This from Jules Crittenden struck me:

I realized with all this examination of post-traumatic stress and how much of it there is, and whether its normal or not, I didnÂ’t describe what a mild, walking combat reaction case is like.

ItÂ’s like this. Being totally wired for months upon years. Like crank, so that you donÂ’t fall asleep as much as pass out and you donÂ’t wake up as much as become alert. Thinking about different aspects of combat the way some people think about sex, compulsively, repeatedly in the course of the day, while going about your business, holding down a job, acting relatively normal but still freaking people out when you talk about it. Small flashbacks-lite, triggered by various events. In my case, accelerating up the highway, like going on an armored assault, with all the emotions, thoughts and memories, on my way to the various places that took me. More adrenaline then, and other adrenaline bursts at odd times. Thinking about the dead, at least once a day, in a number of different ways, when alone. Seeing their faces, and studying a face to catch the moment when life exited it. Choking up or sometimes sobbing at both expected and unexpected times, and learning to control that. Wishing you were back there. Preferring the company of people who know what that is like. Recognizing in a glance or a word that you both know the same secret, without having to say much about it.

I never had nightmares like some friends did, and in fact have never once dreamt of it. It didnÂ’t haunt me, not even the dead, not even when I felt the need to ask some of them their forgiveness. I was fortunate that way, in part maybe because I wrote about it, had plenty of opportunities to talk about it, because that is part of what I do. Over the third and fourth year, most of it significantly subsided, though parts can and do periodically come up. I never felt traumatized as much as I felt I had a great deal to think about, not least the startling discovery that I had enjoyed myself, and also that I had been fundamentally rewired, and had somewhat different perspectives and focus in various matters. As one friend put it, there was life before, and life after. Not good or bad, just different.

And there you have it.

This sounds familiar to me. Especially the "thinking about combat" thing. Sometimes when my husband's quiet, I'll ask what he's thinking about. Usually it will be trivial, but on a couple of occasions he's launched into a thought about how if they'd only turned his tank right instead of going straight on that day back in April, he'd've been more useful to the battle. Three years after the event, he still replays it in his mind and thinks of ways he could've done more.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:08 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

The brother visit is going swimmingly. He just graduated college and is looking for a Big Boy Job, so he's content to sit around all day with me watching South Park and eating trail mix. Easy entertainment.

My husband was supposed to jump this morning, so the brother and I were going to head out to the St. Mere Eglise Drop Zone to watch. (Do they really not see how disturbing that name is? Talk about inauspicious. Husband and I were trying to come up with other examples: Omaha Beach Water Park, etc.) Anyway, I thought watching the jump would be the coolest thing you can do in this town, but naturally the Army didn't cooperate with my tourist plans. The husband got up at 3:30 for a 9:00 jump -- let's hear it for Hurry Up And Wait -- and then called shortly after 8:00 to say they'd run out of parachutes so he wasn't jumping today. So there goes my good idea.

Looks like more South Park for us.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:36 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Last night's episode of Army Wives was much better, in my opinion. It really reminded me of military life and hit on several issues that Army families have to deal with, from the wife fixing a clog in the sink to the tug in a soldier's heart between his job and his family. I wrote about my experiences with a soldier's heart over at SpouseBUZZ.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 73 words, total size 1 kb.

Last night I finished reading Under the Sabers: The Unwritten Code of Army Wives. It was a fascinating book and a very compelling story. I now understand where a lot of the material for the TV show Army Wives is coming from, and I got a lot out of the book. But I can't help but feel that the title is a misnomer. Even the new title -- Army Wives: The Unwritten Code of Military Marriage -- doesn't quite fix the problem.

The book traces the lives of different Army couples from right before 9/11 to the start of OIF. It centers heavily on the five murders at Fort Bragg in the summer of 2002. In this sense, it's more like Fayetteville's In Cold Blood than just a book about Army wives. It's the story of gruesome murder, with information and insight on the military intertwined.

