tryingtogrok.new.mu.nu

November 17, 2004

SSG FITTS

Some people thought I was too hard on SSG Fitts. Here's what SSG Fitts said, right after CPT Sims was killed:

"The CO is dead," he rasped, "and I'll tell you why. They were just a gaggle walking into some house. They weren't clearing the building properly before going in. We were doing that, and that's why we're living. Do not let your guard down here, or you'll be the next one dead."

I can only speak as a military wife, since I've never been a soldier. My comments may not reflect the military take on things. But I don't think what SSG Fitts said was a reflection of respect or loyalty.

I know that statements like these are made about the out-group: one company might pump themselves up by saying they're better/smarter/more hooah than another company, or platoon to platoon or battalion to battalion. However, I think it comes across as extremely crass when it's done within the in-group, especially right after a death and in front of a reporter! I don't know what tone of voice SSG Fitts used, but it doesn't sound to me like he's trying to scare the men into be safe; it sounds like he's boasting that he was smarter than the CO and that's why he's still alive. It sounds awful, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, I hear awful statements quite frequently. In my job, I work with only enlisted soldiers, and after a year, the comments about officers have started to wear me down. According to many NCOs, officers are unnecessary and worthless. Once when some of my students found out that my husband is an officer, they said, "At least please tell us that he's prior enlisted!" The look of disgust on these NCO faces when they learned he was ROTC was obvious. "I hate lieutenants," one of them said. Gee, thanks. Right before 1ID deployed, the 1SG stood up in front of our FRG and said, "The CO cares about the mission; I care about the men." Nice statement, thanks. Officers are apparently promotion-hungry morons who should just sit in the rear and let the real men take care of the company. Statements like this get made all the time, so when SSG Fitts paints the CO as a lollygagger who got his dumb ass shot, it makes me mad.

But I read this article as a wife. Maybe soldiers don't pay as much attention to these remarks -- though I don't see how constant griping about how dumb the LTs are wouldn't have an effect on unit cohesion -- and maybe I'm just being over-sensitive. But wives read these articles. Mrs. Sims is printing and saving everything written about her husband to make a scrapbook so that someday her son can learn about his father. Do you think she wants that nasty comment by SSG Fitts in her memories? Look, son, this "combat-hardened NCO" says that your daddy was a screw-up. We family members don't want to read that; shame on SSG Fitts for saying it and shame on the reporter for printing it.

Imagine your spouse gets killed in a car accident. Then imagine that the newspaper writes an article about the accident and interviews a witness who says, "If the driver hadn't been swerving around like a madman and had been more responsible, he/she might still be alive today!" How would that make you feel, to read that about your own spouse? Now imagine the witness was a close friend, someone who should show respect and loyalty. That's how I as a spouse read that article. CPT Sims and SSG Fitts worked together. From everything I've heard, CPT Sims was one of the most respected COs on this post. I think SSG Fitts should've shown more tact and respect in the moments after CPT Sims was killed.

My two cents: take it for what it's worth.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 652 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Sarah, As for the "The CO cares about the mission, I care about the people" statement: When I went through officer training, one of the things they stressed was that was an officer, your primary motivating factor must always be to complete the mission. Your number two goal will be to take care of your people. BUT - your people should always feel that they are at the top. It is not that officers are selfish, and only looking to get ahead - but that the military has a mission - and we can never be so risk averse that we will not risk, god forbid, the death of our troops to complete the mission. We will make every effort to protect our people, and hopefully try to take no foolish actions which will needlessly risk the lives of our troops. From what I've seen (albeit not much), the enlisted Army hates officers. It's hard to believe, but enlisted Marines seem to hate officers even more. If you think it's tough being an Army LT - try being an AF LT in a flight suit on an Army post. Most soldiers would rather commit suicide than salute you.

Posted by: S at November 17, 2004 06:39 PM (swRUK)

2 I feel for you, LT S. There's definite military branch animosity. My problem with that statement is not the Army priorities that it reflects, but the way it was said...and in front of a bunch of enlisted wives. To me, it sends a bad message: the CO doesn't care about your husbands or your families. It just rubbed me the wrong way.

Posted by: Sarah at November 18, 2004 01:54 AM (bdu13)

3 In the AF, most likely that kind of statement wouldn't be made. From my very, very, very limited exposure to the Army, it seems there is a tendency away from suger-coating things, even for dependants. Including making unnecessary statements to show how tough they are and to make allusions to how little the officers care. In the end Sarah, as you've experienced first hand, the great majority of officers are focused on their unit and the enlisted members. At least you can be confident in knowing your husband and his fellow officers are caring for their soldiers, regardless of what others say.

Posted by: S at November 18, 2004 03:35 PM (swRUK)

4 Sarah, As an experienced "Army Brat" (child of enlisted) and "Enlisted Spouse", I can completely understand how you can feel like enlisteds hate officers. Growing up the rivalry even existed between the children of officers and enlisted. The basis for this rivalry had no real basis, other than we had heard it from adults in our community, so it must be so. Now that I have grown and matured, I have come to see what it all boils down toÂ…Experience or Education! In the military of the past officers were often college educated while enlisted people were not, thus beginning the endless argument of who is better. In todayÂ’s Army the argument of old doesnÂ’t necessarily applyÂ…Â…Â…Â…many enlisted have degrees as well and many officers have gained valuable experience very quickly, due to excessive deployments. Overall, I feel that neither experience or education is more valuable than the other, both are needed for the military and individuals succeed in life. In the case of SSG FittsÂ…Â…while I understand his need to rally his men after such devastation, his timing and audience SUCKED! He should have thought twice about his choice of words, especially in front of a reporter. Lastly, where was Public Affairs? How could they allow something like this to be printedÂ….isnÂ’t it their job? My heart goes out to Mrs. Sims and her familyÂ…Â…officer or enlistedÂ….he was, above all a man, a husband, a son and a father. God bless you all!

Posted by: Vonn at November 19, 2004 10:09 AM (FmIVz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 11, 2004

VETERANS

When most of us think of Veterans, we think of the beginning scenes of Saving Private Ryan, the elderly man walking through the white crosses in France. But there's a new face for Veterans these days, a baby face, on soldiers much younger than even I.

Our vets come in all shapes and sizes these days, some of them born as recently as 1986. Yet they're just as distinguished as vets such as my grandfather. Take the time to visit some Milblogs today and pay tribute to the many vets we have out in the 'sphere.

As for me, I'm gonna go hug my favorite vet right now.

The Big Red One has put together a video tribute to our Veterans through the ages. It's also dedicated to CSM Faulkenburg, a Soldier from our post who was killed in Fallujah this week.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:05 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

October 29, 2004

BRING THE LOVE!

Couldn't resist quoting this:

We may see some brief flicker of the insurgent flame yet, some last-ditch effort before Tuesday. If so it would be a good time to remember this: immediately after Al Qaeda castrated Spain with a few well-placed bombs the organization released a tape claiming the victory. That tape included this phrase: "You love life and we love death,." Anyone who ever served in the US Armed Forces knew the instant response to that, heard George C. Scott quote Patton, establishing the obvious common ground between American Forces and Al Qaeda corpses: "Your job is not to die for your country. Your job is to make the other poor bastard die for his country".
"You Love life, we love death"
The Marines will bring the love to Fallujah.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

October 23, 2004

MIXING

Apparently there's some talk about whether to permanently assign support units including women to combat units. I am not a big fan of this idea. It has nothing to do with an aversion to women in combat; since I don't think that a woman's life is any more valuable than a man's life, I have no problem with women dying in war. However, I do have a nagging feeling about the effect that women have had on the military.

After reading The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars, I gave up any notion that I should be a 19K. (I still would like to, but I don't think I should be allowed to.) I still argue with myself about what I think the role of women in our military should be, and my mind isn't completely made up. But there's a big problem coming out of OIF that doesn't have a solution: lust.

I almost typed love, but that's probably not right. I think what happens downrange is closer to what happens on The Real World or The Bachelor, where two people who are put in close quarters and extraordinary situations become convinced that they're in love. And when men and women are serving together, away from their families, for over a year, they bond in ways that alarm those of us back on the homefront. I have a few friends who work in our legal center, and they deal on a daily basis with divorces that stem from deployment. Sometimes the soldiers meet someone new downrange -- sometimes even getting her pregnant -- and they come back and kick their wives out. Sometimes soldiers get caught having sex when they're supposed to be on guard duty, which is dangerous to everyone they're supposed to be guarding.

There are only two or three females on my husband's entire camp in Iraq, and I prefer it that way. I don't think my husband would be interested in straying -- heck, I had to drag his disgusted-with-girls butt into the relationship in the first place -- but there are many men who might be tempted. And believe me, I'm not blind to the fact that it's a two-way street: the wives who are left behind are surrounded by temptation every day, and many of them ain't that virtuous.

The mixing of the sexes is hard for today's military, especially for hooah males in a PC culture. But sending men and women downrange together for a year has consequences, especially when soldiers only call their families once a month. I personally don't think we need more fuel on that fire.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:05 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 445 words, total size 3 kb.

1 As far as I understand,the Israelies train,or used to train,women in their military but don't post them to positions where they would be in combat.I may be mistaken but the reasons weren't for that people might get up to what Nature equipped them to do ,but for reasons more to do with the fear of women getting hurt and killed in combat.........A problem(just ONE of many) with our Canadian military was the politically correct decision to recruit only to certain profiles. This means,so many percentages of people of colour(p.c. term,not mine) women,Aboriginals,but I'm not sure about gays.Nothing bad about trying to recruit people of different backrounds and sexes,but these were percentages that had to be met.No ifs or buts,these percentages had to be met. They weren't and now the Forces are behind the eight-ball with recruits. Besides the fact that a lot of younger people would rather not join the Forces and this is one of the several reasons that we don't even have our manpower up to the level they are funded for.

Posted by: big al at October 24, 2004 12:45 AM (rOeYn)

2 I believe women should train for combat. What if all the men in battle need us, or they're getting their collective asses kicked, god forbid. I don't want to be weeping and wailing at the mess tent, I want to be getting ready to go into battle. In WWI the Russians had an all female battalion. They brought their small children with them. I think this is the best way to work it - minus the children, of course! Train females as their own battalion that could replace one of the male ones. I do not think combat battalions should be integrated. First, you have the sex issue, which leads to the love issue, which leads to the men putting themselves at GREATER risk to protect the women among them. As I've often said, men are a different species. And the ones we're fighting are a particularly nasty, unpleasant strain. I think women would have less trouble killing them than men, due to the way they would treat us and our sisters and daughters if they won. Remember the Amazons! One more problem with women in combat. Our bodies, unfortunately degrade under field conditions while men grow stronger. We would have to have an unbreakable supply chain as well as showers to keep from developing infections, etc. In that way, biology is against us.

