Military families serve in silence. Their sacrifices and the many ways they support our troops and our country are often overlooked. When a service member is killed the surviving spouse is suddenly left alone. They lose not only their husband or wife, but they often lose an entire life. They lose the military community to which they belonged. If they lived on base, they will have to move and start over. Many military spouses have put their own careers on hold to support their spouse’s career. Now, suddenly alone and possibly the sole source of support their children, these surviving spouses must find a way to carry on.

One father of a fallen soldier has been working to help fulfill his son’s wish to return the support his wife had given him by supporting her dream to go to college. Robert Stokley has made it his mission to see his son’s hope of sending his young wife to college become a reality. Sgt. Mike Stokely was killed in Iraq on August 16, 2005. His wife was now a widow and he would never live to see her pursue her dream of finishing her college education. But his father Robert knew how important that dream was to both Mike and his wife. And now that dream is within reach. Robert Stokely has helped created the Georgia Hero Scholarship which will provide funds for the spouses of fallen service member to attend college. His willingness to carry out his son’s wishes will provide hope and resources for all the spouses of fallen heroes.

Sgt. Mike Stokely was a National Guardsman and he had been married to his wife Niki for only ten days when he was deployed to Iraq. Mike was killed when he stepped on an IED. The last letter he wrote home to wife was dated August 13, 2005, only three days before his death in service to his country. In the letter he told his wife that he “can’t wait to come home and help you finish your education.” Through the actions of his father Robert that hope will become a reality.

It never ceases to amaze me that families who have lost so much can still work so hard to bring good out of their suffering. It is an supreme act of dignity and courage to take the devastation of losing a loved one to war and turn that grief into something positive. Even after the death of a loved one, many military families are still serving, and that is incredibly humbling.

I have written previously about a group of people who choose to protest at military funerals. This group is made up of members of the Westboro Church in Topeka, Kansas and they travel to military funerals across the country to stage demonstrations. They are not there to protest the war or the policies of the current administration. Instead, they gather at the funerals of our fallen heroes to hold signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “God hates fags.” This group uses military funerals to push their twisted views that these brave service members died as a result of God’s punishment on the United States for being too tolerant of homosexuality. No matter what your views on homosexuality, it must be obvious that military funerals are not the time or the place for this kind of disgusting and disrespectful demonstration. Family members who are grieving for the loved one and preparing to say goodbye to their husband, wife, son, daughter, father or mother should not have to face the cruelty and insensitivity of these people.

One state is taking action to prevent this type of behavior at military funerals. Governor Rell of Connecticut has just signed a bill that will limit demonstrations at military funerals. The bill has been fast-tracked in an attempt to circumvent demonstrators from disrupting the funeral of 24-year-old Army First Lieutenant Keith Heidtman. Heidtman was killed in Iraq on May 28th when his helicopter was shot down. The Westboro demonstrators had already announced plans to picket his funeral. This bill prohibits making a disturbance at a funeral and orders demonstrators to remain at least 150 feet away.

Connecticut should be applauded for taking steps to maintain the dignity of military funerals. When a service member gives his or her life defending this country, they deserve one final measure of honor and respect. Our troops put their lives in danger every day and ask very little in return. The families of our troops sacrifice in countless ways to support their loved ones in their service to this country. Both our fallen heroes and their families should be accorded a special place of honor in our nation’s memory. The final honor we can give those who have died and those who grieve is the military funeral. It should never become a time of protest or an opportunity to push political or social agendas. It must remain a time and a place of honor.

As the war in Iraq drags on and more of our troops are killed and wounded or faced with the challenges of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the politics of the war are becoming an ever present part of our daily lives. Ant-war activists are becoming louder and it is becoming almost impossible to engage in thoughtful debate on the war. Instead of being able calmly discuss the decision behind the war, the current strategy, the possibility for victory, the only debate we hear on the war had been reduced to slogans and sound bites created to grab our attention and focus the camera on their side of the public relations fight.

But what activists and pundits on both sides of the war debate are starting to forget is that their words are being heard by our troops and their families. In this age of satellite, internet and worldwide journalism, our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are not immune to the acrimonious war of words going on back here at home. Their families, the wives, husbands, children and parents of our service members are spending every day waiting and praying and worrying and listening to the thoughtless and outrageous slogans being tossed back and forth so easily by those who see only the big picture of the war, and do not think about the individual men and women fighting the war.