I came away from the book with the same feeling as when I read While They're At War. There may be some valuable insight into the military in the book, but the stories themselves are quite atypical. The average Army wife isn't an active anti-war protestor, nor does she get stabbed and burned alive by her husband. The average Army wife just takes care of her kids and her household while her husband is away. Most of what she overcomes is molehills, but it's a minefield of molehills spread out over years. But I guess that doesn't sell books. These fantastical stories are a vehicle to give people a peek at military life, but it seems a bit dangerous to me to name a book about murder, adultery, and horror as the "code of military marriage."

I liked the book, don't get me wrong. But just like Truman Capote's tome shouldn't be used as a guidebook to visiting Kansas, neither should this book be all you know about military life.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 2 kb.

So far I have been a fan of the Army Wives TV show. I think they do a decent job of portraying what our lives are like. But last night's episode didn't sit well with me at all.

In a nutshell, there was a situation where a sergeant took the lieutenant colonel's husband hostage because he was mad about events that happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't the hostage situation that I thought was bad; it was the events in Afghanistan.

According to this story, a "patrol" (no idea how many soldiers) was ambushed and was heavily outnumbered. This guy, the hostage taker, was wounded by shrapnel, so they left him in the Afghan village to be taken care of by the locals and went back to the FOB for reenforcements. But "because of the heat", they couldn't get back to rescue him for days, so the Afghan family took care of him. Once he was rescued, he vowed to come back and help the family. So this sergeant, his lieutenant colonel, and three other soldiers went back to the village to take medical supplies and food, only to find that 12 "heavily-armed" insurgents were burning down the house and raping the 10-year-old daughter in the middle of the street. Because they were outnumbered 12 to 5, and because "the Rules of Engagement are clear: do not interfere with civilian affairs", the lieutenant colonel told them to maintain their positions and stay hidden while they watched a child get raped and murdered.

OK, where to begin. I know I am not a soldier, and I know neither I nor my husband can possibly know all of the strange circumstances that arise in battle. But I cannot imagine any situation of any kind where a unit would leave a wounded soldier behind in an Afghan household. Period. And not for days on end because of the heat! It also seems ridiculous that a lieutenant colonel would roll around Kandahar with a four-man team. My husband's LTC had an entire platoon of entourage at all times, at least 20 men. It seems a bit of a stretch to me that anyone besides Special Forces types are going anywhere in our war zones with only five people! I just don't think that's realistic. So they would've never been outnumbered if they'd taken a proper number of soldiers on this mission.

Finally, the Rules of Engagement thing is not exactly the way my husband describes it. He quoted me a common rule of thumb: a unit might be authorized to use deadly force in circumstances where there is loss of "life, limb, or eyesight." He thinks the rape of a 10 year old in broad daylight would be grounds for a fight, especially if this child belongs to a family who is a known supporter of the American military operation. Again we go back to them being outnumbered 12 to 5, which I don't see ever happening, but my husband did say that in times when you might be extremely outnumbered, there might be cause to not intervene. But this whole "do not interfere with civilian affairs" thing was junk to him because, as he quipped, all al Qaeda types are civilians, so not intervening in civilian matters would apply to everything!

Yeah, yeah, Sarah, all this is just details. But this is the stuff that matters, in my opinion. Most of the people who don't like Army Wives are saying they don't like it because officers don't hang out with enlisted, because you wouldn't get a citation for not mowing on your first day in housing, because a female officer wouldn't be dancing drunk in a jody bar. They think all that stuff gives us a bad impression to civilian viewers.

What about the civilian viewers who now think that American soldiers will sit back and watch a 10 year old get raped and murdered? That our Rules of Engagement won't let us step in and prevent insurgents from killing an innocent family and burning their home? That we are married to men who sit by and do nothing while vile insurgents ruin people's lives? That's a far more dangerous picture to paint for civilians than whether we have all-rank tea parties.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:53 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 712 words, total size 4 kb.