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 24, 2004 04:54 AM (Rm+i2)

3 I am in complete agreement with you. Someone once told me that in a "life and death struggle" the urge to procreate becomes even stronger. If you think your existence might come to an end soon, the desire to leave an offspring behind to carry on the bloodline becomes overwhelming. At first, I didn't think much of it other than it excuses lust. But I'm convinced that it is true which means the final answer is that there is a lot of lust going on downrange. I have seen marriages fall apart; relationships back home fail while new relationships here form. Like you, I don't think they have anything binding them other than "the moment" and the vast majority of the time these relationships fail when everyone gets back home. In my case, I'm too old for this crap and (as my wife reminds me often) can't afford a girlfriend with all my hobbies. :-)

Posted by: R1 at October 24, 2004 06:24 AM (PXESm)

4 Oda Mae, you need to brush up on your WW2 history before launching into discussions of women in the military. Soviets (not Russians, by the way, in case if you didn't know - there is a difference) had an integrated army where women served in combat with men. Women received the highest military honors too. There were sniper women, there were female machine gunners, etc, etc. Oh, and women were widely represented in the insurgency. Oh, there was no "showers" or anything like that. And that didn't stop women from being able to fight.

Posted by: Sen at October 24, 2004 11:26 PM (7SZHE)

5 Our bodies, unfortunately degrade under field conditions while men grow stronger. We would have to have an unbreakable supply chain as well as showers to keep from developing infections, etc. In that way, biology is against us. And they say guys are the sexist pigs. On a serious note, Sarah, I'm interested in your take on the missing explosives from Al Qaqaa. I find it difficult to see how such a widely-known site was unguarded, and how Jerry Bremer kept the knowledge that the weapons were missing from the administration - apparently, it is unclear whether the president was informed. I bring this up because this explosive is likely the source of the IEDs in Iraq, and if so then this screw-up is a direct cause of the casualties we are taking.

Posted by: Coriolanus at October 25, 2004 12:52 PM (5d0TU)

6 Coriolanus, I think Sarah has already answered your question: Clinton took them and gave them to Kerry and his friends. Bush is trying to save her husbands ass from these evildoers. Dead soldiers are the result of people hating freedom. Dead babys are just future terrorists, so they need to die sooner or later anyway. And just because Bush doesn't know something doesn't make him bad. He doesn't know a lot of things and people are still dying. So what's your point?

Posted by: dc at October 25, 2004 03:41 PM (fLlQ8)

7 dc, you were asked once to leave my website. Please don't return.

Posted by: Sarah at October 25, 2004 04:13 PM (2KPfM)

8 Sarah?

Posted by: Coriolanus at October 25, 2004 07:03 PM (5d0TU)

9 The stuff from Al Qaqa isn't likey being used for IEDs. It's possible but not in great numbers. I think the stuff from Al Qaqa was RMX or HMX-I can't remember which but it's highly explosive real hight tech stuff. Most IEDs are old 155mm artillery rounds or mortar rounds wired up with make shift detonators. I've heard of that real high tech stuff like that being used in Baghdad but in most of Iraq IEDs are a poor man's weapon.

Posted by: Blue 6 at October 26, 2004 01:23 AM (TPtS1)

10 Sen, please note the following: Russia - During World War I, some Russian women took part in combat even during the Czarist period. These women, motivated by a combination of patriotism and a desire to escape a drab existence, mostly joined up dressed as men. A few, however, served openly as women. Â“The [Czarist] government had no consistent policy on female combatants.Â” http://www.warandgender.com/wgwomwwi.htm RUSSIAN, not Soviet. WWI, not WWII. I am a WWI buff and pretty up on the history from that era. At the time of the "Battalion of Death" as the females were called, they were RUSSIANS. Perhaps I should have put "the Great War" for people with lower reading levels. Corialanus - First of all, I would be a sexist sow. If I were sexist, that is. Secondly, as a female serving in the Army between 1992 and 1998, I was often in the field with other soldiers. The females had to be sent in every three days for a shower. This was by regulation. The reason they were sent in every three days was to avoid yeast infections, UTIs and other ob/gyn infections. Just because it's sexist, doesn't mean it isn't true! This might have changed since 1998, but I don't think so. Does this mean women can't serve in the trenches? No, of course not. But you will have to send a lot of soldiers to the rear for medical treatment at some point if there are not showers, tampons, etc., for hygiene needs. Baby Wipes only go so far!! Could we still do it? Yes. Would women cause more of a drain on manpower and medical needs in that situation than the men? Yes. As stated, I think women would be fine mentally in combat. But the surrounding issues need to be dealt with first. For instance, should female combat soldiers volunteer for long term birth control in case they're taken prisoner by opposing forces, or just to make sure they can remain pregnancy-free throughout the deployment?

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 26, 2004 08:59 AM (FmIVz)

11 http://www.hood-meddac.army.mil/default.asp?page=chn_fsrg1&vi=n&mnu=0 This is the latest on "Field Considerations for Female Soldiers." As you can see, the female of the species needs to pack a bit more than the male soldier!

Posted by: Oda Mae at October 26, 2004 09:07 AM (FmIVz)

12 Oda Mae, my bad, it _was_ ww1 in your post which I read as ww2. My original point still stands - women served widely in combat in all positions without showers, tampons, etc.

Posted by: Sen at October 27, 2004 10:27 PM (UGEqL)

13 I'm usually in agreement with you, but this entry is not one of those times. So, because *some* men (and women) can't keep their pants on, no women should serve on the front lines lol? You have to be kidding me. There are good arguments out there that do support keeping women off the front lines, but this is by far the bottom of the barrel here. First off, marriages must have trust and respect. War zone or back home, the man or woman who does not put their all into their marriage will stray eventually if he or she chooses to do so. That's an individual's problem, not a military or integration problem. Secondly, in today's wars, there are no clear "in the rear with the gear" areas as there were in my father's time in Vietnam - and even then at times that line was blurred. Today, women ARE on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of whether or not America (or insecure Army wives) are ready for it. Every person who enters the Army learns to be a soldier first (you know, fire their weapon, toss a grenade) and do their MOS second. My husband was a 1SG in Iraq and led both male and female soldiers. Women in his company were on the front lines out in Ramadi - even when they were on their FOB. Their FOB was mortared daily and at least one occasion, killed several people and injured close to twenty. Women also went out on missions right along the sides of their male Marine and Army counterparts. I'd suggest doing a search for 1st Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team's Team Lioness to learn more about the exceptional job these women performed. A job that saved countless lives (possibly my husband's included) by keeping tensions from rising by having female soldiers handle Iraqi women and children instead of male soldiers. These women did jobs many men wouldn't want to do and did so with dignity, integrity and gallantry. To discredit their service by implying they shouldn't be there because of "lust" - lust of someone else, not even their own, is appalling in the age in which we live. There are heroes among us and many are women. The insecurities of Army wives who may "worry" if their husbands have to serve with women aside - women are there, they are already on the front lines and they are making America proud.

Posted by: Army wife at October 30, 2004 04:43 PM (/1PdN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 19, 2004

NO HOOAH?

All I wanted to say in response to Greyhawk's vote was HOOAH, but his comments section wouldn't allow it! Now that's a glitch worth looking into: a milblog where you can't say hooah...

Posted by: Sarah at 04:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

October 17, 2004

DEDICATED

There's a new website dedicated to SGT Prewitt if you'd like to pay your respects to one of our fallen Soldiers.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:31 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

FRAG

Deskmerc also has a problem with people whose only knowledge of the military comes from movies. He comments on the absurdity -- both militarily and socially -- of the following nutjob quote:

Next group will be smarter, don't go to jail for 5 years, just take out the lieutenant

Boy howdy. Soldiers are requesting spots in my husband's platoon, which must mean they like their PL and PSG. But anyone who took out my lieutenant would have to answer to me after he answered to the Army.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

October 10, 2004

SGT PREWITT

It seems I'm still getting visitors looking for information about SGT Tyler Prewitt. If you are a friend of his, you can read about how I knew him, my thoughts on his memorial, and the Stars and Stripes newspaper coverage of his memorial. He will not be forgotten.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

October 09, 2004

CIB

I agree with Greyhawk that it's time to reevaluate the Combat Infantryman's Badge.

UPDATE:

Oh, crap. I'm still not used to the Gazette's new format with ten billion authors. My deepest apologies to John of Argghhh! for misatributing his work. In fact, I agree with John, since he was the one who wrote this post. I also loved Grim's anecdote in the comments section:

So I showed my wife this picture you lead off with tonight, hoping to teach her about the injustice you cite.
Pointing at the three guys sweeping the area with their rifles, I said, "Dear, do these look like infantry or cavalry to you?"
"Cavalry," she said.
"Really?" I asked. "What makes you say that?"
"Well, look how short they are!" she answered.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:10 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

October 08, 2004

TAPS

Here's the Stars and Stripes coverage of SGT Tyler Prewitt's memorial service.

(A heartfelt welcome to SGT Prewitt's friends and family. For more, read how I knew him and my thoughts on his memorial.)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:44 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

October 05, 2004

MEMORIAL

I just got back from the memorial service for SGT Tyler Prewitt. I really wish I had gotten to know him better than our ten emails; he seems like an amazing guy. And his is a story that everyone should hear.

He left college after 9/11 and tried to join the infantry but was rejected because of his colorblindness. He then became a combat medic and deployed to both Kosovo and Iraq. Everyone spoke highly of him, saying he was always on the front lines, even when he would get reminded that as a medic he was supposed to hang back! They joked that he was the only medic with a sniper scope on his rifle; one of his fellow Soldiers said that Prewitt was equally a medic and a warrior.

In fact, his vehicle was hit by an RPG while he was trying to move forward to see if medical assistance was needed. They said that he remained calm and was instructing the people around him how to care for his wounds. His family came to Landstuhl and had to make the difficult decision to switch off the machines, but even in death Tyler Prewitt was saving lives. He became an organ donor, and his organs were used to save no less than seven other people at Landstuhl. I -- and his family -- take great comfort in knowing that his death brought so much life to others.

I wish I had known Tyler Prewitt better because he sounds like a wonderful man and the type of Soldier I would like to know. I'm happy that he touched my life in such a small way and that I got to hear his story.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:16 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

1 God bless his family. We have some unbelieveably fine young men and women in our military services. I remember a story of a woman whose son's heart had been transplanted into a young woman. The lady always told people, "Isn't that young woman wonderful. She donated he entire body to keep my son's heart alive."

Posted by: Mike at October 05, 2004 09:21 AM (MqNKC)

2 Tyler was a close friend of mine here in Phoenix & a best friend to my brother in law. It means a lot to hear your kind words of a man who is a hero and touched so many lives. Be it brief, or grand... Tyler always gave his all.

