Apparently the Left thinks that in order to properly gain support for their anti-war beliefs, they need to repeat the word "useless", specifically in reference to Cindy Sheehan's son's "useless sacrifice" in Iraq.

In my life, I have known many people who have died before their time. Car accidents, drugs, suicide, drowning, and murder have taken people I knew and cared about. So did the game Red Rover, when my brother's friend died when tightly linked arms made him fall and hit his head. There's nothing more senseless or "useless" than dying during a game at Vacation Bible School. Young people die from being impaled with a golf club or mauled by the family dog. Those deaths are useless indeed.

I submit that dying in Iraq is about one of the most noble deaths for a young man or woman. There's no honor in getting hit by a bus, but the sacrifice that these soldiers and marines are making is anything but useless. These 1853 Americans have died for the good of not only their own country but for the good of Iraq. They have died so that others can be free.

That's about the most useFUL sacrifice a man can make.

MORE TO GROK:

Our nation's sons have given their lives so that Iraq's mothers can find peace.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:33 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

What a week! Two dogs peeing in the house, causing a ruckus, and breaking things while they wrestle. I'm glad that's over. But at least some good came from all the action: Charlie lost his front two teeth. Thank heavens we're on the way to adult teeth; those puppy teeth hurt.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:46 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

I saw an AFN commercial today about Frank Capra's Why We Fight movies. Apparently Capra used clips of Hitler's speeches to explain what we were up against. I noticed the stark contrast between Why We Fight and a series of commercials that runs on AFN called Why We're Here. These commercials are all about the feel-good stuff that's going on in Iraq: school openings, meetings with Iraqi councilmen, playing with children. These commercials are interesting, but they sure have a different focus than Why We Fight.

Let's make a movie out of LGF. Someone get footage of imams around the world calling for the death of Americans. Let's add Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl, mixed with Saddam chopping off hands. How 'bout the folks who were cheering in the streets on 9/11? Or footage of those Hamas training camps? And let's show Why We Fight.

If we never demonize the enemy, we'll never truly mobilize.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:50 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Mobilize? But Bush said that the only thing Americans needed to do was to go to the mall. I'm all for reminding people just how much of an enemy Bin Laden is. Let's just not forget that those folks weren't in Iraq until after we invaded. Saddam was more afraid of them than of us, and he shut them down. And the next time we have a chance to do something about it, let's not forget what party's President took resources away from the hunt for this butcher of Americans to invade a country that posed no immediate threat to us at all---and wouldn't have even if they had had a WMD. What would Capra have done if FDR had responded to Hitler with a poorly planned invasion of Sweden?

Posted by: Pericles at August 08, 2005 09:51 PM (hHudX)

2 Outstanding idea. Kal

Posted by: Kalroy at August 09, 2005 12:17 AM (9RG5y)

3 You're wrong, Pericles: the invasion of Iraq was brilliantly planned and executed. Unfortunately, the post-major combat operations phase was not. When President Bush announced the end of 'major combat operations', he was in fact technically correct. The problem is that our technocratic language of warfighting was as flawed as our military's strategic approach to war and peace before Iraq. As context, our idea of peace-keeping and other 'operations other than war' could be summed up in post Gulf War I Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, the Balkans. In other words, a rather sorry resume. (And no, I'm not blaming Clinton - note Gulf War I where Bush Sr failed to finish the job) To any informed observer, to include many of us who served in the 1990s military, it was obvious that we were as poor at OOTW as we were capable in 'major combat ops'. Our particular weaknesses were in the making DECADES before 9/11. By 9/11, we no longer owned the military, nor even the proper mentality, that built the peace in Asia and Europe in the 20th century. That's our weakness. Any half-savvy warfighter attacks weakness and circumvents his enemy's strength. We are faced against a savvy enemy who designs his strategy upon our weaknesses. The War on Terror is being fought in OOTW, not 'major combat operations'. An obvious source of our weakness is the fall-out of the Vietnam War. Another is the ascendancy of realist political philosophy. According to realists, the invasion of Iraq was fundamentally flawed in rationale, but in liberal political philosophy, the transformation of Iraq was essential to win the War on Terror. George Bush chose the liberal route. Is he wrong? Many realists say so (Pericles, you're obviously a realist). I will point out that our realist political policies contributed greatly to the rise of the 9/11 status quo in the 1st place, and Bush at least was smart enough to realize fundamental - even Roosevelt-ian - global change was needed. Remember, we weren't ready to fight WW2 either. Our failures and missteps were colossal in that war. (Which just goes to show that the principal morality in war is not how you fight or how well or how cheaply; it's whether you win and control the aftermath.) Thousands upon thousands of Americans paid the ultimate price for our nation's path-dependent weaknesses in the first years of that conflict. But we won 'by whatever means necessary', and that makes all the difference. In the War on Terror, we again are weighted down with path-dependent weaknesses, which actually don't near the weaknesses we had entering WW2. The question is whether our generation can muster the Greatest Generation's can-do mentality to win at all costs against an intolerable enemy. Whether we have the strength of will as a united people to change our nation's path, create and build the means to victory, and overcome our own weaknesses in order to achieve that victory against a determined enemy. Frank Capra and others of that generation understood the great challenge our nation faced BECAUSE of our path-dependent weaknesses. They knew we didn't enter that fight capable of winning it. They chose to help FDR (a Wilsonian liberal, whose tradition Bush is following) rally the will of the American people to endure, adapt and overcome our weaknesses as we built that capability. They - and we - succeeded, with great cost and suffering borne by the American people. Does our generation own the will to endure, adapt and overcome, despite great cost and suffering, to build the means to victory and defeat this enemy? We're finding out. If in the 21st century, our American generation's answer is 'no', we WILL lose this war.

Posted by: Eric Chen at August 09, 2005 12:40 AM (QJb38)

4 That would be an easy eough project to create on digital media just from what's out there on the 'net.

Posted by: Mare at August 09, 2005 01:01 AM (0CpxG)

5 Wow Chen. interesting read. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at August 09, 2005 01:38 AM (9RG5y)

6 Does our generation own the will to endure, adapt and overcome, despite great cost and suffering, to build the means to victory and defeat this enemy? We're finding out. If in the 21st century, our American generation's answer is 'no', we WILL lose this war. The really disturbing thing is that among the general population, the "great cost and suffering" is basically zero. It's being borne by our volunteer military and their families. It's been suggested that part of the reason for the opposition to the war is that people are so insulated from its effects that they cannot judge it with any accuracy. We must remember that America is traditionally isolationist, largely keeping to its own affairs until someone becomes sufficiently annoying. It's not something easily changed. Also, Pericles, there's not a hell of a lot the regular army can do to find bin Laden, short of invading the whole of Central Asia (likely a bad idea). The idea that the liberation of Iraq took resources away from the hunt for bin Laden makes no sense from either an organisational or logistical viewpoint.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at August 09, 2005 03:38 AM (RbYVY)