After the Milblogs Conference, CaliValleyGirl wrote:

Since my boyfriend/fiancé has returned, I have distanced myself from the Milblogging community. Not really on purpose, but just because once my soldier returned I wanted to celebrate his being home, act like we were a “normal” couple, doing normal couple things
...
When he was deployed I knew everything that was going on, the names of operations, the areas of operations, how things were going in these areas. I would check the names of fallen soldiers and read about their lives. I read milblogs religiously. I sought out new connections, searching for degrees of separation. I lived and breathed the war on terror. And I was shocked, shocked I tell you, that other people didnÂ’t share my fervor in following all things combat related.

I often complain that war is too distant from the general public. Because of the deployments, soldiers clock-in and then clock-out of the war. They arenÂ’t in war mode the whole time. And consequently their families arenÂ’t in war mode. I complain about the general public lacking the passion to fight this war, but I realize that I am just as much part of that problem. As soon as my boyfriend came back, I clocked-out.

Over the weekend, I realized that if you aren’t a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. I had subconsciously become one of those people who lives as if we aren’t at war. And part of me thought that in 2 ½ years things might be over in Iraq and Afghanistan, and my fiancé won’t be deploying again. That this war doesn’t really directly affect me anymore. Over the weekend I realized that I hope my fiancé deploys again in 2 ½ years. Because if he doesn’t deploy, it means that we have given up.

I can completely understand her feelings here. And I applaud her for expressing them so honestly; when I tried to bring this up once on SpouseBUZZ, it didn't work out so well.

I still spend roughly the same time online as I did when my husband was deployed, but the hunger for frontline stories isn't as deep as it was when he was gone. Back then I needed to feel connected to Iraq in a different way than I do now. And while I am just as emotionally invested in the outcome of the war, I know that I too am half-clocked out. Or at least enjoying the idea that I have the luxury of being half-clocked out until next year.

But I am trying to reconnect with what I've let go since March 2005. So I offer some military reads today.

Read this day in the life of Greyhawk.
Read this old Matt Sanchez story if you missed it.
And read this encounter with a suicide bomber from Tadpole.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

Just...dang.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:28 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Birthday, Army!

Last night we watched the movie The Great Raid. As a wife, I find watching movies like that extremely sobering, for there's no way to feel sorry about 15 month OIF deployments once you've imagined your husband a Bataan Death March POW. There's nothin' like a healthy dose of Perspective.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:13 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

The other day ArmyWifeToddlerMom let down her hair and griped about the media. She mentioned that Ben Affleck was on the TV and the news station labeled him "political activist", to which I commented

What I find delicious is when actors like Ben Affleck -- people who, at worst, dropped out of high school or, at best, attended a few college classes -- act like they know so much more than the stupid, downtrodden, brainwashed soldiers -- people who, at worst, dropped out of high school but got a GED or, more often than not, attended a few college classes. Why exactly is Ben Affleck's opinion on foreign affairs considered more valuable than an Army specialist's? They have nearly the same schooling, but the specialist has actually done more in the real world...

This morning I found a post from one such specialist, working in the real world. He's seen more in his Fifteen Months and Counting than Ben Affleck has in his whole life.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:28 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

At the edge of the cliffs, the wind is a smack, and D-day becomes wildly clear:
climbing that cutting edge into the bullets.
-- John Vinocur

photos taken by Sarah
Normandy, France 1999

Posted by: Sarah at 08:04 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

Our old neighbor was an Army dentist, and I asked him once if there was any difference in having soldiers for patients. He said he loved having soldier patients, because they never argue or complain. He said most of the time they fall asleep in the chair and he can do all his dental work without issue.

I love that soldiers can sleep anywhere, eat anything, and be happy doing whatever it takes. My husband can sit in the hottest, loudest, most cramped airplane seat and be fine, because it's still more comfortable than a tank.

I love soldiers more than anything, which is why I got such a kick out of Lemon Stand's post about soldiers eating in an Air Force chow hall.

I can totally imagine their faces. I love it.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

I just found a great post from a Marine's girlfriend over at Loquita's Blog. At this point, he is talking about getting out because he doesn't want to put her through a deployment. This bothers her.