Posted by: Jason Roman at October 06, 2004 02:10 AM (/ItKS)

3 Tyler was truly a model of an American soldier. I was his best friend and he told me many times how proud he was to serve his country and if giving his life was necessary to do so then he had no fear in doing that. It has been comforting to see and read the outpour that has followed his passing. God Bless every soldier who remains.

Posted by: Jen McCormick at October 06, 2004 01:07 PM (yHQa5)

4 Thank you, Jason and Jen, for writing comments here. I want you to know that Tyler touched many people, even in trivial ways, and he will not be forgotten.

Posted by: Sarah at October 06, 2004 03:29 PM (4kYUJ)

5 ALTHOUGH I WASNT PERSONALLY FRIENDS WITH TYLER, I WAS AWARE OF WHO HE WAS SINCE I WAS A 2000 GRADUATE OF GREENWAY. IT IS AMAZING TO ME THAT SO MANY BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN ARE WILLING TO RISK THEIR OWN LIVES FOR OTHERS. I AM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN AND PROUD TO BE FREE BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE TYLER PREWITT...

Posted by: MEGAN at October 07, 2004 11:01 PM (LgZXn)

6 May God rest his soul and comfort those he left behind. The men and women who willingly serve to protect us hear at home and liberate the oppressed are surely a gift to all of us. My gratitude to these troops cnnot be expressed often or strongly enough.

Posted by: Pat in NC at October 10, 2004 11:49 AM (y/2dZ)

7 It's hard to believe that Tyler's gone. I didn't know him as long as Jen or Jeremy--I only got to know him when he was a freshman in HS and really only knew him from church--but he was an amazing young man. I'll be proud to serve in the Army that Tyler so diligently served.

Posted by: Mel at October 10, 2004 05:15 PM (I22Pl)

8 Jen, hi. I am sorry I couldn't be with you guys at home but I am studying abroad this year. In fact ironically I was not 30 miles from where Tyler was flown into. I can't believe Tyler is gone, that's such a big loss to the world. I grew up playing baseball with him every season that I can remember. He was always a leader and he always gave his all in everything he did. He was such a good guy and he will always be in my memories.

Posted by: Kevin at October 11, 2004 04:31 PM (aQ55F)

9 I knew Tyler since I was in the 8th grade and he was in 7th. Though I did not know him that well until after highschool I will always remember his great personality, goofy sense of humor and awesome laugh! I attended his funeral services and was very touched, especially by the video at the end. The song "Proud to be an American" now has greater meaning to me than it ever has. "And I am proud to be an American where at least I know I am free, and I wont forget the men who died who gave that right to me". Tyler I wont forget. Thank you for your sacrafice.

Posted by: Sarah "Sexton" Freswick at October 11, 2004 08:05 PM (rxlLT)

10 geocities.com/sgt_tylerprewitt

Posted by: chris primerano at October 13, 2004 06:24 PM (OMDE4)

11 I just read the news today... I was Tyler's squad leader during our 91W training at Fort Sam Houston. I knew Tyler to be a strong and determined soldier and medic who proudly excelled in his military career. I am preparing to deploy in November with the 1-128th Inf to the same area that took Tyler from us. I will hold him fast in my memory and serve this country with the same seadfast conviction and determination that Tyler did as the only proper memorial to his name. My most sincere and heartfelt condolences to his family and friends. I wish I had known him for longer than our four months in Texas. I am honored to have known him at all. God bless you all.

Posted by: Mitch Knapmiller at October 17, 2004 04:27 PM (nit9f)

12 Tyler was one of my heroes growing up, and is even more so now. I wish I had half his courage. Even though he relentlessly beat me at video games, I'll never forget my cousin or what he did with his life. God bless him.

Posted by: Andy at October 24, 2004 09:43 PM (I+gup)

13 availabledrugpumped

Posted by: challenge at June 23, 2005 11:09 PM (6+mWx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 02, 2004

"Someone from your post died in Iraq this week, but he was someone from another unit," Mom said after dinner. "Oh. Who was it?" I asked from the other room. "Someone named SGT Tyler Prewitt."

TP.

SGT Prewitt first emailed me from Iraq in June, to ask for help with getting a transcript. We wrote back and forth a couple of times to get all of his education records straight, so when he decided to register for online classes in August, he contacted me again. He had just emailed me because he was worried he was too busy soldiering to concentrate on the class. Ten days before that RPG.

His emails were always signed TP.

His memorial is Tuesday, and I plan on going. I wonder if his family could ever imagine that his school representative, someone he barely knew, is weeping.

MORE TO GROK:

Here's my first chance to see TP's face. Surprisingly enough, that's exactly what I had imagined.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:12 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Someone in Florida that only knows him from what you've shared is weeping too.

Posted by: Tammi at October 02, 2004 06:15 PM (UOdfZ)

2 Sarah I am sorry for your loss. We are not in control of who touches our lives, even if briefly, and we are also not in control of how deeply someone can touch your heart, even if their touch was brief. I'm sure his family doesn't know...but your tears and thoughts are out there for them to feel. And my tears are with yours.

Posted by: Kathleen A at October 02, 2004 09:27 PM (vnAYT)

3 Crap Crap

Why is it always the best who must go? DOH cause they are all the best! Add my tears to yours and tell the family that normal folk know....

Posted by: LarryConley at October 03, 2004 12:36 AM (aontM)

4 Stay strong, Sarah; TP's family will need you... Jim

Posted by: Jim Shawley at October 03, 2004 12:37 AM (a0DGD)

5 This never gets any easier when a soldier dies. I am always astounded when I read the background info on these brave soldiers. I always wonder were did we find all of these amazing brave men and women. Thanks Sarah for making Tyler more than just a number. Regrets Toni

Posted by: Toni at October 04, 2004 08:46 AM (SHqVu)

6 Sarah, it was my online sociology class that Tyler was taking. There are several others in Iraq in that class, as well. Tyler was doing well and then we stopped hearing from him. I've written his family with the condolences of the class.

Posted by: Dr. Rosenthal at October 04, 2004 09:17 AM (68JBf)

7 I knew of Tyler only as a friend of a friend. That friend is my girlfriend. Her name is Kayla, and after she found out I think she has cried everyday since. I never knew Tyler, but I know now, for sure, he must have been a great man. The sweetest, most honest, most wonderful, person I know, cared for him on a level that only a few friendships reach. I am very truly sorry, I know we all are. But there's something we all need to be, for Tyler, above all; proud.

Posted by: Chris at October 08, 2004 04:19 AM (r+Jbe)

8 Hi! My husband and I just found out yesterday.I am really sorry!!! We both know Tyler from Vilseck. He took over my Husbands job as 2/2 Scout Medic. The both of them had served in Kosovo with eachother. My husband is really sad, and so am I. He was a good Person! We're really sorry for his family and wish them only the best !!!!!!!

Posted by: Judith Craig at October 08, 2004 06:24 AM (HIHpb)

9 I am very touched by what you have written about Tyler. Yes, he was a very amazing man. He meant way more to me than many ever knew, maybe even him. I miss him dearly but am so proud of him. I have always appreciated my freedom but now even more: knowing that wonderful people like him are giving their life's for it.

Posted by: Kayla at October 09, 2004 11:28 PM (bjHHc)

10 Tyler was our nephew. We live in Cody, Wyoming, and have just returned from Tyler's services. Our whole family appreciates the overwhelming support that has been shown. Tyler was extremely proud to be in the military and his whole family was extremely proud of him. We will miss him.

Posted by: Ray and Stephanie Stockhill at October 10, 2004 09:44 PM (7Z5Vz)

11 I knew Tyler since I was in the 8th grade and he was in 7th. Though I did not know him that well until after highschool I will always remember his great personality, goofy sense of humor and awesome laugh! I attended his funeral services and was very touched, especially by the video at the end. The song "Proud to be an American" now has greater meaning to me than it ever has. "And I am proud to be an American where at least I know I am free, and I wont forget the men who died who gave that right to me". Tyler I wont forget. Thank you for your sacrafice.

Posted by: Sarah Freswick at October 11, 2004 07:45 PM (rxlLT)

12 www. geocities.com/sgt_tylerprewitt

Posted by: Chris Primerano at October 13, 2004 06:17 PM (OMDE4)

13 I was stationed in Germany with TP, TP, myself and our other friend Luke were always together. I will never forget the way he laughed, and all the other funny thigs he did. I just wanted everyone to know that Luke and I are taking care of eachother through these hard times. We will never forget TP. I Love You Tyler. SPC Roger Jones

Posted by: Roger Jones at October 25, 2004 07:53 AM (tVaRJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 29, 2004

SALUTE

I heard a wonderful story, via my favorite reservist, that I am printing here with his permission. It's an anecdote from Kuwait when he was leaving Iraq for his R&R:

This morning at around 0530, I was walking to breakfast. I noticed the flag raising detail was in place but haven't heard any music so I kept walking. I passed a First Sergeant that was standing at attention and in front of him, a Marine, also at attention. I snapped to attention next to him and remarked that I had not heard any music. The First Sergeant relaxed and said that it hadn't started yet. So we both continued to walk towards the Dining Facility.
I pointed to the Marine still standing there at attention. The First Sergeant called over that it was still going to be a few more minutes if he wanted to keep walking. The Marine looked over and said, "No, I'm going to wait. It's been a long time since I've seen our flag raised."
That stopped me immediately. It has been a long time since I've seen our flag raised as we're prohibited from flying the Stars and Stripes in Iraq. I turned to the First Sergeant and said, "He's right, I'm waiting." A few minutes later the music started. The three of us snapped to attention and saluted.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:55 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 1 kb.

September 14, 2004

INNOCENT

James Lileks took something very interesting away from his encounter with a young DNC canvasser:

Â“Tell me what you believe,Â” I said. Â“Tell me what you feel in your head and heart about John Kerry.Â”
Whereupon she said that the War in Iraq was wrong and was Â“killing all those innocent soldiers,Â” and someone the other day said that if we didnÂ’t elect him Bush would have another 9/11, but she didnÂ’t know who said it.
Â“But tell me why I should vote for John Kerry,Â” I said. Gently, mind you. With a smile.
Â“I donÂ’t know,Â” she said.
I said I would think about it; I thanked her for her time and closed the door.
I mention this not to prove that DONKS ARE ALL IDIOTS because thatÂ’s as boring as REPUGS ARE ALL CROOKS or whatever. Yes, everyone on the other side is evil. Noted. I bring this up because itÂ’s the third time the DNC has sent a canvasser to my neighborhood whoÂ’s utterly lost as soon as she gets beyond a talking point. Which means nothing, perhaps; itÂ’s a safe district. Send out the newbies to learn on the job. But I kept thinking of the way she phrased the deaths in Iraq: Â“all those innocent soldiers.Â” ThatÂ’s how some see the soldiers in Iraq.
If asked to describe the attributes of a Marine, Â“innocentÂ” would not be among the first 100 adjectives IÂ’d employ.