7 "We must remember that America is traditionally isolationist, largely keeping to its own affairs until someone becomes sufficiently annoying. " I don't think that's quite the case. Or rather, I think that's the tradition we like to see ourselves as, but it hasn't been a reality for over a hundred years. I think we're smart enough to be an interventionist nation when our interests scream for it, but pretty grumpy about it. I do believe we'd prefer that the world be such a place that we never felt we had to go out there and fix something, or defend our interests; we're pretty isolationist in our desires, but not in actions. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at August 09, 2005 10:00 AM (9RG5y)

8 Chen- You were more careful in your terminology than I was in distinguishing between the invasion of Iraq and the post-invasion phase. I'm happy to accept your correction, and say that the invasion was generally well-planned and that the real lapses in planning concerned the post-invasion phase. I'd add one more item to your list of failed peace-keeping ventures: Beirut. I think the collective memory of Americans is short enough that this one often gets left out of the discussion, but Bin laden hasn't forgotten it. It apparently did a great deal to convince him that Americans still didn't have the stomach to see body bags come home. In foreign policy, by the way, I think that I actually see myself as more of a liberal than a realist... but I want to be a realistic liberal. Let me start by expressing a bit of cynism about the notion of a Wilsonian Bush. Don't lose sight of the fact that one of his campaign pledges in 2000 was that we would not engage in any nation building. He expressly disavowed any "Wilsonian" ambitions. The immediate answer is sure to be that "9/11 changed everything." But what did 9/11 tell anyone that we didn't really already know? Al Queda had already attacked the WTC itself, and we barely foiled an attack on the Space Needle. We already knew that Saddam was a thug and a tyrant. If Bush is indeed a foreign policy liberal, why wasn't he campaigning on the need for military action against Iraq? The invasion might have been the same thing that a Wilsonian would have done, but to suggest that this is why Bush did it involves a bit of ex post facto rationalization. No WMDs? Oh wait, that isn't what this was about. It was all about cultural change in the ME! In any case, even if you accept the "liberal" tenet that we ought to be wlling to use our military power to spread democracy, you are still a long way from having made an adequate case for invading Iraq when we did. First, our military resources are obviously limited, and so you need to make a case for why invading Iraq was a higher priority than other tasks, like really securing Afghanistan and pursuing Bin Laden. Second, you've got to answer the question, "Why Iraq?" Even if you are convinced that our top priority in combatting Islamic fundamentalism is establishing a democratic country in the Middle East, why was Iraq the best place for that to happen? Other possibilities: Syria, another Baathist country, one with closer ties to terrorists than Iraq, and one that definitely has WMDs; Iran, a country with some level of democracy already, and again one with closer ties to terrorists than Iraq plus one with a known nuclear program; Lebanon, the only Arab country in the region with a history of stable democracy. (US and French pressure together has gotten Syria out of Lebanon, which is wonderful. Maybe that would have been enough.) Iraq is not the most promising cradle for Arab democracy, after all. You have the internal Sunni/Shiite/Kurd tensions to deal with. Also, you have the fact that an internal democratic revolution was much more feasible there (where private firearm ownership was apparently common) than in a country like North Korea. If the people there were not thirsting for democracy strongly enough to start their own revolution, then you have to wonder if they will be committed enough to sustain it. Finally, third, to make the case for invading Iraq you have to have a plausible story to tell about how we get from the invasion to cultural change in the region. So far, we only seem to get a lot of hand-waving. One step in the process seems to be "and then a miracle happens." Conservatives, and especially neo-cons, have long argued against social programs in the U.S. on the grounds that these programs always have undesirable "unintended consequences." AFDC, for example, only perpetuated black poverty. Social engineering never works the way you plan, they say. They have a point. But if we can't do it here, then how can they blithely assume that we can effect massive social change in a foreign culture that we barely understand? Especially in a region where we are so roundly hated that our association with anything will automatically count as a strike against it? We may need cultural change in the ME, I agree, but I'm inclined to think that our best hope of creating it would have involved much greater patience and subtlety. Meanwhile, our leders aren't mobilizing the citizens to do the things we can do. How much of the money we spend on oil goes right into the pockets of terrorists? And how many of our problems are caused by the fact that we have to have a major presence in the region to protect the flow of oil? We should have a major push for energy conservation right now, but instead we get told that the way to do our part is to go shopping.

Posted by: Pericles at August 09, 2005 10:10 AM (hHudX)

9 the real problem with the iraq conflict is we're (particurly the bush admin) not consintent in what we're trying to accomplish.first it's WMD's well we didn't find any.then it's fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here.well if that's the case then we'll never leave iraq because there will ALWAYS be islamic fundementists/terrorists in that part of the world.then it's "freedom for the iraqi people" well we had an election and shiite backed cleric parties won half the vote.if any rational person thinks they will run western styled democratic government think again.they won't.ever.it's not all gloom and doom though.saddam's in jail,the terrorists are total sadists that the majority of the iraqi people don't want those motherf*****rs running the country.it simply won't be easy or realistic to expect this conflict to end for at least another 5 to 10 years.which means more casulities....which sucks!

Posted by: tommy at August 09, 2005 12:12 PM (NMK3S)

10 Pericles, that't wonderful you are reminding us that the President told us all to shop. He also said this: "I would think the American people need to be - go about their business on Monday, but with a heightened sense of awareness that a group of barbarians have declared war on the American people." Of course, that sounds like a reasonable attitude, but the "H3y gUyZ! Sh0P f0r Am3riKa!" is a much better soundbite, and it turns out to be the one oft repeated for some strange reason, perhaps related to the concept that whatever the President says must be stupid and ignorant, and if you repeat it often enough maybe it will come true. Alas, Google exists, and you can read and see the contexts of people's speech rather than relaying on random commenters with poorly edged axes to grind. As for Afghanistan, ever read a map? I mean, seriously look at a map of Afghanistan, and tell me how we can get some Bradleys and M1s there. Look at those vast coastlines we can use to land container ships! The ports of Afghanistan were never rivalled for their modernity...oh, wait, Afghanistan is a landlocked country. Gosh, that might hamper logistical efforts somewhat, ya think? Perhaps people who plan and strategize these sorts of things know more about the subject of equipping and fielding a fighting force in broken terrain know more about it than you do, but hey, I could be wrong! But if I['m not wrong, that means units not detailed to Afghanistan because of logistical concerns can be deployed to...other places...like Iraq...and these units are those that couldn't go to Afghanistan anyway...I sense a pattern! Do you? The reasons for going into Iraq are indeed debatable, but when misdirection and ignorance are used as evidence we are doing the wrong thing, well, that's not really a debate, now is it? You can say "we didn't need to go into Iraq cos Saddam was a nice man", surely. But to say "we shouldn't have gone to Iraq because it used up forces we could have sent to Afghanistan" is different, because its wrong and ignorant. You may not know that, but perhaps this will be an enlightening experience for you, I hope. The "please shop America!" statement, as if its the only thing the President ever said, says more about you than it does Bush. And as for "Why Iraq"? Fucker needed to go, that's why.

Posted by: Jason at August 09, 2005 05:22 PM (565iX)

11 Jason- Thanks for your replies. A couple of quick thoughts in haste. 1. I never suggested that all Bush said to Americans was that we should go shopping. But my point was that he has never asked us to make any sacrifices at all, except of our civil liberties, even though there are sacrifices we could be making that would be a contribution to the eoffrt. So if the question is "why aren't we mobilizing?," maybe the answer is even more obvious than "We haven't demonized the enemy enough." Maybe it is as simple as "No one asked us to." 2. About the resource issue re Iraq/Afghanistan. I can dig up documentation later, and you're entitled not to believe me until I do, but it simply is false to suggest that the Iraqi war hasn't meant fewer resources for Afghanistan. Maybe armor isn't the primary need there, although by now we would have had plenty of time to get it there by land even if they are landlocked. Think about other assets though. Think about Predators and Global Hawks, for example, along with other intel assets. Just what you would need in looking for Bin Laden, it seems. Did we not use any of these in Iraq that could have been in Afghanistan instead? What about light infantry? I'm on the 10th Mountain Division homepage now, reading about their service in Iraq. Other people here know much more about the Army than I do, so I fully admit that I may be wrong about this. My impression, though, is that troops like those in the 10th MD would be perfectly well suited for Afghanistan, and indeed they were there before they went to Iraq. What about special forces units? Etc. I don't claim this is the best source, but because it is what I can find quickly and doesn't come from anyone with a big ax to grind, check out this USA Today article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm

Posted by: Pericles at August 09, 2005 06:02 PM (AndZ3)

12 I recall several times President Bush asking the American people to support our Troops and their families in a number of ways. Just because you choose to ignore his requests and ignore the need to support our Troops (in a tangible way) is your problem. Nobody told me to write or send packages to soldiers or support organizations that help injured soldiers, I did it on my own. Maybe that's because I'm an adult whose very grateful to those who volunteer to serve our country.

Posted by: toni at August 09, 2005 08:41 PM (RMq7w)

13 Invading Iraq? That would be almost as dumb as concentrating on defeating Germany even though it was the Japanese who attacked us.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 10, 2005 03:59 PM (K6i9N)

14 Walter, Please recall that a formal alliance existed between the Axis Powers of the second World War. No such alliance existed between Iraq and Islamic terrorism. The difference is crucial. Your analogy is false.

Posted by: Dave at August 10, 2005 05:04 PM (1idyk)

15 Dave, Please tell me which country does have a formal alliance between Islamic terrorism and said country. ..(crickets chirping)... Do you see the point I'm making?

Posted by: gibby at August 11, 2005 02:52 AM (OCIqu)

16 Gibby, I guess the point you'er making is that we ought to be pretty careful about who we attack. In any case Afghanistan perfectly fit the bill as an ally and protector of bin Laden. It made no sense at all to attack one of the few secular regimes in the region. Attack the people who attack you and those who support them. The reasoning is not that complicated.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2005 08:44 AM (ke6dw)

17 Dave is right. After we closed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda would never never have gone to iraq. And Saddam would never welcome terrorists inside his own country, even if they shared the same hated enemy as he did. After all Hitler never really liked the Russians either.

Posted by: annika at August 11, 2005 11:05 AM (a2Zmp)

18 Well no Dave - that wasn't the point I was making. I was trying to make the point that there is no country that has a FORMAL alliance with Islamic terrorists. Not even Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. So by your reasoning, what would we have done after 9/11? My point therefore is that by your reasoning, since there was no FORMAL alliance between Taliban run Afghanistan and Islamic terrorists...we should not have attacked them. Which is, of course, absurd. We know how closely allied the Taliban was with Al-Qaeda...but it was not a formal alliance. Ditto for Iran. And, Annika - we did not invade Iraq to hunt terrorists initially. We invaded because of WMD...which had been there - but somehow disappeared. However, once there, we could not just pick up and leave.

Posted by: gibby at August 11, 2005 06:33 PM (OCIqu)

19 "We invaded because of WMD...which had been there-but somehow disappeared." Just keep telling yourself that. I saw an elephant disappear once in Las Vegas and it was very entertaining-somehow.

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2005 07:00 PM (FP5pf)

20 Gibby, Sorry to be so glib. I agree that we have an obligation to finish the job in Iraq, but what is the job? When our president says (and I'm not kidding),"The better things get in Iraq the worse they're gonna be",what exactly do we make of that? Does anyone in the White House know what success in Iraq would even look like? If so why don't they say so in a no bull shit sort of way that everyone can understand?

Posted by: Dave at August 11, 2005 07:14 PM (FP5pf)

21 Dave - it's OK. This war is stressing me out. We all know that there were WMD in Iraq. That's a fact and nobody disputes it. It's the timeline that's in dispute. I don't know how or when they disappeared...but clearly the intelligence or lack thereof going both ways helped the WMD get hidden/moved while at the same time our piss-poor intelligence gave Bush bad info. Once there though, we had to soldier on. Our troops are awesome, but I am starting to get concerned about Bush and the pencil-pushers. They need to get it together. It is true that Bush keeps coming up with new reasons, after the fact, for being in Iraq. I have no problem though with us having gone in there based on bad info...and admitting it, but realizing once there we have to finish it. But please, let's finish it right. Actually, I think success in Iraq is happening. The ISF, IP, ING are all being trained, the constitution is being drafted (fingers crossed), elections are a few months away. Here is where I get worried and Bush starts to piss me off. Iran and Syria. Come on. They are funneling bombers and explosives into Iraq. Now *that* is what Bush better start to deal with. ASAP.

Posted by: gibby at August 11, 2005 09:37 PM (OCIqu)

22 P.S. Annika was being sarcastic.

Posted by: Sarah at August 12, 2005 02:14 AM (w1HmX)

23 ooops - my bad! Sorry Annika! I swear, once upon a time I wouldn't have made that mistake...but these days it's become commonplace to hear the most outrageous statements...and people mean them! Here's a quiz...can you name the person who said them? ;-) 1)"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," 2)We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism,” she exclaimed. 3) In reference to Islamic terrorists - "All great changes have come from people or events that were initially misunderstood, and seemed frightening, like madmen. Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Gates...." 4) "This started out as a wish to terrorize the world with American power, or as Sharon would say: "Terrrrrrorize" the world with American power."

Posted by: gibby at August 12, 2005 12:02 PM (OCIqu)

24 well bush& co better get their message out clearly that this going take a very,very,very long time.keep talking about how the terrorists are on their last legs is going to get you more cathy sheehans in the u.s.a.

Posted by: tommy at August 12, 2005 12:43 PM (NMK3S)

25 Could not have said it better myself Tommy.

Posted by: gibby at August 12, 2005 04:42 PM (OCIqu)

26 Great piece and we need to show the truth right next to the "feel good" fluff. I still have the Bridge pictures on file!! AND - I say we've been behind for some time now - this should have started when Somalia happened! Tired of bending to the anti-war people who will loose our freedom for us!

Posted by: chrys at August 14, 2005 12:31 AM (EeT7G)

27 Isn't it amazing the lenghts the left will go to try and convince you about how wrong you are with your opinion. I get nailed on my site for not having 'references' to make my point. Morons. You fight the good fight with a great blog. Semper!

Posted by: patd95 at August 17, 2005 05:24 PM (ogWpI)

28 "Isn't it amazing the lenghts the left will go to try and convince you about how wrong you are with your opinion." Yes, sometimes we even stoop to facts and evidence, LOL.

Posted by: Pericles at August 18, 2005 01:41 PM (hHudX)

29 Pericles..."What would Capra have done if FDR had responded to Hitler with a poorly planned invasion of Sweden?" Actually, FDR *did* respond to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by adapting a "Germany First" strategy...much to the dismay of those who didn't think we needed to focus on Germany because it was, after all, Japan that had attacked us. And there were plenty of poorly-planned operations during WWII.

Posted by: David Foster at August 19, 2005 05:56 PM (7TmYw)

30 Meant to include this link on the "Japan Firsters" http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-16-bush-strategy-edit_x.htm

Posted by: David Foster at August 19, 2005 06:00 PM (7TmYw)

31 David- Thanks for your comment. What you say is true enough, I suppose, although the cases really aren't that similar. Remember that Germany declared war on us right after Pearl Harbor and that Germany and Japan were allies---not, as in the case of Iraq and Al Queda, enemies themselves. Remember also that Germany was not contained, prevented from flying aircraft even over its own territory, etc. Instead it was raging across Western Europe, taking out our Allies. So there are reasons that "Germany First" might have made good sense to FDR that don't apply to Iraq.

Posted by: Pericles at August 19, 2005 11:38 PM (hHudX)

32 Isn't saying that Iraq and Al Qaeda were "enemies" a bit of a stretch?

Posted by: Sarah at August 20, 2005 01:59 AM (BtseE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We're dogsitting this week, so with two puppies in the house, I know I won't make it to the computer much. I don't think we'll be sleeping much either, if the last two nights are any indication.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:03 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

It's funny: it was easier for me to keep up with Red6 when he was Iraq than when he lives five miles away. Since he and my husband aren't in the same unit anymore, we don't see each other that often. We try to get him over to our house once a week for dinner, but he's a busy, busy man.

Anyway, I was excited to see this exchange he had with a French reader, which led me to a cool blog in French. Herve runs Le Monde a L'Envers, which more or less means "the world in reverse or upside-down or inside-out or something". It's always good to see we've got French support.

When I went to France a year ago, the main thing I wanted to do was return to St. Avold cemetery. We got there right at closing time, which didn't give me much time to linger, but I did go into the caretaker building. I wanted to sign the guest book, and what I found brought tears to my eyes. So many people from all over France had visited the cemetery and written encouraging comments. I found so many attaboys and gratefulness for my country. People said that the US was the best or that they stand by us. Often it was just a triumphant USA!! written on the side. I was so touched by that guest book, and I'll never forget the words I read that day from our individual allies.

Thanks for your blog, Herve.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 1 kb.

5. Getting an email from Den Beste about cargo cult science.

4. Musing that I missed The Genius I Was and then finding out he reads my blog.

3. Getting an email from Ben Stein.

2. Hearing that Blackfive and Michael Tucker were talking about me.

1. Getting to meet Tim, CaliValleyGirl, and The Girl in person. I hope there are many more blog meetings for me in the future.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:14 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Dear President Bush,

Please stop doing stuff and things that make me not like you.

Sincerely,
Sarah

Posted by: Sarah at 10:14 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

If you're in USAREUR like me, you didn't get to see the show Over There. My mother-in-law relayed some of the show to me, and parts she remembered made me groan. I wish I could see it for myself, but it sounded hackneyed. My husband and I were goofing off later on: "Gosh, Sarge, what a SNAFU." and "Sir, yes, sir!" and other things that only appear to get said in the TV Army. John of Argghhh! compiled reviews from milbloggers who watched the program, and the prognosis is not looking good. I can completely understand though: my husband can't get within ten feet of a military movie without turning beet red and swearing up a storm. If we want to see a show about war, we opt for War Is The H-Word.

And I hear there was a soldier openly smoking pot? HA. Double HA.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:08 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 150 words, total size 1 kb.

I felt bad that Grey Eagle took what I said so personally. I certainly never meant that every single female soldier acts like a slut, and I thought I was as tactful as possible in clarifying my position twice. Everyone keeps pointing out to me that it takes two to tango, completely missing the irony: that's what I was saying in the first place. At times you'd think that the only sex that happens in the Army is rape; I just wanted to point out that men don't have a monopoly on bad behavior.

So I felt bad about Grey Eagle, but then I went over to her website and saw what she has to say about me...

I am a soldier and a combat medic, and the person your husband will turn to to save his life, treat his wounds, and evac him out, so he can bring his cheating ass home to you.

Real classy. She even finds time to make fun of the name of my blog too. And then she flat out lies about me:

There were comments where people actually wrote supporting these posts (I noticed that my comments were removed from the post on "Trying to Grok, but the comments supporting her post were left on).

I never deleted anything she wrote. I don't know what on earth she's talking about, since she filled up most of the comments sections.

I know that this issue is very personal for her, more personal than it is for me because 1) my husband was on an all-male FOB in Iraq and 2) if you knew my husband, you'd know that SPC Waterstraw is just not his type (wink). But I am more than a little disappointed that while I was merely trying to bring up an issue that we all tiptoe around, just to put it out there on the table, Grey Eagle has to personally insult me and belittle me as just an "uninformed spouse".

Cattiness and bitchitude is not exactly the best way to raise my opinion of female soldiers, is it?

[By the way, neither is implying that it's OK for married soldiers to have occasional sex downrange because they're stressed out. I don't buy that BS from the slutty wives either. But that's what Grey Eagle appears to say here:

I have seen and understand where soldiers return from patrols or convoys shaken from IED's, ambushes, being shot at, and all the other incidents that take place, where sleep is mixed with motar attacks, explosions, sucide bombers, and living in conditions that create hardship, depression, and fear to name a few. This causes the soldiers, ALL SOLDIERS regardless of gender to behave differently than when we are home. The sex, which is mostly consentual is a reflection of escape and our own mortality, and becomes living for the moment, and NOT a endless orgy of sex. What the hell do you think we do over there. It does not take away from home, spouses, the love we have, or that we wish we were home with them every moment of every day that we deployed

Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. You can't insist that females are not a sex problem for the military and then shrug off "occasional FOB sex" as normal.]

Posted by: Sarah at 05:40 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Sarah, Don't worry about what anyone else says; you've hit the nail on the head with your last couple of posts. When I was an infantry PL back at FT Campbell in the mid-90's, my soldiers always knew when some of the "low-density MOS" units (i.e. transpo or signal) were deploying to Kuwait. Some of the enlisted females would show up at our barracks and try to get pregnant to avoid deployment. Everyone knew it was happening, but no-one ever said anything. Naturally, the male soldiers would complain about it, but that didn't stop them from sleeping with the females. Bottom-line: you're right. It does take two to tango, but there's an enormous amount of p.c. hyprocrisy in the way the Army handles this issue. Keep up the great work! Chadd Frederick, MD

Posted by: Chadd at August 03, 2005 09:20 AM (roGJq)

2 Good grief Sarah - what have you gotten yourself into now? I agree with you. I have a good friend who was deployed for OIF I with the 101st and he commented more than once about the "issues" relating to sexual antics going on in their camp. He's a bit older, so maybe he's just got a more mature attitude plus this wasn't his first combat deployment. He's seen many. No matter what anyone says this behavior isn't good for anyone and there is no acceptable excuse in my book. I hadn't been reading her blog recently which is probably a good thing cause I might have stuck my mouth into the fray and caused more of an uproar than you. And yes , my friend is getting deployed again with the 101st and he's not real happy about it since he's stop lossed. He was to retire this month. Poor guy and his poor kids. They haven't seen near enough of him in the last 4 years.

Posted by: toni at August 03, 2005 10:23 AM (SHqVu)

3 when i was in the U.S.NAVY. in the early 90's we had women sailors on the ship.listen when you put men and women in the same workplace sex is just going to happen period.the problems that come with them are going to occur.there is absolutably no avoiding it from happening.yeah i know it's the military and you're supposed to be professional but you're also talking about very YOUNG men/women.in my opinion all you can do is try to discourage it.it's almost like driving drunk---- you know it's going to happen but when society (or in your case the chain-of-command)makes you aware of the consequences that type of behavior can be diminished.

Posted by: tommy at August 03, 2005 10:45 AM (NMK3S)

4 Sarah: This game has been going on in the military for a long time. In Vietnam it wasn't only the nurses having sex with the Drs. but the Red Cross "doughnut dollies" were running prostitution rings. When the wives complained we heard the same old thing, we were jealous of the dedicated, wonderful women working alongside our husbands. There are dedicated military women but there are also sluts. Wives have a right to complain. Women in uniform, many of them wives, need to be able to see both sides and, if they were honest, admit that they know this stuff goes on all the time.

Posted by: susan at August 03, 2005 11:51 AM (ST1ZE)

5 Sarah- see my comments to you on 1 Aug. That soldier has an agenda not to mention an ego. Consider the source.-GEO6 [BTW, I am NOT the female soldier who has insulted you. I am, however, actually grey (age and genetics)and I will let you figure out what the Eagle and O6 means... . All the best to you and the Hubs]

Posted by: GreyEagleO6 at August 03, 2005 12:09 PM (WiKxR)

6 HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Boy, if we were back in the 50's, that chick would probably buy the old 'but we could all die tomorrow, it's the BOMB!! Hold me, Darla, I'm frightened! And hey, while I'm feeling you up, mind if I give you a little poke in the honeypot?" I was a female in the Army uniform for 6 years, worked for the Army a total of 12 years, I'll call it - 85% female single soldiers have disgusting, slut morals and 15% are professional but get lumped in with the rest. 85% of male single soldiers would sleep with ANYTHING, married or furry critters, 15% have some standards. Oh, okay, let's be conservative and make it 80 -20. From her first posting, I assumed Grey Eagle was actually trying to say she was in the 15% and I was willing to buy that. But that last paragraph you quoted - woo,boy, she's in that 85% and moving fast. Spare me, lady, and I use the term loosely. When I think of all the good, no, GREAT, men I know who have died in Iraq - and I'm thinking of one in particular - I can tell you what they do when they're shaken from battle. They call their wives, they talk to their kids, they stand in line for the VTC camera. Integrity, honor, loyalty and the rest of the Army values don't fly out the window when you survive an ambush or when a single soldier drops her panties as she walks by and asks if you (her married NCO) want any of that, she's got it for you. And yes, that's a direct quote. If you lose it for a while, fine, you apologize, you do your best to move forward, you try harder to be a professional next time. But you DO NOT rationalize cheap, sweaty thrill sex and call it a noble sacrifice, helping each other with the bond of sex. (Hey, maybe we should give these cheating troops extra pay, they are apparently serving a very important function!) Camp Warhorse is not called Camp Whorehouse by all the troops for nothing. And it's not a compliment, it's an embarrassment. I'd hoped that this deployment would change my mind, that I would see women who didn't use their sexuality to get special treatment. Sadly, that has not been my experience. We are SO MUCH BETTER than this, and everyone should think so. But the only ones who can change the situation are the mentors - experienced women like Grey Eagle and others who should tell younger soldiers, male and female, that making base camp into a remake of 'The Bachelor Party' isn't what the Army is about and never will be. Keep deluding yourself, GE. I hope that you marry a military man and have to send him off with women who strip to their underwear and mud wrestle in front of him for his perusal. Oh, sorry, that's already happened over there, hasn't it? You girls, what a kick in the pants you are!!

Posted by: Oda Mae at August 03, 2005 04:06 PM (3pOhP)

7 Wow Oda Mae!!!! Now that's what I really wanted to say but didn't have the insider knowledge to tell it like it really is. Thanks for laying it all out. I've heard stories up to and including wife swapping in one of my husband's former squadrons but you really did say it all, and brought us to the present and the sorry spectacle that is going on in Iraq. Women need to learn there's a difference between being just a female and being a lady. Thanks Susan

Posted by: susan at August 03, 2005 04:45 PM (ST1ZE)

8 Oda Mae, I've sure missed your comments. Haven't heard from you for a while. Glad you're back. You're the best--you're great at not mincing words! Love it! Sarah's Mom

Posted by: Nancy at August 04, 2005 02:11 AM (DljPa)

9 Sarah - all your other comments pretty much say anything I would say...except better. Grey Eagle "outed" herself with her self-serving, hypocritical statement. There is no excuse for cheating on your spouse (and by the way...you cheat on your spouse...you've cheated on your kids too). That goes for the spouse left at home as well. It's very disturbing to see that moral relativism has a firm root in the 101st Airborne...at least in the persona of this woman. I certainly hope other members of the 101st Airborne don't share her attitude.

Posted by: gibby at August 04, 2005 12:25 PM (DrMqI)

10 Having deployed to OIF I in a CS unit (MP BN) I cannot even begin to tell the problems of the females in the unit who were open for business (not profit, just business) and the seemingly unending line of willing males married and otherwise. Fornication was and I am sure still is rampant in theatre. There arfe of course exeptions such as the NG female who won a Silver Star not too long ago but for the most part, I would be willing to forgo females in the military.

Posted by: cptham at August 04, 2005 01:32 PM (NMK3S)

11 It goes the other way, I rode SSBNs for a while. You should have seen the enlisted club the night a boat pulled out- nothing but lonely boomer widows.

Posted by: thomas at August 04, 2005 09:46 PM (XCrc+)

12 Sarah, Don't let GE get to you. You brought up an different point & one that needed some consideration. I had to deal with middle of the night phone calls where the spouse was trying to get back at the hubby so she claimed the kids were abused. Yes the KIDS! When the issue was pushed that she have them see a doctor, all of a sudden they were "getting back together." The point to this is, that it irks me greatly that there ARE people who claim abuse in an effort to strike revenge. What does this do the the female that was really raped? Screws her over pretty much when and IF is tries to report it. GE has some conflicting views. HH6

Posted by: Household6 at August 05, 2005 02:28 AM (T+Tkq)

13 OMG!! I am appaled at her (Grey Eagle)comment about consentual sex (living in the moment) and how it is a not a reflection of how they feel about their families, spouses back home, and the love they have! If you love someone you would be strong enough to be faithful to them during deployment and times when you are apart! Hopefully she is not participating in this adultry lifestyle that causes homes to be wrecked and families to be destroyed! Thanks for posting what she said!

Posted by: Deanne at August 15, 2005 01:49 PM (LiQus)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

On this day in 1880, Greenwich Mean Time was adopted. In 1921, the eight White Sox players were acquitted of throwing the World Series. In 1971, the astronauts of Apollo 15 were driving around on the moon. And on this day in 1980, my mother-in-law was giving birth to the most wonderful man in the world. Happy birthday, husband.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 63 words, total size 1 kb.

Man, this is why I've avoided blogging lately; it seems everything I say gets taken out of context or misconstrued. I get tired of going in circles.

So...I'm also not saying that all females are evil and unable to handle the military. I sure wish people wouldn't extrapolate my post into something I haven't argued.

My big beef is the view our society has that everything is the man's fault. This happens with sexual harrassment and infidelity, both in and outside the Army, but it happens in other realms too, which I've blogged about before in reference to Kim du Toit's bullseye, The Pussification of the Western Male.

Think about sitcoms: the men always cause the trouble. The portrayal of men on TV is ghastly. I saw it again today on a rerun of King of Queens: she wanted to go to the opera and he didn't; apparently she's too big of a witch to accept "look, hon, that's not really my bag", so he had to concoct this elaborate scheme to get out of going where he looked like a jerk in the end. I'm telling you, I stopped watching Everybody Loves Raymond when Ray ripped up his Superbowl tickets just to get Debra to stop whining for a second. The women on these shows are atrocious, but the joke is always on the dumb/incompetent/insensitive man.

Newsflash: men are not to blame for everything. That's my overarching beef with sexual harrassment norms and my reason for challenging Smink's post. Sometimes women are to blame for the unwanted advances and failed marriages.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:31 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 266 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Sarah, Truth always hurts, but still it must be said. Thanks for saying what many people know. Maybe some don't, but I think they are just in denial. People smart enough to read must be honest enough to admit the truth.

Posted by: Ruth H at August 01, 2005 10:55 AM (7br1D)

2 To put the sitcom example in perspective, in the last season of Everybody Loves Raymond Ray Romano made $800,000 per episode. Patricia Heaton, who played his wife, was apparently making $75,000-$90,000. So, yeah, the "Men are stupid and women are wise" bit is mined for comedy, and maybe mined too much. That doesn't mean that it reflects the way that our society really values men and women, though.

Posted by: Pericles at August 01, 2005 05:22 PM (hHudX)

3 Say it loud, dear. You have more allies than you know. "If it weren't for men, women would still be living in caves." -- Camille Paglia.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at August 01, 2005 06:57 PM (MzH7h)

4 So, I take a little time away from "The Sphere" and this is what I come back to-- my friends having to clarify their statements because other people don't like what they have to say? No, screw that. You say what you think, dimwits be damned. People donÂ’t usually want clarification anyway, even if they say they do. For the most part all they want to do is twist words and play stupid little games so they can try and kick your words back in your face. Say what you think and let it be. If others want to be childish, then let it be so. And one more thing, the last time I checked, women were the equals of men in American society. With equal rights come equal responsibilities. Both sexes are at fault for the problems in American society, not just one. DonÂ’t like that statement? Kiss me arse! No clarification needed... OUT!

Posted by: Ken Dixon at August 02, 2005 12:01 AM (+SdnQ)

5 Sarah, Never explain...never complain. If the 'sheeple' out there really didn't understand, they could ask for a clarification. But instead they choose to accuse you of saying things you never said. Thank you for being there to tell us what you think! Brad

Posted by: Brad at August 02, 2005 01:46 AM (Qz3ul)

6 Sarah, Don't sweat the negative feedback. I think your points are well made. My own observations and thoughts are similar. Back when I was a young LT in Germany an old crusty First Sergeant gave me some sage advice about the same subject which I will clean up in this forum:" never ____ the hired help" and nothing will come back and haunt you. That meant to me, I always had to maintain the highest standards of behavior around the troops, all of the troops, and expect nothing less of your leaders and the troops. When that is violated use a big hammer. As for getting flak from some of the troops out there, female or otherwise, it is my opinion that they either have an agenda themselves or they over reacted to the stimulus. And there are some out there that just don't like testosterone... been there and seen it up close. Now if this doesn't get a reaction like a red star cluster in a wall locker nothing will. All the best to you and the Hubby on his B-Day. GEO6

Posted by: GreyEagleO6 at August 02, 2005 12:25 PM (WiKxR)

7 Great support group you have.. that should make you feel better. Let it be known though.. that people are entitled to their opinions and when you write your stuff on a public blog.. well.. You're gonna get some differing views now and again. If you felt that you had to defend your position and this was bothersome to you.. then perhaps you should just not defend it.. and ignore people who don't agree with you. There's no faster way to diffuse a disagreement.. then to not pay attention to it. With that being said.. I wish you the best of luck with your blog. It appears that you have a great network of readers who will go so far as to down other's opinions to uplift yours. It's human nature. I'll have them all know though.. that Grey Eagle is in fact an amazing woman. An amazing person.. and if she did get offended.. she had a right to. It is a matter of opinion.. Some of your statements were pretty harsh and generalized.. and it was easy to feel a little prickle. But that doesn't make her a bad person, or wrong.. and the same could be said for anyone else that disagrees with you. Not that you said either of those things. Take care.. and like your friends said.. write what you will at your own risk. People who don't agree with you.. will read.. comment and then move on to other blogs where they feel like their views are welcome.. not opposed. It's the nature of such things! Is it not? And with such bold statements as your own.. and strong opinions (both not bad things) you will face much heavier criticism in the future. Be prepared.. and be strong. Unless of course, Big Brother tells you to knock it off.. then go to plan B. Take care and best of luck to you all. Phoenix Out

Posted by: Army Girl at August 02, 2005 10:25 PM (puF94)

8 "With that being said.. I wish you the best of luck with your blog. It appears that you have a great network of readers who will go so far as to down other's opinions to uplift yours. It's human nature." I wanted to add to this.. that putting other opinions down is normal if it doesn't agree with you.. Personal attacks and name calling is what I was more referring to. Sorry about that. Phoenix Out

Posted by: Army Girl at August 02, 2005 10:28 PM (puF94)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I thought I was perfectly clear in my post on women in the military that I was only bringing up additional issues on the topic. But it appears that I need to say more.

I am not in any way saying that all of the blame lies with females. The reason I wrote the post was because Smink's post only addressed the issues that women face; I wanted to point out that there's another side to the story that neither Smink nor his 15 commenters addressed. That doesn't mean that I think females are the military's sexual predators.

Men can be sneaky, nasty jerks. I know of plenty of stories of the gross and immoral things they've done downrange too. However, we can't lay all of the blame at their feet. Women can be conniving sluts too. As a society, I believe we're too quick to always blame the men.

One scenario fleshed out: I heard a soldier tell the story of a time he heard a female specialist completely sass-mouth her first sergeant. She interrupted him and was extremely rude. As she left, my soldier friend expressed shock that she could get away with being so impertinent; he was told that the first sergeant had made the enormous error of having consentual sex with this female and was now paying for his mistake. This female specialist threatened to expose him if he didn't give her special treatment. Was the 1SG wrong for sleeping with her? You bet your sweet bippy he was! But this female is now the one hurting mission readiness by blackmailing her NCO. She could turn him in and say she was raped, and there's nothing he could do about it. In today's world and military, women hold all of the power when it comes to sexual harrassment. And I truly believe that some of them abuse this system.

Men and women are having sex downrange. Some of them are married, some are not. But what happens when two unmarried soldiers are having sex and the man wants to end it, and the female gets mad and reports to the unit that he raped her? Happened to someone I know. We as a society tend to always believe the woman is telling the truth in these situations; I personally don't believe that anymore. I think the system is abused and broken, so I get irritated when we moan about the plight of the poor, harrassed women in the military, and when every other AFN commercial is about stopping sexual harrassment against women. Some of these women know exactly what they're doing and have ruined the system for those who really are being harrassed.

[P.S. I also know that infidelity is not only a product of deployment or the military. Our last president had consentual sex with an intern. Bonehead, stupid, ridiculous move on his part. But what happened? She hung on to a dirty dress and destroyed his reputation, while she got book deals and made money. I don't excuse the president, but I do think that's despicable behavior on her part as well. She was not a victim in that situation, but she retained victim status simply because she is a woman. I believe the problem extends to all of our society.]

Posted by: Sarah at 04:52 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You hit the nail on the head when you said they system is broken. It needs to be fixed. I think many people just have a hard time believing that women would act this way.

Posted by: Mare at August 01, 2005 09:06 AM (0CpxG)

2 I am a married soldier, 35 years old, and a combat medic with the 101st Airborne Division preparing to deploy again to Iraq in the next few weeks with a Forward Combat Support Battalion Your insecure statements are exactly what is wrong with the system. Case in point, there are 200 soldiers in my Company, a third of us are women. Of that there is one female soldier that we consider a "slut". Based on your statement all the rest of us who work so hard to earn the respect of the male soldiers should be held to her standard and are being deployed to entertain the male soldiers. "But this female is now the one hurting mission readiness by blackmailing her NCO. She could turn him in and say she was raped, and there's nothing he could do about it" This statement very rarely could happen. If anything, the fact that the 1st Sgt allows his affair to carry over into the misson hurts the mission and probably shouldn't be a 1st Sgt. A female soldier having sex with a 1st Sgt. Yep it happens. But, I can almost promise you that the 1st Sgt approached her with offers. That is simply the way it works. Does she have "ALL THE POWER", not in the real Army. The reason she gets away with the attitude is because the 1st Sgt doesn't want to risk losing what he has on the side. His weakness. She can report it was rape, but in 8 outof 10 cases the results will be the same, "there are not enough facts to further the investigation". See in the real Army it is a 1st Sgt's word against hers, and just like sexual harrassment, if there are not several witnesses (who have to be impartial, not friends of hers) then the commander investigating the case will not risk losing a senior NCO. Again, that is just the way it is. In truth, fact, and reality, the only "power" we have is that the male soldiers hope and pray that we might consider sex with them, and that is the true "power". Most of us don't even consider it, it is just in the male nature to behave this way to us. The only male soldier who really has to worry, is the one that has a history of sexual harrassment or other issues that the commander is aware of and usually goes home and tell his spouse another story. I'm not saying that as female soldiers we don't take crap from the men, or that we don't don't dish it out in turn. But the bottom line, is that we are soldiers with a very dangerous job to do. That is our first concern and priority. We really don't have the time to get upset over a comment or two. You probably don't understand this. The reason is, males talk and associate with each other in a swaggering sexual context, that is just their nature, esspecially in the Army where testesrone runs high. So this is their way of telling us that we are considered one of them, we are one of the guys, a soldier, an equal. So as long as you don't sexual touch us, or proposition us, it really doesn't bother us. Sorry if this blows your image of us, but this is the facts and the way it is in the real Army. Grey Eagle http://www.afemalesoldier2.com

Posted by: Grey Eagle at August 01, 2005 09:53 AM (bTUq5)

3 I don't understand what you mean by this "blowing my image of you." I'm glad there are females like you in the Army. I don't WANT to think that they're all skeezy. I want males and females to work on equal footing. But I'm telling you that every commercial break here in Germany contains some female complaining about being sexually harrassed. My husband had to attend repeated sexual harrassment training even when he worked in a combat unit with zero females. The Army focuses so hard on it that it seems that this is the only issue surrounding female soldiers. I'm glad to hear you say that you and your fellow females see the situation differently; please don't put words into my mouth that I didn't say. I'm not rooting for your failure...

Posted by: Sarah at August 01, 2005 10:03 AM (qPy3t)

4 "But, I can almost promise you that the 1st Sgt approached her with offers. " Must be different in the USAF then. Seen it happen, though the young lady didn't do anything out of sorts afterwards. Just a trophy hunter. Oh, and Sarah, you were quite clear in your previous post. I probably won't comment because it brings back some memories of things that happened to a couple of airmen (not me) that I was unfortunate enough to have been around during the early 90's. I agree that such incidents should be part of the debate, along with other factors. I think the biggest problem that people will have with this topic is that it isn't one in which feel good measures and "good guy" politics should ever have a place. To have the best military requires that a horrifically pragmatic view be taken. Otherwise it becomes a less than optimum force. Seen that too (in the physical ability topic) though that was more prevelant than the hinky fooling around. Somebody needed to tell these people that you don't date people at work, even if that work is a foxhole. Hell, that ought to be a law. It's always been a law for me. Enforcable by death now that I'm married. Heck, looks like I did comment. Dang. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at August 01, 2005 10:13 AM (9RG5y)

5 Kal, you're right. I have a problem with unmarried soldiers developing relationships downrange too, because it detracts from the mission. And I don't even want to go into the issues surrounding physical ability. I swore off that topic when I read the astounding book The Kinder, Gentler Military. I can't even go there. Suffice it to say that when a female hands her weapon to the NCO and whines, "SGT X, my thingy isn't working...", there are issues beyond which I want to tackle here.

Posted by: Sarah at August 01, 2005 10:36 AM (qPy3t)

6 I think you're quite right, Sarah. Gray Eagle-- I think you're taking personally what's aimed at those females that give you and I a bad name.

Posted by: Sailorette at August 01, 2005 07:27 PM (goEPa)

7 I was directed here by my friend and fellow blogger, Grey Eagle. Interesting discussion, to say the least. I do understand the points I think the both of you are trying to make. My opinion though, is that yes, what you are talking about does happen.. but to a MUCH lesser degree than the norm... which is women being sexually harrassed by men in uniform. I think it's funny Grey Eagle referred me to this subject because ironically, I have felt first hand, some severe cases of this. And I had to remove my story from my blog because it does not sit well with the guys with the big rank. Anyway, yes.. I will agree that there are a great deal of women in the military.. younger girls, who find the attention and the newfound power to be mind blowing. But I agree with Eagle in that there are few of those girls out there.. who make the rest of us look bad. And when we start to focus so much of our attention on the very small minority, it is easy to assume and stereotype other females into their same category. I think what is offensive is that most of us fight that 'slut' stereotype on a daily basis. Damn.. several times a day.. without having done A SINGLE THING that would warrant such derogatory remarks or rumors. But because we are female.. and greatly outnumbered, it is a part of being in the army. When people start making generalizations and touting the negativity.. it's almost like promoting it. Whereas instead of focusing your thoughts and energy to the women out there who ARE doing right by themselves, their fellow soldiers and their service.. unknowing people begin to start making assumptions about the rest of us. Yes.. you may not have been talking about all of the females.. but your words could and most assuredly will affect the perceptions of the people who read your blog. I believe that you weren't trying to slander us all. And I believe that Grey Eagle is doing right by trying to offer a different perspective. The main point is that the Army focuses its money and its messages in where it thinks it needs to be. Domestic violence, child abuse and sexual harrassment/assault are prevalent... as I'm sure you know. So naturally that is where the money goes. And being a family member of a high ranking CID agent.. I can tell you that you don't even know the HALF of what goes on on a day to day basis at our posts around the globe. But I can assure you.. that the 'atrocities' that women are creating and initiating are far few and far between what is happening TO women.. not just our soldiers.. but dependents as well. Men are just as manipulative, just as demeaning and conniving as women. Don't kid yourself. And we could sit here for days and trade stories, I'm sure.. but in the end all that really matters is that there are stupid people out there.. and in every situation there is a shared responsibility by all involved.. except of course in random acts of violence. Which, I'm pretty sure if you pulled those stats, you'd find very few males victimized by women. I'm glad you clarified your earlier post.. and defended your position.. It appears to me that you are intelligent and can see both sides of this as well. I hope my comment doesn't come off as me trying to debate or argue. I support your statement as well.. just trying to explain how statements like that.. although well intentioned or not intended to make all of us Army girls look bad.. really does. It's hard not to take offense by strangers on the outside when we fight it all day long by men on the inside. We could use a few more allies on all sides.. but no matter. We knew what we were getting into when we joined up.. and I wouldn't trade my world for anyone else's. I love my life, my career and my country.. and no matter what anyone wants to say or to call me.. or to speculate about.. I'm still going to do the best damn job I can. Also.. you have to take into consideration that we're a bit older than these girls fresh out of high school.. But that's not to say that they are all bad!! Have a great week.. I've GOT to get to bed. Phoenix Out

Posted by: Army Girl at August 01, 2005 10:19 PM (puF94)

8 Oh yeah.. And you're damn right we hold all the power.. but not relating to sexual harrassment alone. The problem is that it's women who are insecure who are playing these head games with people's lives and careers... and their own hearts. If they truly knew how much power they had.. I'm sure they'd not feel the need to search for vindication, acceptance, status and other such things from others. They'd see it in themselves. That's what's really wrong with these girls and guys.. insecurity. (ok.. well.. it's a major thing.. but certainly not the only thing.)

Posted by: Army Girl at August 01, 2005 10:25 PM (puF94)

9 Army Girl, my only quibble with your comment is where you call me a "stranger on the outside." I'm not *totally* on the outside. My husband just moved from Armor to Finance, so we're getting a taste of both worlds.

Posted by: Sarah at August 02, 2005 02:37 AM (IKNDq)

10 Good discussion on all sides I think. Main message seems to be - Don't let the jerks color your impression of an entire group - for either side. We seem to have a great military - with some real assholes thrown in - both male and female. A lot of issues in the military are the same as issues in any large corporation. They just get magnifeid, especially in a combat situation (my opinion) Good points made by all.

Posted by: RC at August 02, 2005 12:13 PM (gDEwS)

11 I knew you were a wife.. when I said, 'on the outside' I meant that. Sorry if it came off too strong. But there is SUCH a big difference between 40+ hours a week with 'the guys' than hearing it second hand from your hubby and other people. It's just not the same when you're in it all day long.. Actually.. in my personal experience, the wives are worse than the men.. and can be way meaner! But.. that is just my experience. I wouldn't blame them.. as they know I'm deploying with their men for a year or so.. and as it is.. I see them more than they do most of the time anyway. Military wives, by no means.. have it easy. It's a life, job and career all its own. So is being a brat.. lol. I was born and bred Army. So I know how it is on all three sides. Take care!

Posted by: Army Girl at August 02, 2005 10:35 PM (puF94)

Hide Comments | Add Comment