I don't want LT to make a decision about staying in the Marine Corps based on not wanting to put me through the lack of work-life balance inherent in the military lifestyle - intense training schedules, never-ending and always inconvenient or last-minute (or both) changes to those schedules, and of course deployments.
...
Maybe I've just become too invested in my mil-spouse persona, and I don't want to give up the feeling of having a shared bond with others... And as ashamed as I am to admit it, I'd go so far as to say I don't want to give up on this new kind of clique that I'm eligible to be a member of.

And who would LT be if he wasn't a Marine? How will my view of him change, and what will our life be like post-USMC? I don't even know for sure what career or profession he would end up in. He talks about becoming a firefighter or a police officer. But how would he or I know if those jobs are any more conducive to maintaining a good work-life balance? At this point, I've adjusted to the military thing, I've found support through reading blogs online, and I'm not anxious to go through any more big changes...

I can completely relate to this feeling. When my husband applied for Civil Affairs the first time and didn't get in, he decided he would get out of the Army. And I cried. Oh how I cried. And tried to pretend I wasn't crying, because it's his job and his choice to make, and I didn't want him to stay in just so his wife would stop crying.

Often we hear about wives who urge their husbands to get out of the military. But it's something entirely different to urge your husband to stay in. You can emotionally blackmail someone to stop doing what he loves, but how do you make him keep doing something you want him to do...without the blackmail?

I was so scared, lying there in the dark that night, talking about getting out. What would we do? Where would we go? All we've ever known together has been the Army, and I was terrified about getting out. Terrified about finding another job, devastated about letting go of retiring at 42, and scared to death that he'd get another job only to find he hated the civilian world even more than he hated Army Finance.

But how could I make him stay? I wasn't the one doing an unsatisfying job. I wasn't the one who felt betrayed by the Army because I'd offered to make myself more useful only to have them brush me off. I wasn't the one who ultimately had to choose.

Luckily, he wasn't at the point where he could get out quickly. Luckily he still owed the Army another three years after that fateful night, and he managed to find his way into Civil Affairs a year later. And he's happy again.

But could I have really let him get out? I don't really like to think about that. If the situation came up again, we'd discuss again.

And I'd cry. Oh how I'd cry.

Posted by: Sarah at 07:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Since we started this crazy pre-deployment, mobilization, now deployment thing 17+ months ago, I have been encouraging my husband (Army Reserves) to get MORE into Army. He has been accepted into AGR. I understand the inclusion and exclusiveness of military life. I feel like I am only on the edge of the pool, but I like how the water feels on my feet. I'd like to dive on in.

Posted by: Butterfly Wife at June 04, 2007 09:05 AM (+2qii)

2 My Hubby got out after 6 years active Navy and did on year of "loafing" then went into the Guard. We were still young and I did not really know how to open my mouth yetto say I wanted him to stay active duty. I grew up AF and became a Navy wife turned Army National Guard wife. Oh how I wish I had know how much Hubby wanted to stay in. I miss the active duty and being around others in the same boat all the time. Now he feels to old to go active duty and these last two deployments have taken alot out of him and me too. I can't blame him. Our oldest has already started talking to recuters and trying to decide which service is best for him. Wow to think I thought I was the only wife out there who wanted their husband to stay in the military.

Posted by: Reasa at June 04, 2007 02:34 PM (JfF5d)

3 Thanks for checking out my blog Sarah - it was really interesting to read your own thoughts on this since you've been in this boat a lot longer than me. "Often we hear about wives who urge their husbands to get out of the military. But it's something entirely different to urge your husband to stay in." Sometimes when I talk to my boyfriend's family, I feel like they almost resent the fact that I don't try to push him to get out. They talk about his upcoming EAS as if he's getting out for sure, and there's not even a decision to make. Reasa, you described the same thing I'm worried about: "Oh how I wish I had know how much Hubby wanted to stay in." I'm terrified that he won't accept my acceptance (bad wording, I know) of the military lifestyle, and he'll sacrifice something he wants to do because he thinks he has to do it to keep me. I wish his family hadn't always been so critical of his decision to be in the military - I feel like he's so conditioned to their attitude that he can't even comprehend mine... It definitely makes me feel better that there are other out there like me!