When we inprocessed here, we went to a week-long German language and culture course. Sitting right behind us that week was PFC W, a 21W. He was an 18-year-old mason for the Army, a quiet farm-boy type who called my husband "sir" at the beginning and end of every sentence. He was the poster boy for innocence.

And two weeks later he was on his way to Iraq.

I haven't seen him since he returned, though I did see that Stars and Stripes had interviewed him once. I would wager that he's not the same person that he was when he left. Actually, I'd wager that my impression of him, sitting shyly in that German class, was not entirely accurate either: he was most likely less innocent than he appeared. Perhaps he boarded the plane like some others I've heard of, Soldiers who were immaturely eager to kill some %$&# Iraqis. Now that they've killed, they want nothing more than to never have to do it again.

There are two meanings here for the word innocent: "naive" and "not guilty". Our Soldiers are not naive. Anyone who joined the military thinking he'd never have to participate in anything dangerous or aggressive must have been delusional. Even those who signed up pre-9/11 (as my husband did) should have known the risks involved. Our Soldiers aren't innocent dupes; when they signed the paperwork, they agreed to do a job that most people don't want to think about: they agreed to give their lives for our country.

But if this young woman meant that our Soldiers were "not guilty", then I'd agree with that. We Americans are not guilty of the heinous behavior that many on the European and American Left like to saddle us with. We did not deserve 9/11; we were not guilty. But we certainly were naive. Unlike our Soldiers, who signed a contract and contemplated the dangers beforehand, most of us regular citizens never imagined that we were a target. 9/11 took away our innocence, just as killing the first insurgent took away our Soldiers'. We'd love nothing more than to go back to 9/10, but we can't.

Some commenters here yesterday told me to get over the WTC. 9/11 wasn't that bad; just get over it. 9/11 was bad: it was the day we lost our innocence. That's why I refuse to just get over it.

Many people do watch the news and the deathtoll and wonder why each individual servicemember had to die. What did PFC Poindexter ever do to deserve this? Why should all these young innocent men have to die? Unfortunately, individual Soldiers and Marines have to die so that our country doesn't have to face another 9/11. Why should any of us have to die at the hands of "Islamobarbarians", as Nelson Ascher called them? None of us deserve that, not PFC Poindexter, not those in the WTC, not Nick Berg, not a one of us. We were all innocent, but we are no longer naive.

Lileks is right: innocent is not a good word to describe our Marines. Bad-ass is much better.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:59 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 760 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Why would you even read Lileks? Like so many other Americas he has decided to live in fear, and lets that fear rule every aspect of his thinking. That's how the terrorists win.

Posted by: A Hermit at September 14, 2004 12:31 PM (Lb9gk)

2 You obviously don't read Lileks, yourself. If you did you would know he is far from living in fear. He takes his daughter all over the place, to many different venues. I don't believe he qualifies for your assumption.

Posted by: Mike at September 14, 2004 02:13 PM (+sj2x)

3 bggw...so, do you think Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had anything to do with Pearl Harbor? If not, why did we not attempt to negotiate a peace treaty with these nations, rather than declaring war on them? Do you think we should have done so? (And yes, I'm aware that Germany declared war on us first. But if we had agreed to stop sending supplies to Britain and give them a free hand in Russia, I'm confident they would have been willing to sign a peace treaty.)

Posted by: David Foster at September 14, 2004 03:31 PM (XUtCY)

4 What I want to know who is going to supply our police forces with protective armor when they come up against the influx of Afghan heroin being pushed by dealers armed with assault weapons. All the army surplus stores are sold out. The manufacturers have committed all their product to the military and nothing is available for the homeland defense.

Posted by: dc at September 14, 2004 04:04 PM (s6c4t)

5 "You obviously don't read Lileks, yourself" Only occasionally, but enough to know that his political opinions are all centred on fear of terrorism. Has nothing to do with where he takes his child; everything to do with the purple prose that passes for political commentary in his articles. He's merely cloying when writing about his daughter (which is forgivable, I've been known to gush about my own kids), but get him on anything political and the fear and loathing rise to the surface. We all think 911 was horrific, but too many Americans have allowed that horror to take over their decision making. I think of all the folks who, like Dennis Miller, have decided that terrorism is the only issue that matters, and that only "Daddy" in the form of George W. Bush can save us; in spite of his failure to capture Osama, to finish the job in Afghanistan, to stay focused on the real enemy or to support the troops with decent equipment, adequate planning and quality care for those who pay the price with their bodies. Fear has overtaken reason in such people. That's what leads to support for irrational policies like invading Iraq virtually alone and on a shoestring. And that's how the terrorists win...

Posted by: A Hermit at September 14, 2004 05:06 PM (Lb9gk)

6 individual Soldiers and Marines have to die so that our country doesn't have to face another 9/11. I'm confused. None of the 19 9/11 hijackers was an Iraqi (15 were Saudis). George W. Bush has admitted that there's no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 (I'll be happy to give you the cite if you doubt that). So how do the deaths of 1,000+ soldiers in Iraq help prevent another 9/11?

Posted by: Frederick at September 14, 2004 09:01 PM (WH21R)

7 And now thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens have lost THEIR innocence. Well, lost their lives. Tens of thousands of their surviving family and friends have lost their innocence. And so they fight us. It's time Americans lost their innocence about the Iraq war and realized that it's not worth it. The war is creating hatred of America in previously innocent Muslims.

Posted by: yettrab at September 14, 2004 09:21 PM (9AAwc)

8 Did the Iraqis who lost relatives under Saddam's regime retain their innocence?

Posted by: chris at September 14, 2004 11:43 PM (VDzYB)

9 I have never seen so many commentors so blind to reality in my life. You guys have detached yourselves so far from the real world you cannot even begin to entertain the idea that the islamists have been trying to kill as many of us as possible for the last 30 years. They will continue to do so until they are stamped out. Negotiations have failed, treaties have failed, bribery has failed, retreat has failed, you have before you two options, surrender or fight. If you choose to surrender so be it, but understand that I will die fighting. Hijackings, car bombs, suicide belts, airplane bombs, murderous gunmen have been the normal state of affairs for decades now. Shooting children in the back by the hundreds, targetting restaraunts, parties, buses and every conceivable form of innocent person you can imagine. These are not the tactics of the US, but of our enemy. Every bit of diplomacy to get them to stop has failed, and a very strong case can be made for the fact that every concession has only brought more of the same, faster and nastier. If we roll over, retreat from every corner of the world and close our borders and hide on this continent, do you really think they are going to stop? Do you think if we took all the money we have, your income, my income, Bill-freaking-Gate's income, all the corporate earnings and government taxes, and gave it all away that they would stop? Wake up and smell the war. It has been going on for decades, and not by our declaration. It is a fascist ideology that has taken hold, and is trying to spread. Can you not see the forest for the trees? Go ahead and vote to retreat back to decades of appeasement, go ahead and try to placate those that wish for your death. I myself say no more. The past has been demonstrated as a failure. We must fight now, or your children and grand children will curse your failure as they die at the hands of these maniacal murders. But hey, all that pales in comparison when you understand that Bush skipped a PT test or two.....

Posted by: John at September 15, 2004 03:49 AM (crTpS)

10 Frederick, I'm confused, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there were no German pilots involved, why did we even fight Germany? How did the deaths of thousands of Americans on D-Day (thats in 1 day, not an 18 month campaign) help prevent another Japanese sneak attack? If you honestly try to answer this question, you'll find the answer to yours.

Posted by: John at September 15, 2004 04:37 AM (crTpS)

11 The number of Iraqis dead since March 2003 is by now at least eight times the number of people who died in the World Trade Center. September 11Â… he sat there, reading the paper. As he reached out for the cup in front of him for a sip of tea, he could vaguely hear the sound of an airplane overhead. It was a bright, fresh day and there was much he had to doÂ… but the world suddenly went black- a colossal explosion and then crushed bones under the weight of concrete and ironÂ… screams rose up around himÂ… men, women and childrenÂ… shards of glass sought out tender, unprotected skin Â… he thought of his family and tried to rise, but something inside of him was brokenÂ… there was a rising heat and the pungent smell of burning flesh mingled sickeningly with the smoke and the dustÂ… and suddenly it was blackness. 9/11/01? New York? World Trade Center? No. 9/11/04. Falloojeh. An Iraqi home.

Posted by: A Hermit at September 15, 2004 11:22 AM (0O33+)

12 I'm confused, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, there were no German pilots involved, why did we even fight Germany? Uh, going on a limb here, John -- because Germany had declared war against the United States, perhaps?

Posted by: Frederick at September 15, 2004 08:47 PM (WH21R)

13 John, note also that Germany, Italy, and Japan had entered into the Tripartite Pact on September 27, 1940. The linked site states, According to the stipulation of the Tripartite Pact, Nazi-Germany was required to come to the defense of her allies only if they were attacked. Since Japan had made the first move and attacked, Germany was not obligated to aid. On December 11th, Hitler entered the Reichstag to formally declare war on the United States, thus quenching that US opinion which opposed USA's engagement against the Third Reich. So Germany had entered into a formal military alliance with Japan before Pearl Harbor. Nonetheless, the United States, although it declared war against Japan the day after Pearl Harbor, did not declare war against Germany until after Germany declared war against the U.S.

Posted by: Frederick at September 15, 2004 09:14 PM (WH21R)

14 And the fact that Bin Laden, Saddam, and assorted other mideast thugs HAVE NOT declared war on the US? Hello...... you don't see any parrallel? Blind as a bat.

Posted by: John at September 16, 2004 02:53 AM (crTpS)

15 Do you see the answer to your questions? War was declared on us many years ago, but this country refused to answer those declarations, always prefering to negotiate and conceed ground. Now is the time to take their war declarations serious and win the war they declared.

Posted by: John at September 16, 2004 02:55 AM (crTpS)

16 I know that, like Rumsfeld a few days ago, you guys get Osama and Saddam confused (hey, all those Arab leader guys are pretty much the same), but Saddam Hussein neither declared war on us nor was involved in 9/11. We've gotten Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11, at the cost of ignoring OBL, who did.

Posted by: Frederick at September 16, 2004 11:32 AM (WH21R)

17 This is not about individuals, this is about fighting a facist movement from the islamic world. Hirohito, Hitler, and Mousillini were all different sides of the same coin, and so are all the tyrants in the islamic world. They are all inextricably linked and the cause of the current problem. You cannot just hunt down one man (OBL) and leave the festering cancer that gives rise to his murderous ideology. The foundations that gives rise to his ilk must be torn up and rebuilt, this cannot be done by begging the cooperation of dictators that spend 10 years defying the rest of the world and funding the movement. But you refuse to see that apparently. Saddam has been firing at the US and other allied troops for 13 years after he was forced from Kuwait, yet you think he hadn't declared war on us? How does that work? Would you have negotiated peace with Hitler to fight Japan?

