrastructure and been home by dinner.  We don’t seem to have the patience or the tolerance for loss of American lives to continue to endure years of war in Iraq. 

This sense of impatience with the war is one of the reasons why the public is turning against the war and why Democrats in Congress feel emboldened enough to demand an end date to our presence in Iraq.  The problem with this “let’s move on” attitude is that it will lead to the failure of our mission in Iraq.  Demanding an end to a war that we have grown tired of watching is the quickest way to ensure defeat.  The only benchmark for our withdrawal from Iraq should be victory.   

This battle coverage fatigue afflicting the American public coupled with a natural reluctance to witness casualties has hampered the war effort from the beginning.  It is impossible to escape the fact that some of the military decisions made regarding the prosecution of the war were influenced to a certain degree by the unblinking eye of the media.  We went into Iraq with a small, but highly trained force of troops and successfully deposed a dictator.  However, we did not follow up with the sizable force needed to hold the country.  We did not go in with an overwhelming and irresistible force.  No one wanted us to be the country that literally wiped Iraq off the map in order to rebuild it.  Instead we tried to fight a clean war.  We tried to be the nice military and play by rules that made the war fit for prime time television.  This plan has clearly backfired.   

The media and segments of the American public have grown tired of a war that they feel has gone on too long.  But instead of being willing to give our military the support they need to finish the mission, they are instead calling for a retreat.  Call it a withdrawal, call is a turnover of responsibility, but if we pull out of Iraq before we have finished the mission, it is a retreat.  But this retreat won’t be sounded because of he enemy, but because of an American public that is unwilling to give our military the added force they need to win.

Some of the most outspoken critics of the war and the Bush administration hail from Hollywood.  Celebrities have been front and center in the anti-war camp since before the first deployment of American troops.   During the past four years of war, movie stars. Television actors and recording artists have become more and more vocal in the opposition to the war.   As the media has increasingly turned against the war and has dedicated more valuable airtime to protesters and demonstrations, outspoken celebrities have claimed the anti-war spotlight and refuse to give it up. 

One of the most vocal of these anti-war Hollywood pundits has been San Penn.  The Oscar winning actor has been a committed critic of the war and the President for years. He even traveled to Baghdad before the start of the war.  Mr. Penn recently led a town hall meeting in Oakland, California that was heavily critical of the President and his handling of the Iraq war.  During the meeting, Mr. Penn said “Let’s make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families.” 

Mr. Penn’s claim that the Bush administration is exploiting the members of our military and their families is not only insulting to those who serve our country, but it is also the height of hypocrisy.  Mr. Penn wasted no time in claiming that the government was exploiting our troops by deploying them to Iraq.  One can only assume his statement came from a belief that the government is using out troops to further political interest in Iraq.  However, Mr. Penn’s argument less of a criticism of the deployment of our troops than it is an indictment of his own callous attitude to those who serve this country.  

Mr. Penn was too quick to claim hat our troops are being exploited.  His thoughtless statement serves only to show his willingness to exploit our service member and their families to further his own political agenda.  Far from truly supporting our troops, Mr. Penn would prefer to use them and their families as pawns in his crusade against President Bush and the Iraq War.   If Mr. Penn and his Hollywood friends truly wanted to support our troops they would stop using them.  It is one thing to speak out against the war.  That is every American’s right.  However, it is quite another thing to take the selfless commitment and sacrifice of those who have volunteered to serve this country and use it to denigrate the policies of the government.

The idea of women serving in combat has never been an easy one for the American public.  Opinions are tightly held and more often than not a discussion on women in combat quickly degenerates into a screaming match.  The issue of whether American women should be put in harm’s way is hotly debated all the way from the corner bar to the halls of Congress.  But, for al the time spent debating the issue, the reality is that American women are serving in combat.  American women are serving along side their male counterparts and dying beside them as well.  Politicians, pundits and professors can debate the issue al they want, but women are already in combat. 

The current policy is that women are not allowed to serve in combat arms units such as infantry and artillery.  But women are allowed to serve in combat zones.  Women are fighter pilots, medics, military police and work in countless other military specialties that are needed on the front lines.  There are more than 350,000 women serving in the united States military.  Women make up fifteen percent of active duty personnel.  One in seven service members in Iraq are women.  While women service members are still excluded form certain military occupations, they are essential for others.   For example, female troops are needed to perform searches on Iraqi women.  The very presence of female service members has helped defuse a potentially catastrophic cultural clash between Unites States troops and the Iraqi muslim population. 

Women are also serving in the Iraqi military.  The cultural traditions and customs which had kept Iraqi women out of sight and less active participants in public life are slowly giving way to a more equal society.  The Iraqi army hired its first squad of twenty female soldiers in July, 2003.   Iraqi women are embracing the new freedoms available to them and in many cases using those freedoms to serve their country. 

The debate about whether women belong in combat is one that needs to be had.  But we also need to remember that our daughters, wives, mothers and sisters are already fighting for this country.  Draw whatever philosophical lines you like in the sand about combat and non-combat assignments, but the reality doesn’t change.  American women serve and die for this country.  Gender has no influence on patriotism or heroism.  When the call to defend this nation comes, the women of America are just as capable and just as determined to win the fight.

Children of service members have to bear the burden of military life just as much as their parents.  With every transfer of duty station they must change schools, meet new friends, find new activities, start over.  The life of a military child is not an easy one.  With the fast pace of military deployments today, the challenges facing the children of our troops have multiplied.  Now they must endure long deployments and cope with the absence of one of their parents for months at a time.   

Children of all ages are being asked to deal with an incredible level of stress and uncertainty.  Younger children may not understand why their daddy or mommy has suddenly disappeared.  The concept of time is hard to understand so the reassurance that they will return in seven months is cold comfort to a small child who just wants her daddy back.  Older children who have an understanding of war and the danger it implies may have the worry and anxiety that accompanies having a loved one if a combat zone.    

Military families are being asked every day to make sacrifices for this country.  Just as our troops are asked to leave home, spend months in a foreign land and put their lives in danger, their loved ones are making countless small sacrifices to support those deployments.  But now someone is stepping up to provide some special support for the children of our deployed service members. 

Operation Purple is an organization that provides free summer camps for children of deployed service members.  This year, Operation Purple will run more than forty weeks of camps at thirty six locations in twenty four states.  Not only do these camps provide a fun experience for military children, but they also provide tools to help these children better cope with the burdens of deployment.  Operation Purple children learn coping skills and make friends who understand what they’re going through. 

When men and women join the armed forces, they understand the choice they have made.  They sign to serve this country.  The children of our troops didn’t sing up for this life, they didn’t ask to go through the worry and fear of watching a parent go to war.  The military life is thrust upon them.  Operation Purple is an organization that sees the extraordinary demands made on military children and is trying to offer some measure of gratitude to the truly unsung heroes of our military.

One of the largest problems facing the United States as we try to develop a workable and logical plan for withdrawing from Iraq is the gap between the American troops currently responsible for maintaining stability and security in the country and their Iraqi counterparts.   The gulf between US service members and the Iraqi army and police has nothing to do with character or resolve.  In the year since the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship, Iraqi men and women have come forward to join the newly reconstructed Iraqi Army and police force at the peril of their own lives.  Iraqi soldiers and police officers have been targeted by insurgents who have a special hatred for Iraqis who are perceived to be working with the United States.  For all of the Americans and coalition fighters who have lost their lives, there are scores more Iraqis who have been killed for simply trying to end the violence in their country. 

No, the issue of a gap between American troops and Iraqis soldiers has nothing to do with courage or character.  The problem is one of training.  Many of the new Iraqi soldiers and police officers are new to the service.  The majority must be trained from the ground up.  They do not have the prior experience needed to be immediately at the same level of readiness as the Americans currently patrolling the country.  Training is a time consuming process and one we must commit to making if we are to leave these troops adequately prepared to defend the country. 

In addition to a training gap, there are also logistical problems involved in the turnover of responsibility.  The Iraqi Army and police force have inherited a heterogeneous collection of supplies.   The wide variety of vehicles and supplies leads to a lack of the skills required to maintain their wide variety of vehicles and weapons.   This combination of confusing supply and lack of training of each specific item is compounded by the significant percentage of personnel who are illiterate.   While the United States has been incredibly generous in supplying the Iraqi forces with needed equipment, much of it will go to waste if those receiving the equipment are ill prepared to use it. 

The thousand of Iraqis who have volunteered to put themselves in danger to help rebuild their county shows that there is hope for he future of Iraq.  But, the issue of transferring security responsibilities of Iraqi forces will continue to be a problem until we are able to develop a reasonable plan for ensuring they receive the training they need to hold their own against the insurgents.

With the flurry of news reports covering the deaths in Iraq, the political conflict over the war and experts dueling over the way the war was conducted, it can be too easy to overlook the small stories of our troops going above and beyond to help the Iraqi people.  Every day our troops are putting their lives in danger to defend two countries…The United States and the new nation of Iraq.  But there are also countless soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen who are going the extra mile to help Iraqi civilians affected by years of war. 

One of the men who has taken it upon himself to offer more than his skills as a solider to help is Combat medic Spc. Steve Stephens.  Stephens is with the 27th Brigade Support Battalion stationed in Northern Iraq.  Many of the Iraqis living in Mosul and the surrounding areas lack electricity and heat.  When Stephens saw the need of the people in Northern Iraq, he started Soldiers Helping Those in Need—Iraq.   His first project has been a blanket drive.  His goal is to raise 2,000 blankets to distribute to Iraqis in need.   

Stephens contacted Blankets.com and asked the company if they would consider adding his organization to their donations page.  The company readily agreed and now people can donate a blanket for Spc. Stephens cause with just a few clicks of their mouse.   In his letter to the company Stephens said “Soldiers Helping Those in Need—Iraq is a mission of the heart and soul. Thousands of Iraqi people have no heat or electricity. It is our mission to make a positive difference in their lives; and as simple as a blanket may be to those back home, a blanket to those who have nothing is more of a necessity than it is a want.” 

Spc. Stephens is just one example of a service member who is willing to go beyond his duty as a soldier to help the Iraqi people.  Our troops are serving two countries as they fight to bring peace and stability to Iraq, but they are also serving the Iraqi people through their compassion and their impulse to help ease suffering wherever they find it.   As quick as our media and anti-war protestors are to blame the United States for all of the problems in Iraq, they are not so quick to point out the stories of Spc. Stephens and the troops who are actively working to bring aid to those who need it most.  Perhaps the people who are clamoring for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq should come up with an alternate plan for bringing blankets to Iraqi children. 

If you would like to donate a blanket to Soldiers Helping Those in Need-Iraq visit the donations page at blankets.com 

Pat Tillman’s story is well known.  He was a professional football player who gave up millions of dollars and a football career to join the Army Rangers.  Tillman played defense back for the Arizona Cardinals.  He turned down a $1.2 million contract to serve his country instead.  He was deployed to Afghanistan in 2004 when he was killed by friendly fire.  His death and the story of his willingness to answer the call to serve his country became an inspiring tale of patriotism and heroism.  Now three years after his death, one of Tillman’s former teammates is heading to Iraq.   

Jeremy Staat is a former NFL defensive lineman.  He played for both the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Los Angeles Rams.  He was playing for the Los Angeles Avengers in the Arena Football League before joining the United States Marine Corps.  Staat was also Pat Tillman’s roommate at Arizona State University.  Staat says that he was motivated to join the service after the September 11th attacks, but Tillman advised him to stay in the NFL until he was eligible for retirement benefits.

In 2006, Staat, now 29, enlisted in the Marine Corps and was sent to boot camp at the Marine Recruit Depot in San Diego.  He is now a part of the 1^st Batallion, 3^rd Marine Regiment out of Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.  The unit just deployed for a seven month tour in Iraq.  When interviewed by local news before leaving, Staat had this to say, “the way I look at it, we’re spreading freedom, and you have to support the troops and you have to support the war. You can’t just tell some Marine who just lost his buddy that we supported you but not the war, because in that case you’re basically saying that Marine, his buddy, just died for nothing. We’re one team.”

That simple statement brings to light what members of our armed forces have always known.  That the war for them and their families is personal.  Partisan discussions of international diplomacy and foreign policy may be what the politicians and media pundits want to focus on, but for our troops war at its most basic level is about the guy sitting to you, the friend who is willing to fight beside you, the buddy who won’t come home.  The politics of the war may be popular on the news, but on the battlefield loyalty is what counts.   

Every night we are bombarded with statistics reminding us of how many American men and women have die din Iraq during the past four years.  We see fleeting pictures of flag draped coffins, grieving families, or wounded service members learning to adapt to their injuries.  But then the news cuts to a commercial and we forget those numbers and those men and women who have sacrificed so much for this country.  The media wants to use the troops who have died to turn us against the war.  The media wants to show us the loss, but they don’t tell us the rest of the story.  Families must go on without their husband, brother or son.  Wounded vets must start a new life and some how carry on. 

Working quietly, without much media attention or fanfare, are countless organizations started by individual Americans who want to give back to those who have given so much for our freedom.  These organizations can be small operations that visit wounded vets or much larger groups that work tirelessly to help improve the lives of our troops.  But the impulse is the same, a sincere desire to show our service members that they are appreciated. 

One of these organizations is Homes For Our Troops, a non-profit organization founded by John Gonsalves.  John started Homes For Our Troops in 2004 after being touched by the story of a severely injured Iraq War vet returning home.  An experienced builder, he tried to find an organization that worked on building homes for wounded vets.  When he discovered that none existed, John started his own and Home For Our Troops was born.  By raising donations of money, building supplies, labor and land, the organization can provide the most basic of all needs to severely injured service members and their families, a home to cal their own. 

Homes For Our Troops works to build new homes or refit established homes for wounded vets.  Vets with disabilities can get a home that is suited to their new abilities.  All services are provided free of charge to the veterans.  To date Homes For Our Troops has completed 16 homes and has 14 more in progress.   Just last week, John received an incredible surprise in the mail when he received a check for $3 million from an anonymous donor.  That donation will allow Homes For Our Troops to begin work on homes for all 15 vets they currently have on their waiting list.

On February 14^th, the United States began a massive security crackdown in Iraq.  The goal was to diminish the wide spread sectarian violence gripping the country.  An influx of American troops and increased security sweeps had dramatically reduced the number of deaths and bombings.  Bomb deaths have reportedly decreased by 30% and execution style killings are down by half.  These are encouraging signs especially given the fact that the full component of service members who will make up the increased troop level has not yet even reached Iraq. 

In the wake of the removal of Saddam Hussein, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias moved in to fill the power void.  This led to a staggering level of sectarian violence that was left thousands of Iraqi civilians dead.  Illegal checkpoints were set up along roads and highways.  Insurgents and militiamen would stop vehicles, forcible remove members of the opposing sect and then torture and murder them.  Outdoor markets were a frequent target of car bombers leaving Iraqi people afraid to venture out for food and supplies.  In Baghdad, Sunni and Shiite death squads roamed the city.  Before the crackdown, US troops could find upward of 200 bodies on the streets of Baghdad each week.  Since the crackdown began that number has fallen to about eighty.   

Both the United States military command and the Iraqi people are cautious about the drop in violence, but the signs are good.  Of course the early success of this security crackdown leads to an obvious fact that is unpopular with the anti-war proponents.  An increase in American troops and a step up in offensive missions leads to a decrease in insurgent activity.  This has been proven in the drop in civilian death toll since the troop increase and the stepped up security sweep.  The increase in American checkpoints is making it more difficult for suicide bombers to target large groups.  The more frequent patrols is making it more difficult for death squads and militia extortionists to terrorize Iraqi civilians and merchants. 

This obvious drop in violence makes it much more difficult for those who advocate an instant pull out of American troops to justify how our withdrawal will make Iraq safer.  It also shows how an increase in our activity in Iraq may be the true answer to ending the insurgent violence.  The security crackdown has not inspired an increase in violence by the insurgents, rather it has been the key to finally reducing the activity of those who want to plunge Iraq in civil war.