Posted by: loquita at June 04, 2007 05:45 PM (nEjmo)

4 We have been "loafing" around in the civilan world for the past seven months. And honestly, we both hate it. I hope his paperwork goes through fast.

Posted by: Jennifer at June 08, 2007 11:05 AM (TMBJh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Peter Collier at OpinionJournal writes

The New York Times, which featured Abu Ghraib on its front page for 32 consecutive days, put the story of Dunham's Medal of Honor on the third page of section B.

He goes on to share with us some of the stories of past Medal of Honor recipients. Even if you've never followed a single link I've ever posted here, I want you to go read this article.

A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man, indeed.

Posted by: Sarah at 08:21 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 89 words, total size 1 kb.

This evening we went to a nice local Memorial Day service. Actually, we almost didn't make it. I thought I knew which park it was at, but I was mistaken. We drove around for a long time trying to figure out where it was in town. I nearly gave up, but the last place we looked was correct. My husband teased me that I was ready to cut and run.

The ceremony was simple but nice. A local 8th grader read a lovely essay he wrote for the VFW's Patriot's Pen essay contest. And there's something completely humbling about being in the presence of POWs. I got choked up every time I looked at their group.

This year I don't quite have anything poetic to say about Memorial Day. But that doesn't mean that certain families haven't been on my mind all day long. This year I'll leave the poetry to PFC Becker:

We are soldiers.
We are soldiers in the United States Army.
We are trained to be all we can be.

We fight for the freedom of many citizens of the United States.
We are all ready to meet our fates.

We all volunteer to defend the red, white and blue.
Not only the flag, but for the citizens of our great country too.

Since our country's birth for all these years,
we have been trained to be the best on Earth.

Many times we have went to war.
We will be involved in many more.

Generation by generation soldiers continue to enlist.
Some of us will got to war and definitely be missed.

Some soldiers will return and some won't.
Those who do not, we won't forget and we hope you don't.

Many of us are going to Iraq.
Some of us won't be coming back.

We have loved ones we are leaving behind.
They will always be in our prayers, hearts and mind.

If we don't make it home safely at the end of the war,
just remember we died defending the beliefs of those of many more.

---PFC Gunnar Becker, November 2003

Posted by: Sarah at 01:34 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

I think MSN did a pretty good job on this comprehensive article on military pay and benefits.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

I almost didn't want to go see Spiderman 3 because of the crappy behavior of the lead actors. Nothing says "hype our movie" like the actors talking about how much they resented having to make a third one. God forbid you have to be in a movie that people actually want to go see. How tragic. Sheesh, I was almost too annoyed to go. The older I get, the less I can stomach celebrities.

But we were treated to a real class act when Billy Blanks showed up at SpouseBUZZ Live. He acted like the military spouse audience was the celebrity, which was downright touching. He was super-nice, and I hope he knows how much we appreciated his visit.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday I read about how Prince Harry will not be deploying to Iraq, and I really felt bad for the guy. He's trained and prepared with his unit, and now he has to watch his unit leave without him. Any true soldier would find that heartbreaking.

But today I heard that other British families are ticked off about the revelation, saying that Harry is no more indespensible than their sons are.

I too have come to this conclusion, that my husband's life is no more valuable than anyone else's in the military. If I believe this war needs to be fought, I cannot in good faith keep my husband from the battlefield. If he doesn't go, someone else will be sent in his place; just because that person doesn't share my bed doesn't mean he doesn't share a bed with someone else whose heart breaks to see him go.

That said, I think the Prince Harry situation is an entirely different issue altogether. To my understanding, no one is saying that Prince Harry's life is more valuable than any other soldier's. What they are saying is that Prince Harry puts his unit in danger. Apparently they've determined there's a $678,000 bounty on Harry's head. He's so high profile that he endangers the soldiers around him, a fact which is not lost on jokesters who've bought the I'm Harry t-shirt. If my husband could somehow put his soldiers' lives in jeopardy, then and only then would I say he shouldn't deploy.