Posted by: John at September 16, 2004 01:04 PM (+Ysxp)

18 Saddam has been firing at the US and other allied troops for 13 years after he was forced from Kuwait, yet you think he hadn't declared war on us? How does that work? What do you mean? You mean he shot stuff at us when we overflew Northern Iraq? Probably true, but I'm sure we were a hell of a lot more successful at bombing stuff there than Saddam was at shooting at our aircraft. I have a hard time seeing that that justifies a full-scale war against the guy. I have not seen anyone advance that rationale for the war before. Would you have negotiated peace with Hitler to fight Japan? Hell no.

Posted by: Frederick at September 16, 2004 03:33 PM (WH21R)

19 Comparisons with WWII don't work. This is entirely different.

Posted by: yettrab at September 16, 2004 09:13 PM (9AAwc)

20 Over flew northern Iraq? Are you aware of the southern and northern no-fly zones that were maintained by allied forces for 10 years in order to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam's brutality? These were not just 'over flights', they were designed to protect his people from him. He continually tried to shoot down the planes keeping him from murdering his own citizens. He has a well established record of funding terrorist organizations, his intelligence services had members in AQ, as well as hosted training camps in his country. He was an integral part of the problem, and a good place to start. The 16 UN security councils resolutions alone over 12 years justified a full scale war against this guy. Kuwait justified it back in GW1, yet the UN was so scared of the Arab world it refused to let the allies then finish the job. That was probably the biggest global mistake made by the UN in the last 30 years. Imagine what the world would be like now if we had a 10 year start on the reformation of the islamic world, before the idea that the west was a paper tiger and could be bled to surrender. And when I hear people now advocating the continual retreat, I don't understand how you can look at that very policy from the last 30 years and not see it as a complete and utter failure. Retreat and concessions did not bring peace, only more terror. It doesn't work, so why keep trying?

Posted by: John at September 16, 2004 09:18 PM (+Ysxp)

21 You're basing your feel-good on... what, John?

Posted by: yettrab at September 21, 2004 01:47 AM (9AAwc)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 08, 2004

1000

I feel like I should say something about the 1000 servicemembers who have died in Iraq, but I really don't know what it is I should say. Should I point out that, statistically speaking, one is more likely to die in a car accident -- as my boss' son unfortunately did over the weekend -- than in Iraq? Should I point out that 1000 war deaths is, historically speaking, a blessing? Should I point out that I consider those combat deaths to be part of the larger deathtoll that includes 9/11 and Afghanistan, in which we passed the 1000 mark on the first day? I really don't want to point any of that stuff out; it is what it is. My regular readers don't need it pointed out anyway.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:12 AM | Comments (49) | Add Comment
Post contains 131 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Should I point out that, statistically speaking, one is more likely to die in a car accident -- as my boss' son unfortunately did over the weekend -- than in Iraq? Do you have a link for the source?

Posted by: Donna at September 08, 2004 10:17 AM (Zy8m6)

2 Sure. All you need to do is add up all the highway deaths in the US, and divide that by the population. Then compare it to 1000/200,000 (or the total of all who have served in Iraq).

Posted by: Mike at September 08, 2004 11:48 AM (MqNKC)

3 Mike, I was getting ready to do all the math, but you beat me to it and I'm way too grumpy after a long day of work to do more probabilities. I'd also say that since most soldiers are in the 18-25 year range, there's even a bigger chance of those guys dying if they were at home in cars than in Iraq. And I'd say we'd have to include all of those who have served in Iraq, which is more than 200,000, right? The actual figures are hard to find, both for car accidents and for troops downrange.

Posted by: Sarah at September 08, 2004 12:06 PM (UfrU2)

4 I was thinking along similar lines yesterday - and trying to take comfort in the amazingly small probabilities of anything happening to Nerdstar in the next ten or so days. While yes, we've had a really low number of casualties all things considered - you know, like removing a brutal dictator who'd ruled for so long, and all, my heart breaks, just as I know yours does, for all the friends and loved ones of those 1003 soldiers.

Posted by: Beth at September 08, 2004 12:31 PM (CZ0NV)

5 Yeah, I know what you mean about dying in a car wreck. I know a lady; her husband died in a car wreck a few weeks ago. Meaningless death. At least if you are going to die before your time, you should die for something. Hope that came out the right way.

Posted by: Tom at September 08, 2004 12:37 PM (kmiNS)

6 Can't get blooger to work. Today the USA Today had a nice article on the deaths (and a picture that belonged in an anti-war art museum and not on the cover of a newspaper). It's important to remember the lives of everyone of the 700+ combat casualties, and the 250+ accidental deaths. How they lived and what they believed is important. So, can anyone tell me how many brave men and women we have lost in Kosovo or Afghanistan? I can't. I can't remember the last time any of the major media even mentioned the deaths of one of our people in either country. For the media and those who use the war deaths for their political agenda, some American deaths are more important than others. I guess it doesn't matter to them that a GI died in Kosovo, since that doesn't advance their own agenda. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at September 08, 2004 01:10 PM (q1aeu)

7 This idea is dismembered here: sadly, no. The rate of combat deaths among American service members in Iraq is much, much higher than the rate of accidental deaths due to automobile accidents for the US population. And you haven't even considered the wounded, or all those dead Iraqis. A better comparison would be between American civilian casualties of terrorist attacks in the United States in the last four years to the number dead in car accidents. About 3,000 against at least 160,000. Might be interesting to compare terror victims to deaths due to pollution, or lack of health care, or malnutrition or any of the other problems overshadowed by the BUsh administration's "be afraid of terrorists" mantra. Begs the question of whether we are putting our resources in the right places...

Posted by: A Hermit at September 08, 2004 01:21 PM (Lb9gk)

8 Wow, what a moronic post this was. I'm embarrassed for you.

Posted by: tgb at September 08, 2004 01:29 PM (y5alw)

9 tgb, If you want to call a post moronic you should at least explain why, and dump the patronizing attitude. Sarah, I think you should try La Shawn Barber's rules on comments - remove all the name-calling posts and those that don't support their point. Don't let those condescending trolls get to you. And I also think that the media coverage of 1000 is stupid, as if the one between 999 and 1000 makes all the difference in the world.

Posted by: chris at September 08, 2004 01:47 PM (Y6vT5)

10 It means the world of difference to the family of the one between 999 and 1000.

Posted by: ME at September 08, 2004 02:19 PM (W5nSP)

11 ME: Then the 999 means 999 worlds of difference to the families of those 999 killed, which would dwarf one world of difference, if you really want to look at death in terms of numbers. And I highly doubt that the media suddenly cared about one particular soldier's family (as in really symphathizing with).

Posted by: chris at September 08, 2004 02:48 PM (nyxv/)

12 And they DON'T care about the deaths, which is what makes me mad about the issue. I grieve for every one of them, as any could have been my own son. These folks do not grieve. They simply see it as a milestone, as they've said. This false face is common from their ilk.

Posted by: Mike at September 08, 2004 03:07 PM (MqNKC)

13 Chris, You missed my point or maybe I missed yours. The media coverage that I have seen or read has spoken about the lives of these soldiers that have given their life. It is a good time to reflect that they are just not numbers but human beings. If it takes a milestone such as 1000 for us to remember the other 999 then so be it. I grieved for those families and have seen as such from some of the media. If it were not for the media, I might not know about these soldiers. As in any profession, do not judge all by how some are portrayed. As for taking these soldiers and families to heart, I currently have my only 2 sons in Iraq. My heart goes out to all families.

Posted by: ME at September 08, 2004 03:30 PM (W5nSP)

14 ME, I apologize for sounding harsh. God bless you and your sons. What I really can't stand about the media's "1000" is the almost gleeful way they presented it, as if they were dying to reach it so they can say, look at those poor soldiers, let's celebrate that it'll make Bush look bad. I'm especially annoyed at the way they make the soldiers sound as if they were all sheep sent to be slaughtered - nothing but victims - while most of them, I believe, were fighting for something that they believed in. It may be little consolation to the families that they died heroes instead of victims, but the media could at least honor them as more than just tragic deaths.

Posted by: chris at September 08, 2004 05:32 PM (nyxv/)

15 Jebus! How many times can Sarah get the numbers so wrong? The odds of dying in a car accident in the USA are approximately 1 in 6,029. If you're unlucky enough to be sent as a U.S soldier to Iraq, your odds of being killed are approximately 1 in 250. You are a pure unadulterated idiot, Sarah!

Posted by: Adrian at September 08, 2004 06:24 PM (jyOeZ)

16 Hey idiot - do the math again. What are the odds of sitting in your office building on a bright September morning and having your life taken while sitting at your desk by a 747? These are the odds these soldiers are trying to reduce to us and our families. Show a little courage and grow up.

Posted by: Kathleen A at September 08, 2004 06:59 PM (vnAYT)

17 Hey idiot - do the math again. What are the odds of sitting in your office building on a bright September morning and having your life taken while sitting at your desk by a 747? Kathleen, do you really want us to do the math on the chances of this? I can tell you right now it'll bear out the fact your statement is even more moronic than Sarah's. To add insult to injury, you'd also have to explain how Iraq was involved in the attacks of 9/11--something AWOL Georgie hasn't been able to do.

Posted by: JadeGold at September 08, 2004 08:00 PM (q+Jn/)

18 JadeGold - glad to help you out. Please refer to the 9/11 report which is accessible through keyword searches here. Please do search for keywords: Iraq and Al-Queda Let me help you out... With UN sanctions set to come into effect in November, Clarke wrote Berger that Â“the Taliban appear to be up to something.Â”89 Mullah Omar had shuffled his Â“cabinetÂ”and hinted at Bin LadinÂ’s possible departure. ClarkeÂ’s staff thought his most likely destination would be Somalia; Chechnya seemed less appealing with Russia on the offensive. Clarke commented that Iraq and Libya had previously discussed hosting Bin Ladin though he and his staff had their doubts that Bin Ladin would trust secular Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qadhafi. Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot,some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons,pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4,1998,the U.S. AttorneyÂ’s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin,charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S.defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran,and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had Â“reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.Â” 109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was Â“probably a direct result of the IraqÂ–Al Qida agreement.Â” He (Clarke) wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin LadinÂ’s having met with Iraqi officials, who Â“may have offered him asylum.Â” Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders,though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq,wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam HusseinÂ’s service,and it would be Â“virtually impossibleÂ”to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan,Clarke declared.134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight,but Clarke opposed even this. It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and Â“Pak[istanÂ’s] intel[ligence service] is in bed withÂ”Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign:Â“Armed with that knowledge,old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad.Â” Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad confederation. In Sudan,he established an Â“Islamic Army ShuraÂ”that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army,he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia,Egypt,Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman,Algeria, Libya,Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea. Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though IraqÂ’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agendaÂ—save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against Â“CrusadersÂ”during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan,and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53 To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge,at least for a time,although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of BaghdadÂ’s control. In the late 1990s,these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001,with Bin LadinÂ’s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54 With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Posted by: Kathleen A at September 08, 2004 08:10 PM (vnAYT)

19 Sarah honey, please have an adult check your homework in the future. Being off by a factor of 25 is pretty embarrasing and could have been so easily corrected. And Kathleen, you can't use stat analysis on a one time event. And everyone, please remember our troops in Afghanistan who are still dying while we lose control of that country, (which btw, actually DID have something to do with 9/11.)