It has become too easy for us to become wrapped up in debating the merits of the war and to forget that every war must always come down to the men and women carrying the weapons. In an effort to sway the public to their side of the war, both sides of the debate are growing more and more forceful and, at times, inconsiderate in their choice of words. Almost nightly we hear an anti-war activist saying that we must pull out of Iraq before anymore American lives are “wasted.” Now that phrase may succeed in garnering attention for the activist’s point of view, it may draw attention to the over 3,000 lives lost so far, but it does nothing to support our troops. The activist may not think twice about using the word “wasted” but that word will reverberate in the hearts and minds of the troops still serving in Iraq, the men and women who have seen their friends dies to defend this nation. And that word “wasted” will strike at the heart of a widow who has just buried her husband or a father who is mourning his daughter.

Debate on the war is a good and necessary thing. We should debate why we are in Iraq, whether we can win and how best to secure the country and equip its people to defend themselves against the forces of evil that are waiting to overtake them. But debate should not be a war of sound bites and video clips and it should never come at the expense of those who are still fighting for this country.

Jesse Adam Macbeth is a former soldier who tried to make himself a leader in the anti-war movement by claiming to have served in Iraq. He also claimed to have committed war crimes including killing civilians in a Fallujah mosque in 2005 and he also claimed to have received the Purple Heart. In reality, Macbeth was discharged from the Army in 2003 after only six weeks for, according to his discharge forms “his entry level performance and conduct.” Macbeth received a fair amount of notoriety and acclaim on anti-war blogs and media when he came forward with his fictional story of war crimes and post-traumatic stress disorder.

But Macbeth did not stop with his anti-war work. He took his falsified paperwork and made up stories of service and dishonor to the Veterans Administration and collected a reported $10,400 in benefits. Benefits he was clearly not entitled to receive. Macbeth reportedly has a criminal history including charges of fraud, domestic violence, and trespassing. The anti-war organizations that once took Macbeth under their wings and gladly used his story to push their anti-war agenda, have since tried to distance themselves from his lies. Macbeth is currently facing charges of using or possessing a forged or altered military document and one charge of making false statement to the Veterans Administration.

What truly upsets me about this story is not that the anti-war movement was so anxious to get a former soldier on board that they failed to properly vet this man, or even the fact that Macbeth is so selfish as to steal benefits from injured veterans who truly need ongoing care and support. What is most upsetting to me is the fact that this self-centered, myopic individual was willing to bring dishonor to this country and to those who are putting their lives in danger every day serving this nation. His deception shamed this country in the eyes of our allies and in the eyes of our citizens. He brought the honor and morality of our military into question. He tarnished the true heroes who have received the Purple Heart by attempting to become one of them and by claiming to have committed atrocious war crimes. His true crimes go far beyond doctoring a piece of paper and lying to the Veterans Administration. But there is no law on the books for sacrificing the dignity of your country and the valor of the men and women who serve it.

As the media coverage of the war in Iraq turns ever more ugly and negative, the slogans of the anti-war movement are becoming a part of our daily lives. “Support the troops, bring them home,” “support the troops, end the war.” These are phrases we are bombarded with every time we turn on the nightly news or pick up a mainstream media newspaper. Both aides of the war debate claim to support our troops and an appreciation for our service members and the service they give always precedes political statements form both sides of the war debate. But can you really support the troops while opposing their mission?

Personally, I believe there is a way to engage in thoughtful debate on the war while still supporting our service members. But in order to reach that point, anti-war activists must first acknowledge that they have at times crossed the line with their outrageous sound bytes and demonstrations. It is one thing to speak out against the politics of the war, it is another to disrespect and insult our troops and their families in a shameless bid for attention.

I know there are those who will read that above paragraph and claim that no such inappropriate acts have taken place. But I will point such critics to Rosie O’Donnell’s rude and truly disgusting recent remarks where she essentially called our troops terrorists. Then there is Presidential hopeful John Edwards and his plans to turn Memorial Day, a day meant to honor our fallen service members, into a day of anti-war activism. And also on Memorial Day, graves of fallen troops in Washington were defaced when they flags place don’t he graves were burned and replaced with swastikas. Then there is the now infamous banner held aloft by anti-war activists at a parade in San Francisco that read “We support our troops when they shoot their officers.”