Harry appears ready to sacrifice for his country. But right now the biggest sacrifice he can make is to stand aside and let his unit deploy without him. The Brits should try to understand this.

MORE TO GROK:

Tammi has thoughts on Harry too.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:09 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

1 My daughter got the best lesson I think is available from this immediately - if the media had shut the hell up from the start and let the boy deploy like he wants to and has been fighting to do, there wouldn't be an issue because no one would really know he was there. I wasn't enthralled with Harry's wearing of the Nazi costume to a party, and he seems to play very, very hard. But all that aside, the real problem in this case seems to be with a media that has no understanding of propriety. Harry's Uncle deployed to the Falkan Islands, so it's not as if there's no precedent for royalty serving in a war zone. Harry's got a lot of dharma to fulfill. I'm sure there's something that he can do, and I certainly hope they find it and that the media keeps its trap shut when Harry does it. That's a tremendously incoherent comment, I know. Sorry - I've been sick this week.

Posted by: airforcewife at May 18, 2007 10:48 AM (0dU3f)

2 Here's my uninformed thoughts on Harry: the Army is good for turning wayward young men around. Lots of guys who join were into bad ideas, but the Army helps them shape up and focus. I had several students in Germany who had been to jail before the Army, and they had learned their lesson and were trying to make something of themselves. And they had nowhere near the pressure that Harry has! I hope the Army's been good for making Harry grow up, and I hope they can find a good job for him.

Posted by: Sarah at May 18, 2007 05:28 PM (vrR+j)

3 Good call. I think the class warfare types will try to turn this into an issue (which it will only be if the media cooperate...ergo..."Some say Harry exercises privilege". In someways this is the "I'm a PC and I'm a Mac" commercial with Harry being the PC. Being the behemoth, there are WAY many more idiozealots writing code to put a virus on Harry the PC than Hobarth the Mac. Hence the six digit price on his head. I wouldn't want to sharing that foxhole.

Posted by: Tim at May 18, 2007 06:55 PM (E9coD)

4 Despite the 'fact' that Prince Harry isn't now going to Iraq, we're betting he does feature in both that arena and Afghanistan, but without the media hullabaloo. He's no fool and neither are the military officers and soldiers alike, all know full well the consequences and implications of any 'no-show' in circumstances he's trained for and relishes. It's worth noting that the 'I'm Harry' T-shirts (www.imharry.com) are more in demand now than before. So maybe the message that we're ALL Harry now has achieved proper cult status among the armed forces everywhere. Thats what I call bravery, defiance and the best humour in the world. Keep doing your bit as decoys and keep the enemy confused! We're proud of you. Algy

Posted by: Algy Johns at May 29, 2007 03:05 AM (3Iar2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At the Milblogs Conference, a gentleman from Free Republic told the story of standing outside the White House Correspondents' Dinner with a posterboard showing Cindy Sheehan and SFC Paul Smith. Everyone could place Sheehan, but only one journalist knew who in the heck Paul Smith was.

We have different priorities in the milblog community. We know who Paul Smith is. We know who Jason Dunham is. And we all know who Robert Stokley is.

Several bloggers have written about meeting Mr. Stokley this weekend, and it seems most of the exchanges went like this:

AWTM: "I am so sorry for the loss of your Son."

And I stood in front of Mr. Stokley with tears in my eyes. And much to my amazement, he grabs my hand.

Robert Stokely: "I need to thank all of you bloggers for giving me my life back, I have to be strong for my family, I need to be the rock, and you folks have given me a place where I can talk about Mike, and I do not have to be that rock...."

And I stood there in tears in front of Mr. Stokely absolutely at a loss, and feeling ashamed of them.

AWTM: "I need to thank you, because Mike gave all, and your family has really sacrificed more than most of us will ever feel."