Posted by: Anon at September 08, 2004 08:14 PM (3Y1xf)

20 You're right. There is no link between SH and 9/11 - but there IS a link between SH and Al-Queda. Which is clear from 9/11 report. Thus the reason we are in Iraq.

Posted by: Kathleen A at September 08, 2004 09:49 PM (vnAYT)

21 Sarah, You are insulting our guys over there to score some political points. Trying to suggest that our soldiers are not put in harms way is flat out wrong. I have a few friends who are serving in Iraq at this point - none of them would appreciate the garbage you posted.

Posted by: SomeRandomGuy at September 08, 2004 09:53 PM (nHMr5)

22 SomeRandomDumbass - SARAH'S HUSBAND IS SERVING OVER THERE. Pay attention before you insult someone.

Posted by: Kathleen A at September 08, 2004 10:07 PM (vnAYT)

23 Kathleen, I assume that author just isn't too bright (she certainly is bad at statistics) and didn't see the implications of what she was saying. If she has a husband serving over there, it just makes it all the worse that she is insulting him as well as our soldiers by saying that they are not in harm's way. Since the post doesn't mention that her husband is serving over there, this is not really a question of paying attention. Kind Regards, SomeRandomGuy P.S. Thanks for bringing the level of discourse down to name calling. That shows a remarkable level of imaturity on your part, but makes me confident that my point must be true since you can't actually refute it and instead have to attack me personally.

Posted by: SomeRandomGuy at September 08, 2004 11:47 PM (RngL2)

24 but there IS a link between SH and Al-Queda. Which is clear from 9/11 report. Perhaps you'd care to link to the relevant passges of the report that says this.

Posted by: JadeGold at September 09, 2004 12:21 AM (q+Jn/)

25 Kathleen, You're amazing. You can find more "links" between various U.S administrations and al-Qaeda than you can between Saddam and al-Queda. Do you really want to play six degrees of kevin bacon with this? And since when does the fact that Sarah's husband is "serving there" excuse Sarah's shoddy statistical analysis? Hopefully Sarah's husband won't turn out to be another in the long line of historical "blessings", as Sarah refers to the dead and maimed.

Posted by: Adrian at September 09, 2004 12:37 AM (DgCeL)

26 SomeRandomGuy, Even assuming you're right, does being bad at statistics make someone stupid? If you think Sarah is stupid, as in lacking intelligence, then you're really wasting time reading her blog and posting comments here. I find it really interesting that some posters here think that being patronizing to Sarah or insulting her intelligence on *her* weblog is perfect okay, even though they don't consider name-calling acceptable. And these people seem to be really obsessed about statistics, and Sarah's alleged lack of expertise in it. I do not believe that Sarah meant that soldiers aren't in harm's way in Iraq. She knows people who have been hurt over there. I believe she's pointing out that people are in danger everywhere, and that the media is obsessed with tallying up death in Iraq. We just don't see a similar tally for Afghanistan, even though soldiers die there also.

Posted by: chris at September 09, 2004 02:13 AM (VDzYB)

27 "And these people seem to be really obsessed about statistics, and Sarah's alleged lack of expertise in it." Wait a minute! Sarah's the one who's obsessed with pulling very smelly,incorrect statistical analysis out of her ass, so why shouldn't we wipe off the dingleberries for her? She's just plain wrong! Not 'allegedly" wrong, but demonstrably wrong!

Posted by: Adrian at September 09, 2004 02:31 AM (DgCeL)

28 Ooh, Sarah, looks like you're having fun, AGAIN! Yep, that trackback thing can be a killer sometimes. Thanks for your post. I understood exactly what you were trying to say, as did Chris, ME and Kathleen. I'm not going to comment on statistics or put down numbers, since I'm an attorney and have no interest or ability at such things. However, I do take your point that you can die anywhere, anyplace and that 1000, while horrible for those proud soldiers, is much less than it would have been in other wars and that 1000 is just a number with no significance attached, other than the significance the press attempts to give to it. I can't get too upset at the moonbats. After all, I used to be one. If you'll notice, they have not commented at all on the overall statement of your post, but have instead focused on statistics. This seems to be a common flaw amongst their people. Ignore the big picture, which is too scary or painful - or truthful! - to approach, and try to focus on a small area that you can control or understand. Very Gollum-like! You, my dear, are a bit more Aragorn so please ignore the trolls scrabbling and wheezing at your feet. Talk to you later.

Posted by: Oda Mae at September 09, 2004 02:32 AM (S5n+c)

29 For those regular readers who understood the point of Sarah's post, you might also want to go to the following blog and read the comments or add some of your own. (Those of you who prefer to deal with small nuances at a time might wish to stay here or fly back home. NOT for the fainthearted snarky ones carrying calculators.) "I really, really want your thoughts on this. I myself, am torn between rational and emotional... Now, 1,000 American military personnel have died in the Iraq war. They are teens who went from senior proms to boot camp and battle and middle-aged men who put aside retirement and grandchildren for a war zone. What does the number mean? On D-Day, more Americans lost their lives. At the peak of Vietnam, hundreds of U.S. troops died each week. And in one September morning, 2,792 died in crumbling New York towers. Still, 1,000 is a grim milestone. Soldier's comments are particularly welcomest but I'd like to hear from all of you." Here's my favorite comment so far - with a LINK for those of you who have asked for one. "Please take my comments in the context they are offered, for perspective. I would hate for this to sound as if the numbers were insignificant -- it's just that I generally operate on my left brain ... We need to get over our vanity. People die. Birth is a terminal illness. Actuarial tables will show us that in the age group 25-44 the mortality rate is 153.3 per 100M (stateside, peacetime). Link. So, with 150,000+ troops in peacetime we would expect the annual death toll to be 230. For the 18 months we have been at war, we would expect 345. Looking at annual mortality rates per 1000 workers by occupation we find rates for roofers (13.1), painters (12.5), and pilots (11.3). In any of these occupations we would have expected this group to have suffered annual casualties of at least 2,542 during the same period. Link. While it is counter-intuitive, the reality is that being a soldier in todays military is a relatively safe occupation. So is being a police officer, or a fireman. All of them fall below fishing, truck driving, and farming -- they don't even show up in the top ten most hazardous occupations. Here's a number to consider. The 1918 influenza outbreak buried over 50 million people in less than 18 months (550,000 in U.S. alone). That was a time when people understood mortality. While none of this is meant to diminish the sacrifice, and certainly will offer no comfort to familys of the fallen -- but it should offer some perspective. Our responsibility to future generations is much the same as the debt to our parents and the past -- to preserve the process, and our way of life. Posted by: SheetWise at September 8, 2004 06:54 AM " http://www.sondrak.com/archive/002371.html http://apha.confex.com/apha/132am/techprogram/paper_90077.htm

Posted by: Oda Mae at September 09, 2004 02:54 AM (S5n+c)

30 Ahhh, I see the moonbats have come out again. Personally, my heart weeps for all the soldiers, wounded or killed. It also swells in pride at their service. 1000 is only significant to the media, to those that asked if 1000 was more important than 999, no, it is no less important than all the others, except to the media which now use it to sell their product. Leacherous behavior if you ask me.

Posted by: John at September 09, 2004 06:48 AM (crTpS)

31 I was in a car yesterday. I am more brave than the soldiers in Iraq. Thanks for posting this. When is someone going to talk about my bravery. Those soldiers have it easy!

Posted by: yettrab at September 09, 2004 09:17 AM (9AAwc)

32 I would point out that the War in Iraq was based on Lies. That makes the 1000 sacrifices go down more smoothly.

Posted by: curveball at September 09, 2004 11:49 AM (XxIKf)

33 Slightly OT, but important nonetheless: (Neiwert. Nail----->Head) http://tinyurl.com/4jklk "It wasn't, in other words, a Democratic administration that foolishly, through its own arrogance and incompetence, handed Al Qaeda leadership nearly everything it hoped for at nearly every step of the drama: a lax mindset regarding security, an escape through Pakistan, a gift invasion of Iraq that diverted precious resources from the serious work fighting terrorism, a mishandled occupation that provided a groundswell of recruitment." "Wrong leadership is not strong leadership."

Posted by: A Hermit at September 09, 2004 01:09 PM (Lb9gk)

34 What I don't understand is how you can sit there and post something that is as asinine as it is incorrect and believe that it supports your point. If your numbers are wrong and your argument is based on your numbers then you have no argument. Logic. It's a bitch. Besides that, comparing the sacrifice of those kids, and they are kids, to dying in a car accident is insulting. Personally, I don't care if someone's supposed husband is supposedly serving in Iraq - it doesn't give you the right to belittle the soldiers who have been sent around the world for a war that benefits only a few American corporations that are outsourcing their jobs anyway. Furthermore, in case any of you missed that amazing photo op Bush orchestrated, wasn't our Mission: Accomplished? Weren't major combat operations over? Weren't the people supposed to welcome their liberators with open arms? Of course, we weren't calling ourselves liberators until it came out that there were no WMD. But that's only a slight technicality. If you're going to turn the deaths of so many into a numbers game, get the right numbers. You can't compare the total number of vehicular deaths in history - so pick a year. Let's say 2003: Numbers of deaths in automobile accidents in 2003: 43,000 http://www.ouraaa.com/news/news/2004/4.html http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0404/29/c01-137256.htm http://www.womanmotorist.com/index.php/news/main/2255/event=view US population: 290,000,000 http://www.wallstreetview.com/population.html Death Rate: 0.00016 On the other hand... Number of dead soldiers: 1,000 Total number of soldiers in Iraq: some say 150,000 while some say 200,000. For the sake of argument, we'll go with 175,000 Death Rate: .0057 God, those numbers were so hard to find! Damn Google for being so difficult to operate. All that clicking wore me out. Now, I haven't taken Statistics since college but, uh, which is the bigger number?

Posted by: wing nut at September 09, 2004 03:01 PM (+lzp0)

35 Sarah, i started reading through all the troll comments but i stopped halfway through because [sarcasm]i suddenly became totally convinced that they were right. We should admit defeat and immediately withdraw from Iraq. Afghanistan too, for that matter.[/sarcasm] arguing about numbers and statistics is, as jade gold would say, a "nice straw man." the real question is, and has always been, whether the loss of fighting men and women in a war is worth the cost, in light of the strategic goals of the war. We can debate that question forever, but i think we will all get a pretty good sense of where the majority of Americans stand on the issue come November.