Can you support the troops and still speak out against the war? Yes. It is our right and our responsibility as Americans to express our beliefs and our opinions. It is our Constitutional right to assemble, to protest and to speak our minds. But let us never forget that our troops and their families are watching and listening. Hopefully we have learned from our mistakes in the way our Vietnam vets were treated when they returned from war. Our troops did not choose the war, they only chose to serve.

Military spouses face numerous challenges when their loved one deploys. For months, maybe even a year or longer, they must assume responsibility for everything back home. They must pay the bills, raise the children, write letters, send care packages, take out the trash, fix the car and countless other thankless jobs that they must shoulder on their own. When their loved one is sent to a war zone, those daily sacrifices are compounded by an ever present fear that their spouse may never come home again. The knowledge that their loved one is in harm’s way settles like a heavy cloak on their shoulders and brings a stress and anxiety that they may have never experienced before. We ask much of our troops, and we ask much of our military families as well.

But there are those who are attempting to take advantage of military spouses. A telephone scam is specifically targeting military spouses and preying on their fear for their loved ones. The American Red Cross is reporting that military spouses have been contacted by a person who identifies themselves as a representative of the Red Cross and tells the spouse that her husband has been injured in Iraq and med-evacuated to a hospital in Germany. The caller goes on to say that treatment cannot be started until paperwork is completed and that in order to finish the paperwork and start treatment of her husband’s injuries, the spouse must give the caller her husband’s social security number and date of birth.

If an unsuspecting military spouse, caught in the grip of fear for her husband’s life, gives the requested information, she will find her family a victim of identity theft. The American Red Cross and the military are urging military families not to give out any personal information to unknown individuals over the phone. The Red Cross adds that it does not contact family members about injuries to service members. That information should come from the military and the Department of Defense.

But when a military spouse spends every minute of every day worrying that her husband may be injured or killed, it may be difficult for her to see through the scam when the phone rings. The idea that there are people devious enough to take advantage of military families should immediately sicken all of us. Our military families sacrifice so much to enable our troops to serve and defend this country. We should demand that someone defend those families as well.

Perhaps in your travels around your hometown you have noticed a banner hanging in a few windows. Perhaps you have seen a white banner with a red border and a blue star sitting prominently in the middle hanging in the front window of a house or apartment. Have you seen the banner and wondered what it means? It surely has something to do with the military, but what? That is a service banner. It is a symbol that there is someone form that family serving in the armed forces. It is an honor reserved for families who have an immediate family member serving are allowed to display the banner. There is in fact a federal law that states the service banner may be displayed in windows of families who have an immediate family member serving in the armed forces during any period of war or hostilities. Organizations like churches and business may display the banner to honor the service of someone closely affiliated with that organization. For example, a business may honor the service of a reservists or guardsman called up to serve.

These service flags, also called “Blue Star Banners” were created during World War I and have been in use ever since. They are a symbol of pride and hope for the families of those who serve. They are also a means for those of us not currently serving to recognize those who are making sacrifices for our freedoms.

But what of the banners with gold stars? Those Gold Star Banners are the mark of a family who have lost a loved one in war. The gold star was designed to completely cover the blue star on a service banner and to honor the sacrifice that service member has made defending this country. Gold Star Families have earned a special place in the hearts of this nation. They are the mothers, fathers, wives and children of our fallen heroes. When you hear someone say they are a “Gold Star Mother” you immediately know that they have lost their child. They are those select few who have stood by a flag draped casket, listened to the mournful bugle and the twenty one guns. Those who have accepted a tri-folded flag and the thanks of a grateful nation and yet never had a chance to say goodbye to their loved one. When you see a gold star hanging in a window, stop for a minute and say a prayer for those who have served and mourned in silence.

A number of families of fallen service members are upset with the use of the names and images of their deceased loved ones by anti-war groups. And some states are listening. Oklahoma and Louisiana have passed laws making it illegal to use the name or image of a fallen service member without the permission of their family. Texas, Florida and Arizona are all considering similar legislation. The constitutionality of these laws is already in question and there is no telling if these laws will stand up to judicial scrutiny, but it is a step in what many believe is the right direction.

The issue of the use of the names and pictures of deceased service members is frequently brought up when protests are staged by anti-war organizations. They use the names of fallen troops to illustrate the magnitude of the loss we have suffered in the war. They write the names of the dead troops on crosses or on placards or list them in newspaper ads. Some have argued that it is a way to honor the troops while also speaking out against the war. Others say it is nothing more than an exploitation of those who have died and it dishonors their memory.

Then there are others who are using the names of our fallen troops to make a profit as much as they are making a political statement. One such individual, and the object of much of the criticism by offended military families, is Dan Frazier. Frazier makes T- that list the names of 3,155 U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. He uses the names to create slogans such as “Bush Lied — They Died” and “Support Our Remaining Troops — Bring the Rest Home Alive.” Frazier sells these shirts online and says he is doing it primarily to speak out against the war. But he doesn’t give them away for free and he does make a profit by selling the shirts. There are others who use the images and names of fallen service members on calling cards, body armor and other items.

Family members are understandably upset to see their loved ones used as commercial products. They are even more upset to see their loved ones used as a means to protest the very war that they gave their lives fighting. I personally have lost friends in Iraq and I know first hand that they would not have wanted their names to be used to protest a war their buddies are still fighting.

Radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr has returned to Iraq after spending nearly four moths in hiding, presumably in Iran. Al-Sadr went into hiding at the start of the security crackdown that has worked to reduce the sectarian violence in Iraq. Al-Sadr’s first order of business upon his return was to demand that the United States withdraw from Iraq. The militant cleric’s return may be an effort to regain control of his militia. His absence combined with the US led security crackdown has weakened the militia and led to fragmentation and dissention. It is being reported that one faction has already split from Muqtada’s Mahdi Army. Muqtada’s escape to Iran may in fact have cost him political support and he has now returned in an attempt to regain both military and political power.

Unfortunately, Muqtada’s return may spell trouble for the United States in what has already been a bloody summer for our troops. His return to Iraq may indeed inspire a resurgence in violence and further endanger the lives of our service members. The 33 year old cleric has been a lightening rod for the insurgency, calling on Shiites to oppose the United States and to take up arms against our troops. During his absence, he told his followers not to engage coalition forces. Now that he has returned to the holy city of Najaf, it is reasonable to assume that this truce will come to a violent end. His followers took to the streets chanting anti-US and anti-Israel slogans. Al-Sadr himself seems to have renewed his earlier strident stance against the United States by calling for his supporters to fight what he has labeled the US occupation of Iraq. His charisma and large following and his apparent steps to take advantage of an ailing Shiite rival, make Al-Sadr a force to be taken seriously in Iraq.

Our troops will now have to face the very real possibility of heightened violence and a greater threat of terrorist attacks. Al-Sadr is the most visible example of a man attempting to step into the power vacuum of a chaotic Iraq to assume authority. He is the prime example of why we must finish the mission in Iraq and leave the Iraqi people a government that can defend them against the fanatical and frightening forces that are waiting for the first opportunity to seize power and turn Iraq into a haven for terrorists at the expense of our security and the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Monday is Memorial Day. Most of us will spend the day with friends and family. There will be bar-b-ques, volleyball, picnics. The kids will enjoy having a day off from school and parents will be happy for a day off from work. But the meaning of Memorial Day involves more than coolers, hibachis and beach chairs. It is a day meant to honor the memories of the men and women who have given their lives for this country.

I am happy to report that the internet has become an incredible means to honor our fallen heroes. For all the false reports, gossip and mudslinging that clogs the web, there are also people who are dedicating their time and resources to memorializing those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom and safety. Do a quick search for tributes to the fallen or Memorial Day and you will find a number of sites that share stories and memories of the brave men and women who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I learned about Julio Cesar Cisneros Alvarez, a 23 year old Marine who loved to dance and had a wonderful smile and who gave his life in Iraq. There is Kenny Bostic who was only 21 when he was killed in Iraq. Kenny has served in Afghanistan in 2004 and then volunteered to deploy to Iraq in 2006. I read a moving tribute about Private First Class Dean R. Bright, a 33 year old soldier who was killed in Iraq. He left behind a wife and two children. Months before he was killed, Dean risked his life to rescue a fellow soldier from a burning Bradley. He was awarded the Bronze Star with a Combat V for his actions. Marine Sgt. Adam Cann was 23 years old when he and his K-9 partner Bruno were in Ramadi, Iraq in January, 2006. Adam and Bruno were doing crowd control when a suicide bomber detonated himself and killed Adam.

I share these stories, and there are only a few, because it is important this Memorial Day that we put names to the number we see every night on the news. Those who have given their lives for this country deserve to have their names repeated and remembered in the halls of history. Our freedoms, our dreams, our hopes for the futures of our children are built upon the foundation of the sacrifices made by these great men and women.

Memorial Day is meant to be a day to honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending this country. But there are those who are choosing to make Memorial Day into a political event. Presidential candidate John Edwards is at the forefront of a movement to make Memorial Day a day of anti-war activism. He is urging his supporters and anyone else who will listen to take to the streets over Memorial Day weekend to protest the war in Iraq.

Some of Edwards suggestion for Memorial Day activities are to make signs demanding an end to the war and take them to Memorial Day parades. He urges people to stage protests and gatherings in public places to demonstrate against the war. He asks supporters to write letters to President Bush and Congress members to ask them to withdraw our troops from Iraq. It is no coincidence that Edwards is staging this coordinated anti-war effort on Memorial Day weekend. It s his intention to use a holiday meant to honor our troops to instead exploit our troops for his own political gain. That is not a way to honor our fallen heroes. It is little more than a political stunt and it is the height of disrespect and thoughtlessness.

To truly support our troops, we must remove that support from the political arena. It is not support if it is tied to an anti-war agenda. Our troops need unwavering and unconditional support from each of us. They did not choose the war they are fighting. They did not sign the legislation authorizing the war. They did not decide when to deploy or where to go. They are simply doing their job. The job they volunteered to do because someone has to defend all that we hold dear. Whatever you believe about the war, the men and women who are fighting for our freedoms deserve unqualified support.

In fairness, Edwards and his anti-war organization also made a few positive suggestions for Memorial Day. He advocates sending letters and care packages to our troops overseas. He also mentions visiting a wounded veteran and offering support or volunteering in a VA hospital. But truly, those activities are things we should be doing anyway and all year round. Truly supporting our troops should not come once a year, but it should be incumbent on each of us all year long. Memorial Day is a day to lift our glasses and bow our heads as we honor those who have given their lives so we can live in peace and security. Don’t make it political, make it holy.

On May 12th in Al Taqa, Iraq, a United States troop patrol was attacked by Iraqi insurgents. During the attack, five United States soldiers went missing. Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for kidnapping these soldiers and has told the United States to stop looking for them. The soldiers are from the 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, N.Y. The soldiers who have been abducted are: Sgt. Anthony J. Schober, 23, of Reno, Nevada, Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, 25, of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Pfc. Joseph J. Anzack Jr., 20, of Torrance, California, and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, 19, of Waterford, Michigan. The have been classified as Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown. DUSTWUN.

It should come as no surprise that the United States has not stopped search and recovery efforts for these men. The US military is offering rewards up to $200,000 for information related to the location of our soldiers. Over 50,000 leaflets have been dropped on the area where the troops were taken telling local Iraqis of the reward and asking for information. But we are still waiting for news. Five families are praying and hoping for the best but fearing the worst.

Much has been made of the treatment of Iraqi prisoners in recent months. Whether it is a scandal at a US military prison in Iraq or the on going saga of Gitmo, our news is peppered with stories of the treatment of Iraqi prisoners. The Red Cross is notified if prisoners are not given hot meals, or if they run out of shampoo. Our treatment of captured Iraqi insurgents is examined under the microscope of public scrutiny. And there is no hesitation on the part of our media or certain segments of the American public to cry out against the smallest perception of abuse. So, I ask, where is our outrage that five our young men have been taken captive? Say what you will about Gitmo, we don’t publicly behead our prisoners.

There are five families here in the United States waiting for news. They only know that their loved ones are in the hands of the enemy. An enemy that will most likely torture and kill these men and send the world a video tape of their cruelties. Five young men who volunteered to serve this country are in the hands of terrorists. Instead of talking about funding the war or setting benchmarks for our withdrawal, our politicians, reporters and public should be focused only on getting these men back. Our troops went to Iraq to fight for us and they asked for nothing, but they deserve nothing less than knowing that this country will fight for them.

It is no secret that Rosie O’Donnell is against the war. She takes every opportunity she can to speak out against the war in Iraq and to criticize the President and his policies. She has a casualty counter on her blog, pictures of war protesters and she doesn’t hesitate to toss our outrageous sound bites that will be sure to keep her in the public spotlight. Rosie O’Donnell isn’t the only public figure using her platform to push her own views on the war, no matter how ill informed or inconsiderate to our troops, but she is one of the most flagrant.

Ordinarily, I would not want to give Rosie or those like her any more publicity than they are already receiving. I don’t mind a well thought debate on the war. I don’t mind someone who has a sincere opinion speaking out against the war. But I do take serious issue with people, especially celebrities who speak without thinking. Perhaps it isn’t fair of me to single out the famous people. After all, they are still entitled to their own opinion. But when you have a microphone and a platform, I think you need to take a few extra minutes to contemplate your words. Rosie O’Donnell started this new irritation of mine on May 17th when she opened her mouth on The View and issued one of the worst insults to our troops I have heard in many months. Here is her quote “I just want to say something. 655,000 Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?”

Rosie O’Donnell has called our troops terrorists. There is no other reading of that quote. She has labeled the men and women who are fighting for this country as terrorists. She went on a morning talk show and told the American public, including the families who have loved ones in combat, that our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are terrorists. I cannot think of a more disgusting insult to our troops and their families. This is the mentality that led to our Vietnam vets being spat upon and called “baby killers” when they returned home. And it must stop. If you want to speak out against the war go ahead, but show some respect to the men and women who are serving this country. They didn’t volunteer to fight for Iraq, they volunteered to fight for the United States. It is their sacrifices and their heroism that give Rosie the freedom to run her mouth without her thinking. Instead of calling our troops terrorists, Rosie should be sending each and every one of them a thank you note for giving her the freedom to call them names and denigrate their service.

Congress is continuing to use the anti-war platform as their springboard to the White House in 2008. Although their first war defunding bill was vetoed by President Bush, Congress is still trying to use the budget to force the President to change tactics in Iraq. In response, a petition is being circulated on blogs and pro-military sites across the internet to send a different message to the anti-war members of Congress. This petition is meant to show Congress that there are Americans who want victory in Iraq. There are Americans who see an immediate withdrawal for what it is, a surrender.

Here is one example of the petition being sent through cyber-space. Feel free to email it to Speaker Pelosi and anti-war front man Senator Reid.

To: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Democrat Leader

Congress has passed and President Bush has vetoed H.R. 1591, the Iraq Surrender Act of 2007.

This legislation, which you worked to pass, sets a timetable for surrender. It pulls the rug out from under our troops. That is shameful and wrong.

Your actions have already emboldened the enemy. Violent jihadists now know that the elected leadership of Congress would undermine the troops by holding their funding hostage to demands for surrender.

This Congress would bring us back to the dark days of the 1970s, when the world doubted our staying power. Except only much worse. Withdraw in April 2008, and on May 1, Iraq becomes an unchecked den of terrorism at the heart of the Middle East — a new base for the same people that struck our homeland on September 11th.

I stand with our troops. I stand for victory. I support the President’s veto and will urge my representatives to vote to sustain it.

There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, they lose.

The actions of Congress have indeed given the enemy the greatest of all weapons. Hope. The men and women of Congress who have postured and publicly protested the war have shown the enemy that they only need to outlast our attention span and they will have free reign in Iraq. This blackmail legislation has done no less than show Al-Qaeda that there are parts of the American government that are willing to sacrifice the people of Iraq for political gain. Congress can bicker all they want, but they must be united behind our war effort if we are to have any chance at victory in Iraq and at keeping the terrorists from our shores.

Concerns are justifiably high over the state of our military. The high operational tempo has sent our service members overseas at an alarming rate. Many active duty troops are working on their third, perhaps even a fourth combat deployment. For some of these service members they are returning home from a combat tour only to redeploy to Iraq or Afghanistan in less than a year. Our reservists and National Guardsmen are no longer serving two weeks a year and one weekend a month. These “part-time” soldiers are spending up to a year and a half in combat. As our troops endure repeated deployments they are more susceptible to mental distress related to combat. The Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team has stated that nearly 25% of soldiers and Marines going through their second combat deployment show signs of mental illness. The team has also released a study that shows a link between the time spent in combat and alcoholism, marriage problems and suicide.

Given the stress the current operational actions are having on the members of our military and their families, how can we accommodate our current military efforts, and be prepared to respond to a future attack of global crisis, and still keep our troops healthy? One answer is to increase the size of our military. Our active-duty Army has decreased 40% from its level in the 1990’s. Though we are engage din a global war on terror, we are fighting with a smaller military. And though the military is spending huge amounts on re-enlistment bonuses, the biggest problem in boosting our military is money. Military spending is less than half of what it was during Vietnam. Much of the money the military doe shave is being dedicated to replacing and repairing equipment and on the medical treatment for our injured troops. Increasing the military budget is always a matter of public debate and any President or Congress that one day asked for a significant increase in military spending to recruit new troops, would face a huge challenge.

The Army’s Mental Health Advisory Team has shown that the best way to keep our troops healthy is to give them more time at home. But the only way to give them the time they need between deployments and at the same time ease the burden on our reservists and National Guardsmen is to increase the size of our active-duty military. It is time for our government to invest in rebuilding our military.

In my constant reading and researching on the war, I came across an interesting observation about the priorities of the primarily Democrat anti-war politicians. I will preface this article by saying that I realize there are war supporters and war protestors on both sides of the Congressional aisle. It is not fair to pigeon-hole any party and make broad assumptions about where all politicians stand. However, it is fair to point out that the majority of politicians speaking out against the war and putting forth legislation to defund the war or demanding an immediate withdrawal of our troops (however ill conceived that might be) are Democrats.

So having said all that, here is the idea that caught my attention. The Democratic party is traditionally in favor of granting broad social benefits to illegal immigrants. Broad social benefits that involve broad government spending. However, this same political party that is willing to extend welfare benefits to illegal immigrants is willing to take money away from our military. The anti-war Democrats may be willing to spend our tax dollars on health insurance for illegal immigrants, but they don’t want to spend that money on troops who are fighting a war on terror. There is no talk on Capital Hill of defunding social programs that exist primarily to address the needs of illegal immigrants, but the Congressional anti-war Democrats are spending every minutes they can to campaign to defund a war that is still being fought. I cannot think of a clearer example of political priorities being severely out of touch with reality.

How can we seriously consider funding illegal immigrants, but refuse to fund our troops who are in harm’s way? The men and women who are putting their lives in danger in Iraq and Afghanistan deserve more than that. They deserve to be more than a political pawn, they deserve to be more than a budgetary weapon to use against the President. There should not be any talk about defunding a war when we still have troops fighting it. How is that blatant illogic of that statement not immediately obvious? Defunding a war when out military is still actively engaged in fighting the enemy is tantamount to abandoning our service members. Whether members of Congress support the war or not they must give our troops the equipment and resources they need to defend themselves and this country until Congress pulls them out. To do any less is irresponsible and reprehensible.

With all the talk about whether we can win in Iraq or whether we are fighting a war we have already lost, perhaps we should take some time to try to envision what victory in Iraq what look like. Most Americans will say that they want us to win in Iraq, but it may be more difficult for them to explain what victory entails. Perhaps victory is like obscenity, we’ll know it when we see it. But, if we are truly committed to winning this war, we should have a clear goal in mind. That is a lesson that our politicians would do well to remember.

Victory in Iraq must involve the establishment of a country that is free form the clutches of Islamic fanatics who use intend to use Iraq as a staging ground and a training ground for attacks against the United States and other free and democratic societies. Iraq must be a country that is free from terrorism. Any foothold available to terrorists in the country is an invitation for further violence against us and our allies. To leave Iraq a stable and free country, victory must also necessarily include the elimination of the insurgents who are actively working against the establishment of a democratic society. Does that mean that Iraq must become a mirror of Western society? No. Iraq can be free to chart its own course, but it must remain a country free from fanaticism and free from terrorism.

Victory in Iraq also means that our troops can leave. When the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government can successfully defend the country, then our troops can withdraw with the knowledge that all the good they have done will not be undone as soon as they board the planes home. We cannot simply withdraw today and call it a victory. We will leave the Iraqi people at the mercy of a well armed and well funded insurgency which has no true concern for the good f the Iraqi people. Therefore, victory must also necessarily involve our continued presence in Iraq until the Iraqis can take up the fight with the training and confidence they need to defeat our common enemy.

There is an end in sight to this long war, but whether it is a victory or a defeat is still to be determined. The most important element to that determination right now is whether those in charge of the big decisions can formulate a clear goal for victory in Iraq. When we know where we are going, when we can visualize the goal, it makes the getting there so much easier.

As the war continues, the military stories coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan are continually overshadowed by politics and election preparations and protests, it is more important now than ever before that we remember the actions of our troops who are serving overseas. For all of the talk about funding the war, keeping troops in Iraq or pulling them out we cannot lose sight of the individual men and women who are in the midst of combat. The service members who are fighting everyday, who are sweating in the oppressive heat, who are far from home and who are willing to put their lives in danger for this nation. Those men and women should never be far from our minds. If we are safe today, it is because they are willing to defend us.

Many of the soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have friends and family members who are sending them letters and cards of encouragement. They send care packages full of goodies from home to help the troops pass the time. But there are also troops who are in combat zones who don’t ever receive a letter, who never get to open a care package and find something special. For those service members, loneliness can be just as damaging to their morale as the heat and the sandstorms.

One organization is trying to make sure that no service member gets forgotten. Any Solider, Inc. was founded in 2003 to help get mail and care packages into the hands of troops who weren’t receiving mail. The organization was started by the parents of a deployed soldier who told his mom and dad about men he was serving with who weren’t receiving tangible support from home; the cards and letters that bring a smile to a soldier’s face in the midst of so much tragedy. By 2005, the organization had incorporated and received approval as a non-profit group and had expanded to include all the branches of the armed forces.

Any Solider and its sister sites allow people who want to show their support for our troops and to put that support into concrete action to send letters or care packages to our troops. Volunteer service members receive the packages and distribute them to the troops who need them most. Everything goes directly to the volunteer troops who make sure everything goes to our troops. If you are interested in participating you can visit their website at anysoldier.com. Complete instructions for sending letters and care packages (including things that cannot be sent to our troops) can be found there.

We may be seeing an end to blogs from our soldiers on the front lines. The Army has recently released a directive ordering soldiers to stop posting to online media without prior approval from a superior officer. That essentially means an attempt to end military blogs from those who are actually in the hot zones. The fallout on this order is already very loud and very public. And it will only get louder and more public as the effects begin to be seen.

The primary concern for operational security is obviously an important one. The safety of our troops and their movements must be of paramount importance to everyone who reports on the military. Reporters, television crews, bloggers, journalists anyone who publishes information about our armed forces must have security in the front of their mind. That is, I hope, common sense. You don’t go telling the world how many men we have stationed at a certain base. You don’t tell them when the next convoy will be heading out and you don’t tell them anything about our strategy. While we might like to believe that our enemies are stupid, they are not. They have learned that our media can be a great source of information. So the Army is right to want to shut off one source of intelligence.

However, the Army may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater on this one. Our military blogs have bean an incredible source of good news about the war. There are countless blogs published by service members in Iraq that are telling of our successes. While our mainstream media may dwell on the negative, that can be countered by a well written blog from a solider who has seen something good, who has seen progress being made. Sometimes, those blogs are the only times we hear anything positive about the war. Are they all positive? Of course not, but they are sharing important and enlightening and often ignored stories of the war from those who are there.

The Army might want to rethink this one. If we cut off the voices of our soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen, we will truly be left with nothing by the endless rhetoric and disconnected rambles of the politicians and news reporters. The voices of those who are actually in the fight need to be heard. Maybe it won’t al be good news, but it will be real.

Barbara Kaye “University of Tennessee” and Tom Johnson, “Texas Tech” are doing a followup survey to an earlier one from 2003 examining blog use during the Iraq War. You can find articles from that study in the books Global Media Goes to War and Cybermedia Goes to War. In particular, they are interested in what motivates people to use blogs for information on the war and how credible they perceive a variety of blogs that discuss the war (e.g. war blogs, political blogs, media blogs milblogs).

For Survey Click Here