Robert Stokely, then wrapped his arms around me and gave me a huge hug.

Milbloggers all know who Robert and Mike Stokley are; I wish everyone knew.

I spoke on my panel this weekend about an article I saw in our local paper. It turns out that one soldier who's been killed in Iraq was a high school friend of a local reporter. So this soldier was front page news, complete with high school photos and a glowing report of his life. I told the audience that every soldier -- fallen or still with us -- deserves the same pedestal. I don't want the war to only hit home when a journalist loses a friend; they all are front page news. Everyone should names like Smith, Dunham and Stokley.

Please take a few minutes to listen to what Mr. Stokley had to say at the Milblogs Conference. It will take your breath away. And if you don't know much about Paul Smith or Jason Dunham, make sure you read about them too. If there's anything the milblog community can do and do well, it's educating the general public about Someone You Should Know. We want names like Smith, Dunham, and Stokley to replace names like Hilton, Spears, and Lohan. Pass the word.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.

I'm leaving for Washington DC in a couple of hours. I have no idea what my blogging capabilities will be this weekend because, despite the fact that the whole weekend will be dedicated to blogging, I remain possibly the only milblogger who doesn't own a laptop. But I'm sure I will return with stories and photos.

CaliValleyGirl said she's been having a hard time explaining to non-internet-obsessed people what the Milblogs Conference exactly is. She said she told them to imagine a Beanie Babies collectors convention, a gathering of folks with an esoteric hobby. I say it feels like a high school reunion of people you didn't go to high school with. Either way, I expect it to be awesome.

If you're so inclined, you can find info on the webcast and liveblogging here.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:03 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

I started watching War in Europe tonight, and I realized I had never before heard Roosevelt's Washington's Birthday Speech as the US entered WWII. Boy, how I wish I could hear this speech today. The whole thing is awesome, but this was the part I heard on the movie:

We know now that if we lose this war it will be generations or even centuries before our conception of democracy can live again. And we can lose this war only if use slow up our effort or if we waste our ammunition sniping at each other.

Here are three high purposes for every American:

1. We shall not stop work for a single day. If any dispute arises we shall keep on working while the dispute is solved by mediation, or conciliation or arbitration -- until the war is won.

2. We shall not demand special gains or special privileges or special advantages for any one group or occupation.

3. We shall give up conveniences and modify the routine of our lives if our country asks us to do so. We will do it cheerfully, remembering that the common enemy seeks to destroy every home and every freedom in every part of our land.

This generation of Americans has come to realize, with a present and personal realization, that there is something larger and more important than the life of any individual or of any individual group -- something for which a man will sacrifice, and gladly sacrifice, not only his pleasures, not only his goods, not only his associations with those he loves, but his life itself. In time of crisis when the future is in the balance, we come to understand, with full recognition and devotion, what this nation is and what we owe to it.

And Roosevelt discussed the flypaper strategy long before Andrew Sullivan:

Those Americans who believed that we could live under the illusion of isolationism wanted the American eagle to imitate the tactics of the ostrich. Now, many of those same people, afraid that we may be sticking our necks out, want our national bird to be turned into a turtle. But we prefer to retain the eagle as it is -- flying high and striking hard.

I know I speak for the mass of the American people when I say that we reject the turtle policy and will continue increasingly the policy of carrying the war to the enemy in distant lands and distant waters -- as far away as possible from our own home grounds.

But imagine anyone accepting this from today's president:

Your Government has unmistakable confidence in your ability to hear the worst, without flinching or losing heart. You must, in turn, have complete confidence that your Government is keeping nothing from you except information that will help the enemy in his attempt to destroy us. In a democracy there is always a solemn pact of truth between government and the people, but there must also always be a full use of discretion, and that word "discretion" applies to the critics of government as well.

This is war. The American people want to know, and will be told, the general trend of how the war is going. But they do not wish to help the enemy any more than our fighting forces do, and they will pay little attention to the rumor-mongers and the poison peddlers in our midst.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:09 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 3 kb.