Posted by: annika at September 09, 2004 03:27 PM (zAOEU)

36 To all those touting 40k some auto deaths in a year as the accurate numbers to compare, let me ask you how long we've been in Iraq. Once you finally come up with the fact that its been more than a year (closer to 18 months), and then realize that you are also using the wrong numbers, I expect you to withdraw any criticizm of using the wrong numbers. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: John at September 09, 2004 05:36 PM (+Ysxp)

37 The idea that driving in a car in the US is more dangerous than serving in Iraq is just stupid, and not worth all the effort defending and rejecting it. It just ain't true, and you cannot prove because it just ain't true. We were suckered into a foreign war by agent of Iran and Israel to solve their biggest regional problem. Whoever is responsible for this should be behind bars, and I hope they soon will be.

Posted by: Max Edison at September 09, 2004 05:50 PM (EjQFy)

38 Sarah, Why is it that every time you post about something regarding statistics, all the math nerds suddenly emerge? I always have the urge to defend you, because I know you beyond your website. I was driving with your mother today, and we passed the flag as they were taking it down for the day. Every time I see that, I get chills up my spine - literally. All of the men and women in uniform stop their cars, get out, and salute their flag. And every time I see our boys at the range, I smile. I know the point you were making in your blog, and I wish that others could focus on the big picture. Remember that most of these people don't even know a service member...so they can't really comment on whether our boys believe in what they are doing. And to all of the jack asses that have nothing good to say about this blog... Not only do I take it as a blow to our husbands, but I take it as an insult to us that you degrade our service members. Not only do we choose to believe in what they are doing, we NEED to believe in what they are doing for our own sanity (and I bet that statement will be taken out of context). We are away from them for so long that it makes us crazy. I have twice as much responsibility without him here, and half as much help...which of course doesn't compare to what he has to deal with down there. Add on top of that that we have no one to kiss us at night before we go to sleep, no one to stop in to work to have lunch with us, and no one to talk to when it's just a really bad day. Everyone leaves a legacy behind when they die. The soldiers that died in Iraq will always have a place in my heart. Maybe you all should be working on YOUR legacy instead of getting caught up in this petty arguing.

Posted by: Erin at September 09, 2004 06:24 PM (By3Wm)

39 Putting aside the fallacious math, it's a pretty poor choice of analogies. My first reaction was "Does she really think that the soldiers are fortunate to be in Iraq instead of rolling down America's treacherous highways?" If you're searching for something to say, try setting aside the petty point-scoring - even if it is in response to what you regard as someone else's petty point-scoring.

Posted by: Andy at September 09, 2004 06:47 PM (Qxn3J)

40 Perhaps we should look at this another way: Given the worst year for terrorism in the US (2001), a US citizen was far more likely to die in a traffic accident (40K+ deaths that year) than in a terrorist attack (~3K). Given that, why are we so worried about terrorism? Of course, if you believe the above argument to be silly, then you should also believe any attempted statistics-based diminishment of US soldiers' deaths abroad to be equally silly - if not downright stupid.

Posted by: meph at September 09, 2004 06:52 PM (CnMr8)

41 Oda Mae, I don't know where you get your statistics but I was shock to learn things like .13 death rate for roofers as opposed to .0057 for soldiers in Iraq. But if you check the CDC website http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5016a4.html you will see that the occupational death rate for civilians in the U.S. (1997 figures) is 4.1 per 100,000 (.000041). So you are less than 100 times as likely to die at work here in the U.S. than on patrol in Iraq. The most dangerous civilian job in the U.S. is mining (30/100,000); still about 20 times safer than being a soldier in Iraq. I'm a little too lazy to check on the overall mortality rate for 25--44 year olds but I will point out that the average age at death of our soldiers in Iraq is 24 so even if those stats are accurate they don't mean a whole lot. And if you think the media is too lazy in pointing out the casulties in Iraq and Afghanistan it is updated every day on DOD.gov although frankly I am surprised it is still so easy to find.

Posted by: freder frederson at September 09, 2004 07:09 PM (mtcvR)

42 There seems to be a large number of site lice here who profess to be experts in mathematics. I'll hazard their assertions and come back with one of my own. You (collectively) may know math, but you don't know dick about the cost of freedom. Over 53,000 Americans were KIA and WIA during the period 1 July-3 July 1863 in a little town called Gettysburg. They too were in "Harm's Way". The 1,000 plus that have perished in Iraq died to preserve Liberty, even for "Americans" like this cynical lot. Bush didn't lie. We are in a fight to the death to preserve freedom. The Stan spawn we are fighting don't give a rat's ass who is President, they want to destroy us. Some of you "mathematicians" need to get a grip. The enemy isn't George Bush, it is these madmen bent on destroying us. Calculate that!

Posted by: Lee at September 10, 2004 12:04 AM (x5Fil)

43 Last I checked it wasn't the so-called math nerds who tried to trivialize the deaths of American soldiers by comparing them to automobile deaths.

Posted by: wing nut at September 10, 2004 01:19 PM (+lzp0)

44 Bush didn't lie? Connection between 9/11 and Saddam? none WMD? none Nuclear program reconstituted? nope Mobile biological weapons labs? nope War will be paid for by Iraqi oil revenues? Nope $200 billion and counting We will be greeted as liberators? hardly Mission accomplished? Don't think so There is no way it will take more troops to stablize the country than to overthrow Saddam? Wrong again Didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency? Shinseki warned you, Zinni warned you, the State Department warned you, numerous middle east experts warned you. You just chose to ignore all that advice for the neocon fantasy of chocolates and flowers. Thank God that the military forced Bush to accept 140,000 troops instead of the 40,000 troops Rumsfeld really wanted. We'll be down to 30,000 troops by October 2003? Still at 140,000 with no end in site. Face it, we're in a war that took our eyes off the real goal of getting Al Qaeda (read October's Atlantic for an excellent article on this) and probably has created more islamic terrorists than it has destroyed (even Rumsfeld has admitted as much). Afghanistan is a disaster. We are now in the embaressing position there that there are more people registered to vote than there are voters and more opium being produced than ever before.

Posted by: Freder Frederson at September 10, 2004 02:11 PM (mtcvR)

45 As was already pointed out, mining is the most hazardous stateside industry with 30 deaths per 100,000 for 2000-2001. The numbers posted by (streetwise?) from his linked source are pretty far off. Typical mortality rates for males aged 25-34 years are 120-200 per 100,000. They vary a lot by race. The numbers are lower for the 15-24 category of course. Clearly there is a significant additional risk to being in a U.S. uniform in Iraq, with mortality numbers of about 600 per 100,000. Considering how dangerous what they are doing is, it is remarkable that more aren't killed (but thankfully so). Whatever your political stripe, we should all hope for the safe return of those serving and as painless as possible of a transition for the Iraqis.

Posted by: loser at September 10, 2004 04:42 PM (jNTP/)

46 IMAGINE IF MIKE MOORE SAID WHAT YOU SAID SARAH? HEADLINE: Iraq Comments Provoke Conservative Outrage Sept. 10, 2004 Conservatives across America today expressed outrage today at comments made by [Mike Moore/John Kerry/Hillary Clinton/some other prominent liberal] as the 1000th US fatality looms in Iraq. "Statistically speaking, one is more likely to die in a car accident than in Iraq", the [liberal scumbag] is reported to told a rally of supporters, "In fact, 1000 war deaths are a blessing." [The White House/the rest of the usual suspects]described these remarks as "grossly insensitive and an outrageous insult not only to the decent American men and women serving in Iraq, but also to the science of statistics." [Mike Moore/whoever] claims his quote about 1000 deaths being "a blessing" have been taken out of context. "I was saying *historically speaking*, a 1000 deaths are blessing, though this qualification seems to have been left out of some news reports". [Guess which ones?] Even so, a number of conservative commentators have mocked his claim that driving on the road in the US is more dangerous than Iraq. [Take your pick] was quick to point out if you add up all the highway deaths in the US, and divide that by the population...etc etc

Posted by: mrmob at September 11, 2004 04:23 PM (QWMCA)

47 In the case of U.S. road accidents and the average U.S. driver: Are they driving tanks? Bradley Fighting Vehicles? While many Americans driver Humvees are they armed with machine guns and armor plated? Are the drivers armed? Is shotgun literal? Are they militarily trained? Are drivers in the U.S. being deliberately killed by I.E.Ds? Are they being mined? Sniped? RPGed? Mortared? Are their bodies burnt and then dragged through the streets to be hung from a bridge? Did the President order those drivers to drive into dangerous roads during an ice storm with bald tires? Are we forgetting the wounded? Oh right Purple Hearts mean jack, forgot about that. So can we please drop this Â“itÂ’s just like AmericaÂ” crap? ItÂ’s not, theyÂ’re fighting a war not going to the outlet store in Odenville, Nebraska. You can say itÂ’s just like this or that all you like, it doesnÂ’t change the fact that they are in as war and to pretend itÂ’s like anything else is asinine and a disrespect to the soldiers if you think about it.

Posted by: salvage at September 12, 2004 11:37 PM (3+LTh)

48 Back to the point you tried to make. Your math is wrong. Don't you have any other evidence? Can you support your point, or not?

Posted by: Curious at September 13, 2004 05:53 AM (n8uIX)

49 If we compare statistics, don't divide the number of automobile related deaths by number of people in the US. Divide the number of deaths per million miles traveled in a car by the number of people driving cars at a given time or given location (people sitting in front of their TV don't die from automobile accidents). Military personnel who fix trucks and serve food aren't nearly as likely to die in combat. Broad generalizing of statistics doesn't really say anything (either way)

Posted by: al at December 07, 2004 02:37 AM (cxM4p)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 30, 2004

CLOAK

VDH's newest contains a really nice quote from Thucydides:

For there is justice in the claim that steadfastness in his country's battles should be as a cloak to cover a man's other imperfections; since the good action has blotted out the bad, and his merit as a citizen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual.

Unfortunately, there are many here who work and live on post who look down their noses at our Soldiers. However, I often agree with Thucydides: a Soldier's service, if it is noble, trumps his faults. Among the students I've had in my classes, there have been several who have been in and out of jail, who were in dangerous gangs, and who previously just generally didn't contribute much to society. In any other circumstances, I can't imagine how I would have ever come to associate with people of that background. But selfless service can cloak a myriad of imperfections. He may have been a dumb kid who landed himself in jail, but now he's a dedicated leader who's aiming for an E-7. He may have been a dangerous gangbanger, but now he's found religion and a life of responsibility as a father and husband. He may have been a drug-dealing punk who joined because the courts forced him, but now he's thinking of making a career of it. For me, the minute they put on that uniform -- as long as they live by the values it represents -- they have earned respect and dignity, despite their individual flaws.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

August 29, 2004

NAP

The commander sent a CD home that contained several hundred photos of my husband's company. This one is my favorite. I can't even tell who this is, but there's something about it that I find quite touching. I don't know how to put it into words; it just chokes me up to see this napping hero.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

August 26, 2004

SNIPER

I have half-assedly followed Kim du Toit's donations to snipers SGT Walter and SPC Adam for a while now. The other day he posted a photo of them, and if it ain't the jawdropping-est thing I've ever seen, I don't know what is. Then tonight I found the Adopt A Sniper website via The Patriette, and I got to thinking. So I split my money and donated a little bit to Kim's two snipers and a little bit to some anonymous snipers.

Is it weird that the word "sniper" is a turn-on?

Posted by: Sarah at 05:31 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

FALLEN

I've written before about parents of fallen Soldiers who don't support the mission. I think it's very sad. But today, through Sgt Hook, I was moved to tears by a parent who does support his fallen son, in a very noble and selfless way.

Hook wrote about a memorial service he attended in Afghanistan; the Soldier's father reads Hook's blog, heretofore unbeknownst to Hook. I can't read SGT Daniel Galvan's father's message without feeling a jumble of pride, sadness, and loyalty:

Hook,
I do not mind at all your posting my email on your blog. Your words and thoughts are greatly appreciated as is your blog appreciated as a way to pay tribute to our soldiers. If you would pass on my thanks to DanielÂ’s First Sergeant for the conduct of his memorial. I have only gotten second hand reports through my daughter-in-law but what I have heard it was a moving experience for my sonÂ’s fellow soldiers in attendance.
If I may be so bold, I charge DanielÂ’s Division with completing the duty we have to make sure that the lowlifes that hit us on our homeland on 911 are brought to justice. You can pass the word to DanielÂ’s fellow soldiers that his Dad is proud of him and of all who wear the uniform, I will pray daily for all and that we bring this action to a fitting and just conclusion in a timely manner; I can think of no better tribute to Daniel that that.
In closing let me say that Daniel loved the Army, flying, his family, his parents and above all he loved the USA. I used to say that my heart pumped OD blood (half in jest) but I believe that DanielÂ’s heart did.
Blas E. Galvan

Mr. Galvan, I promise to do my part here on the homefront to make sure your son's sacrifice is never forgotten. And I'll put in a request to the Dukes of 1 ID 3rd Brigade to help get the lowlifes.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

WOW

Here's the forgotten story of seven U.S. airmen killed by a mob in RÃƒÂ¼sselsheim, Germany, during World War II.

And here's the developing story of a sniper.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

177kb generated in CPU 0.2069, elapsed 0.2526 seconds.
63 queries taking 0.2189 seconds, 356 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die, Morrel, that we may appreciate the enjoyments of living.
--The Count of Monte Cristo--

While our troops go out to defend our country, it is incumbent upon us to make the country worth defending.
--Deskmerc--

ABOUT SARAH

In a Nutshell
100 Things
Sarah's knittery
knitting pics on Flickr
What the heck is Grok?
I also contribute at SpouseBUZZ
tryingtogrok -at- hotmail

READING

The Spy's Wife

My Imaginary Friends

USS Clueless
Instapundit
Amaravati Abode of Amritas
The Bleat
The Corner

Deskmerc
Eject! Eject! Eject!
Ambient Irony
Parkway Rest Stop
Cavalier's Guardian WatchBlog
Bunker Mulligan
Right Wing News
Conservative Grapevine
Joanne Jacobs

Hud's Blog-O-Rama
Power Line
Beth's Contradictory Brain
Varifrank
Cold Fury
Bear Creek Ledger
Photon Courier
Anwyn's Notes in the Margin
Fiberlicious
Wis Faest Wordum
The Cobwebs Of My Mind
Rachel Lucas
Dear Darla
Learning To Live
Unliberaled Woman
Daily Koan
Kannie's Cogitations
Rockport Conservatives

Blackfive
Mudville Gazette
Shield of Achilles
Chuck Z
Senseless Drive By Thoughts
ArmyWifeToddlerMom
Most Certainly Not
A Work In Progress
Sis B
CaliValleyGirl

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 51096
Files: 3637
Bytes: 819.5M
CPU Time: 67:23
Queries: 1876870

Content

Posts: 3662
Comments: 14416

Feeds

QUOTES

Contrary to what you've just seen, war is neither glamorous nor fun. There are no winners, only losers. There are no good wars, with the following exceptions: The American Revolution, WWII, and the Star Wars Trilogy.
--Bart Simpson--

If you want to be a peacemaker, you've gotta learn to kick ass.
--Sheriff of East Houston, Superman II--

Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind.
--Jed Babbin--

Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality.
--President John F. Kennedy--

War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours.
--General Patton--

We've gotta keep our heads until this peace craze blows over.
--Full Metal Jacket--

Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed.
--Dick Cheney--

The Flag has to come first if freedom is to survive.
--Col Steven Arrington--

The purpose of diplomacy isn't to make us feel good about Eurocentric diplomatic skills, and having countries from the axis of chocolate tie our shoelaces together does nothing to advance our infantry.
--Sir George--

I just don't care about the criticism I receive every day, because I know the cause I defend is right.
--Oriol--

It's days like this when we're reminded that freedom isn't free.
--Chaplain Jacob--

Bumper stickers aren't going to accomplish some of the missions this country is going to face.
--David Smith--

The success of multilateralism is measured not merely by following a process, but by achieving results.
--President Bush--

Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life.
--John Galt--

First, go buy a six pack and swig it all down. Then, watch Ace Ventura. And after that, buy a Hard Rock Cafe shirt and come talk to me. You really need to lighten up, man.
--Sminklemeyer--

You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting
--General Curtis Lemay--

If we wish to be free, if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending, if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained -- we must fight!
--Patrick Henry--

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.
--President George W. Bush--

are usually just cheerleading sessions, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but a soothing reduction in blood pressure brought about by the narcotic high of being agreed with.
--Bill Whittle

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill--

We are determined that before the sun sets on this terrible struggle, our flag will be recognized throughout the world as a symbol of freedom on the one hand and of overwhelming force on the other.
--General George Marshall--

We can continue to try and clean up the gutters all over the world and spend all of our resources looking at just the dirty spots and trying to make them clean. Or we can lift our eyes up and look into the skies and move forward in an evolutionary way.
--Buzz Aldrin--

America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world.
--Dinesh D'Souza--

Recent anti-Israel protests remind us again of our era's peculiar alliance: the most violent, intolerant, militantly religious movement in modern times has the peace movement on its side.
--James Lileks--

As a wise man once said: we will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. Unless the price is too high, the burden too great, the hardship too hard, the friend acts disproportionately, and the foe fights back. In which case, we need a timetable.
--James Lileks--

I am not willing to kill a man so that he will agree with my faith, but I am prepared to kill a man so that he cannot force my compatriots to submit to his.
--Froggy--

You can say what you want about President Bush; but the truth is that he can take a punch. The man has taken a swift kick in the crotch for breakfast every day for 6 years and he keeps getting up with a smile in his heart and a sense of swift determination to see the job through to the best of his abilties.
--Varifrank--

In a perfect world, We'd live in peace and love and harmony with each oither and the world, but then, in a perfect world, Yoko would have taken the bullet.
--SarahBellum--

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
--Ronald Reagan--

America is rather like life. You can usually find in it what you look for. It will probably be interesting, and it is sure to be large.
--E.M. Forster--

Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.
--Mark Twain--

The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions. Then, things really turned ugly after the invention of soccer.
--Iowahawk--

Every time I meet an Iraqi Army Soldier or Policeman that I haven't met before, I shake his hand and thank him for his service. Many times I am thanked for being here and helping his country. I always tell them that free people help each other and that those that truly value freedom help those seeking it no matter the cost.
--Jack Army--

Right, left - the terms are useless nowadays anyway. There are statists, and there are individualists. There are pessimists, and optimists. There are people who look backwards and trust in the West, and those who look forward and trust in The World. Those are the continuums that seem to matter the most right now.
--Lileks--

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
--Winston Churchill--

A man or a nation is not placed upon this earth to do merely what is pleasant and what is profitable. It is often called upon to carry out what is both unpleasant and unprofitable, but if it is obviously right it is mere shirking not to undertake it.
--Arthur Conan Doyle--

A man who has nothing which he cares about more than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the existing of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill--

After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference."
--Dave Grossman--

At heart Iâ€™m a cowboy; my attitude is if theyâ€™re not going to stand up and fight for what they believe in then they can go pound sand.
--Bill Whittle--

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
--Alexander Tyler--

By that time a village half-wit could see what generations of professors had pretended not to notice.
--Atlas Shrugged--

I kept asking Clarence why our world seemed to be collapsing and everything seemed so shitty. And he'd say, "That's the way it goes, but don't forget, it goes the other way too."
--Alabama Worley--

So Bush is history, and we have a new president who promises to heal the planet, and yet the jihadists donâ€™t seem to have got the Obama message that there are no enemies, just friends we havenâ€™t yet held talks without preconditions with.
--Mark Steyn--

"I had started alone in this journey called life, people started gathering up on the way, and the caravan got bigger everyday."
--Urdu couplet

The book and the sword are the two things that control the world. We either gonna control them through knowledge and influence their minds, or we gonna bring the sword and take their heads off.
--RZA--

It's a daily game of public Frogger, hopping frantically to avoid being crushed under the weight of your own narcissism, banality, and plain old stupidity.
--Mary Katharine Ham--

There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
--James Madison--

It is in the heat of emotion that good people must remember to stand on principle.
--Larry Elder--

Please show this to the president and ask him to remember the wishes of the forgotten man, that is, the one who dared to vote against him. We expect to be tramped on but we do wish the stepping would be a little less hard.
--from a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt--

The world economy depends every day on some engineer, farmer, architect, radiator shop owner, truck driver or plumber getting up at 5AM, going to work, toiling hard, and producing real wealth so that an array of bureaucrats, regulators, and redistributors can manage the proper allotment of much of the natural largess produced.
--VDH--

Parents are often so busy with the physical rearing of children that they miss the glory of parenthood, just as the grandeur of the trees is lost when raking leaves.
--Marcelene Cox--

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

November 17, 2004

November 11, 2004

October 29, 2004

October 23, 2004

October 19, 2004

October 17, 2004

October 10, 2004

October 09, 2004

October 08, 2004

October 05, 2004

October 02, 2004

September 29, 2004

September 14, 2004

September 08, 2004

August 30, 2004

August 29, 2004

August 26, 2004

Search Thingy

My Imaginary Friends

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives