Dear God.

Thank you for sharing this.

Bullshit.

Steve: I had sort of a similar encounter with a soldier just back from Afghanistan a couple of weeks back. He'd been involved the hunt for OBL along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and basically was grateful to have gotten out of there with his life. He'd already done a tour in Iraq as well. Obviously our conversation wasn't nearly as detailed as the one you relate, but his anger was just as palpable.

Castro? Jesus. Bush is insane.

Thanks for publishing this; this is important.

We have not begun to grasp the damage this war has done to this generation of young men and women. The physical wounds are the tip of the iceberg. The mental wounds will last for a lifetime. How many will never sleep a peaceful nights sleep again? How many will suffer quitely for a lifetime? How many will simply give up and become this generation's for gotten veterans?

I salute their service. May they find peace.

> Bullshit.
>
> Posted by Army Officer at October 28, 2004 01:14 PM

What a brilliant rebuttal! What precise counter-examples! Truly your testimony has won us over.

Thanks to "Army Officer" for confirming the sentiments expressed by this brave soldier. I come from a military family. My father has taught at the Air Force Academy and the Air, Naval, Army and National War Colleges. My brother in law, a retired Colonel who met my sister when my father was teaching at the Air Force Academy, is currently one of the deans at the National War College (no I am not going to reveal which one, but he is no desk jockey). I have spoken to both of them at length, and while my father's suppositions are just that, my brother in law's are not. The majority of his former students (he headed the ROTC program for a prominent college on the east coast) are either in Iraq, on their way back or about to go. Many of them are on the second deployment in the middle east. To a man/woman, they are voting for Kerry. While there may be many out there who share the views and inability to support them that "Army Officer" does, they are far outnumbered by those who feel betrayed and marginalized by the current administration's "curious blend of smugness, radicalism, and demagoguery" as the New Yorker so eloquently stated.

Thank you Steve for sharing this experience and thank you for taking the time and the measure to protect this soldier's identity since we all know what happens to people who question the adminstration or the DOD openly.

My military friends (mostly SSGT and higher rank in intel) lean much more toward 'bullshit' than 'demoralized', but I only hear from them via email. I'll be very curious to see what the polling / voting is out of the military in general. As for this one soldier's story, Mr. Clemons you may have the highest integrity of anyone on the internet, but without a name and fact-checkables, it's just a story on the internet. Thank you for publishing it.

This sounds, how should I put it? Yes, made up. For example, this business of an al Qaeda ambush in Afghanistan that left 10 US soldiers tortured and dead -- it has gone strangely unreported elsewhere. The CNN website that reports on all the combat deaths in Afghanistan includes no mention of ten persons killed at once in an ambush.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/oef.casualties/index.html

As an ex-enlisted soldier still living in a military town I can tell you that the military- both enlisted and officer- support Bush at least 3-1. This story sounds more like the fantasy of a young enlsted man trying to sound important (been there- done that).

I don't buy all of this, Steve. Some 75% of the Army is voting for Bush, no?

Ted -- You are right. It's just a story on the internet. I reported what was shared with me as best I could, but I don't feel for a nanosecond that anything this soldier shared was made up. In fact, his entire demeanor was designed to hold more back -- or to only express things reluctantly. This stuff did not come gushing out. But I won't share his name and won't compromise him; his story will either jive with others or it won't.

To David Hammer -- I am not sure how to respond to your point. I had never heard of this place called Shkin -- so I went on line and googled the place along with "82nd Airborne" and then added other terms such as war dead, etc. Our soldiers refer to Shkin as "the most evil place on earth." You might want to google that line as well. There are enormous rosters of American war dead -- in aggregate numbers by various incidents. There were so many in my initial search that it was impossible for me to discern what incident the one he spoke of might have been -- so in contrast to your view, where you don't see such a case -- I see many possibilities.

But this is one guy's anecdotes and reflections on personal experience. I believe him and have reported what I heard. I have to leave it at that.

best regards,
Steve Clemons

I have had conversations recently with a So Carolina ANG Captain & a Marine Corps Major. The Captain, when asked about how referring to locals as "hadjiis" inevitably leads to dehumanizing & abuses, said "If MY troops ever engaged in that shit, they know there'd be hell to pay from ME." While that is a somewhat commendable attitude, I had to wonder whether he had considered that his troops might not be as awed by him & his authority as he thinks they are.

The Major swore that, to a man, his troops firmly supported the war & George Bush. I thought "What are the odds?"

It seems, anecdotally, that a portion, at least, of our officer corps is not a part of the so-called "reality-based community". We (& they) would be better served if they would snap-the-fuck-out-of-it.

This story doesn't pass the smell test.

I'm in the 82d. Humvees don't go 80 mph. There is no 82d unit deployed in Germany. The 82d wasn't at Tora Bora. I never heard anything about a plan to knock off Castro, and if the Seals were involved, we wouldn't know about it until we were in isolation in the 18 hrs preceding the attack. The only Army basic training in North Carolina is PsyOps, and there are no PsyOps guys in the 82nd.

There are several million people in the military, you can find one of us that holds any conceivable point of view. It sounds to me like this guy read a few news stories and imagined that he could get over on someone who didn't know any better. People like this are common in the military. Good odds are he is a desk jockey who's never deployed to a combat zone.

His story betrays a lack of knowledge about the 82d (and the Army in general), conveniently puts him in the midst of a couple of newsworthy controversies, and all his experiences support a particular political position. Bottom line: Fake

Check out bragg.army.mil for more info.

I don't know about this guy. His facts seem questionable. The penis in the mouth thing is straight out of the Viet Cong playbook. Maybe the AQ picked up on it, but given all of the hang-ups about sexuality in the Arab culture, a bit hard to believe. Navy Seals in the mountains of Tora Bora? Maybe Army Special Forces, or the Mountain Brigade, but Navy Seals?

Maybe the facts check out. I am skeptical.

Steve, what a revealing story. Aside from a the one stat of 75% of all soldiers want Bush defeated in the election ( obviously just an educated guess by the 82nd airborne soldier ) the rest of the story speaks volumes about the how unfit George W. Bush is as a Commander in Chief since he cannot admit to making any mistakes and takes no responsilbility for mistakes ( like the al Qaqaa 380 tons missing explosives )

George W. Bush, the EXCUSE PRESIDENT where the buck stops any place but the Oval Office.

This man is INCOMPETENT, UNTRUSTWORTHY, NOT CREDIBLE AND WILL BE FIRED ON NOV 2.

Praktike -- I reported what he said...not what I thought about what he said. But yes, I would be shocked if 75% of the military swung Kerry's direction. That said, there are other interesting empirical possibilities to look at this. A while back, Benjamin Wallace-Wells at the Washington Monthly looked at the so-called military vote and wrote that it was not dependably Republican. I have had other discussions with training staff who try to find international experiences for National Guard (or did before the Guard became so Iraq-centric) and have heard that divorce rates and life-impact problems for deployed Guardsmen and Guardswomen are rapidly rising.

When we did a program at the New America Foundation on this broad issue, a guy from Defense News and another from the Army Times told me that there had been stories done about the swings in political attitude in the military -- but I don't have those articles and have not read them. But the possibility does exist that the military vote is much more fragile than people think.

The soldier with whom I spoke said he knew of just one sargeant, just one, who supported Bush through thick and thin, at the beginning of all of this and still today. He said that they joke with him about it.

But for those who suggest this guy wanted to sound important, my only response is -- trust me, this guy doesn't derive any sense of self-worth from talking to people about his war experiences. He is much more grounded than that.

Anyway, I can't prove a guy's anecdotes -- and Praktike, he's clearly not a pollster. I don't hold him or his views to the standards of a Zogby or Penn.

All the best,

Steve Clemons

How conveneient for you to hide this (fictional) soldiers identity thereby eliminating the possibility of verification. I can assure you that the statements made in this article in no way reflect the truth. Bush has the overwhelming support of the military by a ratio of 4 to 1. Your unnamed source is probably the fictional one that lives in your biased mind. Bullshit is right.

Just a story on the internet? You will find several similar accounts on Col. David H. Hackworth's website. I was particularly outraged by reports from NCOs and retired COs citing instances of members of the officer corps remaining in heavily-protected hardened zones out of harm's way and/or appropriating the best body armor, etc., while grunts are left to do the dirty work with their butts hanging out, often with inadequate equipment and frequently ordered out on FUBAR missions.
Hack's site is at http://www.hackworth.com

Dear "An Army Captain" -- Just like the soldier to whom I spoke is not a pollster, neither are you. If you would like to share your identity with others, feel free -- but I don't feel burdened by not sharing this person's identity.

The only way to know about the military vote and to whom you and other soldiers feel loyal is survey work and polling. The rest is speculative. This soldier's story is anecdotal. And your comments as well are anecdotal.

What is clear to me is that the guy I spoke to was pretty grounded and had no burning axe to grind. He doesn't support Bush -- but he had none of the passion opposing Bush, or the taste for it, that you seem to have blasting me and my reporting on this.

Best regards,
Steve Clemons

A recent Military Times does support the notion that the military leans Bush. Looking at the questions about demographics for their sample is interesting though given that the majority of respondents are not currently serving in Iraq of Afghanistan

10. Are you currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Yes, Iraq 201
Yes, Afghanistan 30
No 2493

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?s=1-292925-activedutytotal.php

Steve, I don't know about any "enormous" rosters of US war dead. According to the CNN site, 135 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, so 10 people dead in one episode is a significant chunk of the entire Afghan war dead.

That CNN site is organized by date, so all you have to do is go and find a date where 10 soldiers have been killed in the same month. Then look to see if they are all the same incident. According to that website, the only event in which 10 US soldiers were killed was a Chinook helicopter crash in February 2002.

Apart from repeated helicopter and plane crashes, there are very very few episodes listed where more than one soldier was killed at a time.

And leaving that aside: we're supposed to believe that a US force ran away, letting 10 of their number get captured by Taliban, that they came back long enough later that the Taliban had time to mutilate them, and that somehow this information has been suppressed? You think FOX and friends wouldn't run around yelling about such an event at the top of their lungs?

And further, we're supposed to believe that our airborne troops are readying an invasion of Cuba?

Get serious. This guy was just making stuff up.

Perhaps this Calpundit link can shed some additional light on the sexuality issue in Afghanistan during war time:

http://calpundit.com/archives/003061.html

Follow-up to previous comment: There is a huge divide separating our volunteer army enlisted personnel from the officer corps., with the hard-working career NCOs caught in the middle. From the emails and first-hand accounts I've read from troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the news of the recent "mutiny" of one unit in Iraq, I'd say that morale is one helluva big problem among regular GIs and reservists. And, if it is, it's a problem that will come back to bite us in the years ahead (it took our armed forces nearly two decades to recover from Vietnam). We can either have our collective heads in the sand on this one, folks -- or worse, like the Bush administration and its supporters, we can have our heads up our ass.

There clearly was an ambush in Afghanistan during the main phase of that War. I remember hearing about one Chinook (?) that crashed and soldiers in other copters saw a U.S. Soldier shot at point blank range.

For those who do not believe that "Arabs" or "Muslims" wouldn't engage in sexual torture, you have not read any stories from the Afghan-Soviet War and how many surrendering Soviets were turned into Concubines or "fucked to Death" as the book "Charlie Wilson's War" reports.

Actually, Sy Hersh described the tora bora ambush resulting in 10 dead (and I think his sources said more) and a couple choppers down in his recent book Chain of Command. According to Hersh, the whole thing was special ops guys who going to try to sneak into the region from behind and seal off the Afghanistan escape routes, but got smoked by well prepared and shockingly well trained enemies. It was all very hush hush from the start, and was kept hush hush afterwards, particularly because it was such an embarrassing defeat that stalled the Tora Bora offensive.

537 votes, genital-stuffing-in-mouth is a time-honored Afghan tradition. It's what the Taliban did to the Communist puppet president of Afghanistan, Najibullah, when they took Kabul in 1996. Look it up.

A very thought-provoking post. I've always found the (unscientific) polls of military personnel to be shockingly pro-Bush in light of the predicament he has created for our troops in Iraq.

David Hammer's comment questions "the business of an al Qaeda ambush in Afghanistan that left 10 US soldiers tortured and dead -- it has gone strangely unreported elsewhere."

I do remember an ambush involving helicopters and relatively heavy casualties in early 2002. I think it was part of "Operation Anaconda".

Contemporaneous press reports at the time are generally consistent with the soldier's story posted by Steve, although without torture and mutilation details:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020318/popup/3.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/03/04/ret.afghan.fighting/

According to the soldier, "about ten" U.S. troops died in the ambush. The actual number appears to have been eight. I'm not willing to discredit the story on those grounds.

However, press accounts refer to the 101st Airborne, rather than the 82nd, as taking part in this battle. Steve, are you sure the solider said he was with the 82nd? There is, however a reference to the "82nd Regiment" in one report:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahi_Kot_Valley

... although I'm not sure of what division.

i'm an active duty enlisted soldier serving stateside. the report mr. clemons has posted here is pretty consistent with the disillusionment i've heard from soldiers who have been over to iraq/afghanistan. the facts, for what its worth, are not inconsistent with reporting done by seymour hersh, the christian science monitor, and other credible news sources. one should remember some things about the military culture, especially when reading the back and forth from the posts above. military personnel who complain are mostly unpopular with command. we are coached from the beginning to handle things "at the lowest level possible." there are a couple of reasons for this. one is that solutions are generally easier and less political, the less people know about it. and two it is embarrassing for command when others find out there are unaddressed problems. commanders are expected to know everything that goes on and to deal with them before they become "issues." when an "issue" breaks and gossip spreads up the chain of command about something that wasn't dealt with properly or at all, the commander looks ineffectual. this is the ugly side to the military that leads to a lot of "cover-up" allegations. in effect, we are coached to insulate our higher commanders from reality on the ground. there are plenty of high-minded individuals who do the right thing and try to let their higher-ups know what it's really like, but they don't last very long and they certainly don't get to keep positions of leadership. it's a game that's very much entrenched into the military culture. if we don't play this game, we don't get promoted. it's as simple as that.
and one final note for those harping on mr clemons not revealing the identity of his source. that soldier would almost certainly be prosecuted for political reasons for what he's said. his anonymity is his protection. there's nothing scandalous or libelous about what he's claiming, so there's absolutely no reason to deny him that protection. anyone who wants to prove him wrong should focus on taking each of his assertions and judging them on their merits or lack of merits. attacking mr clemons or the anonymous soldier is nothing short of cowardly. fight fair or shut up.

"that during the clean up period, they used sensors to detect the remains of those killed and then would punch large poles down into the dirt with pricks that would suck blood up to test the DNA of the victim there on the spot. "

Damn! Call Mulder and Scully. Could you please, oh please direct me to any site showing success in diassembling, identifing DNA samples so quickly. "punching through the soil, hitting god knows what. Yeah it's a rat. Sheesh. By the way, you didn't attemt to respond to Ben Thomas. Either "you're lying, you got scammed, or the world has gone straight to hell with the X-Files leading the way.
As a Senior NCO, with 23 years active, working intimately at all levels of the military and government, I have some knowledge of the mens feelings. Yes, some will grouse and complain. The Good NCO's will get them up and going. The few that can't make it will, one way or another, leave. There are those who should not be in the military.

Check your facts a little more closely, Privates lying about their exploits are nothing new. Especially when it's to a gullible sap in the next seat. Though he'd save that for the bar girls.

I would love it if the majority of our military voted for Kerry but I'm confused. Remember when Kerry gave a speech in front of the Guard just after Bush did? Kerry reception was cool, Bush was cheered and given standing ovations. Perhaps it was a hand picked audience.

Steve, since Kevin Drum linked to your fine post I came across this post in his comments that I thought was very powerful to share ( hope Praedor Atrebates doesn't mind ).

from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?e ntry_id=5009

I am an Air Force officer and veteran of the first Gulf War. I was RIF'd with a lot of other vets after the first war but, like many, went on to join the Reserves. So far I have not been called to go but I fear that this cannot continue given the crappy state of affairs in Iraq.

This is one officer who truly despises the current Idiot in Chief and all the cowards that whisper in is ear. I do not fear being sent to Iraq because I might get blown to shit, that is part of the territory of being in the military. I accept that. What I do NOT accept is getting blown to shit, or blowing anyone else to shit for no valid, good reason but to carry out some ideological/political bullshit agenda for inept politician(s). I have no problem with getting sent into harms way for a good reason. The problem is that I have absolutely no faith at all that the current Administration actually acts or will act for good reason beyond crazy ideology.

I will NOT kill someone for the sake of neocon ideology. I will NOT accept being killed for some neocon ideological goal or fantasy. I will not kill or accept being killed for the sake of empire. I am not an imperial soldier and I will not be. I have been thinking very seriously about leaving the service because I do not trust this Bush Administration to deal with the US military and citizens in good faith. I do not trust them to be competent and thoughtful. I do not trust them to do the Right Thing under any circumstance beyond the accidental.

It pains me to have to think about leaving. I have loved the service and the people I have served with. I have been proud of my service. I was looking forward to retiring as a LtCol (I not wild-eyed with ambition, just serving well) but I will likely give it all up if Bush wins re-election. I simply cannot serve under this idiot. If my leaders are immoral and incompetent, then if I follow their orders that makes me immoral and all the competence in the world on my part and those around me cannot make up for the incompetence of the ultimate leadership.

I will not die for the sake of this President's political desires, beliefs, or ideology and I will not kill for them either.

Posted by: Praedor Atrebates on October 28, 2004 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

@ workingclass at October 28, 2004 03:25 PM

Great post and really appreciate the informed perspective !

Yet another comment to add to the stewpot: this is from an article I posted on my blog at http://americanmuckraker.blogspot.com.

"US Troop Morale Problems Growing in Iraq, Article Suggests"

The recent "mutiny" by US soldiers in Iraq who refused a mission to deliver fuel may indicate a much larger morale problem. Many Iraq veterans in the United States feel the incident is indicative of poor troop morale, which stems from the growing belief among soldiers that the war in Iraq is unjustified. Vets also don't believe Pentagon casualty figures, especially on soldiers wounded in Iraq. Officially the Pentagon claims that approximately 7,500 soldiers were injured in Iraq through September 27. Of those, more than one-half did not return to action after 72 hours. But veterans' advocates say the Pentagon is not counting nearly 16,000 more soldiers evacuated from both Iraq and Afghanistan for ”non-combat causes,” according to UPI. Below, three GIs voice their complaints, as adapted from an article by Dahr Jamail of Inter Press Service:

Sergeant Kelly Dougherty, Army National Guard, served for 10 months in Iraq at Tallil Air Base, near Nasiriya. ”The people in Iraq didn't have money or jobs and their cities were destitute,” said Dougherty, who worked escorting convoys and patrols. ”I wondered how these people were functioning after they'd been through so much. They hadn't even rebuilt from the first Gulf War (in 1991).” During a phone interview Dougherty said her unit did not even have translators for the first nine months of the occupation and were thus unable to communicate with Iraqis while conducting security patrols. ”I think it was definitely wrong to go into Iraq,” she added. ”I thought that before we went in and the intelligence is proving this now.” Like other soldiers who are beginning to speak out against the Bush administration, Dougherty has strong words about how the war was waged. ”People say the president didn't lie -- but it's hard for me to believe that they truly thought the reasons they went in were true,” she said. ”I think we were intentionally lied to in order to get the US into Iraq, and the Bush administration seized this opportunity.” The president, she added, was also being dishonest about the dangers that soldiers would face when he did not provide them with the necessary armor and supplies.

Corporal Alex Ryabov, who participated in the invasion of Iraq until May 9. ”What I realise after having been there is that it (the war) is such a huge waste of life on both sides,” he said in an interview. Ryabov also commented on Rumsfeld's statement in September that the 1,000 US soldiers who have died in Iraq are just some of the victims of the ”war on terrorism.” ”The reality is that Bush and Rumsfeld don't have family in the military, and they have never served. Each U.S. death in Iraq -- each of those people has family and friends, and you can't tell them that this is a small number.” Ryabov, who served as the ammunition chief for his Marine Corps unit, believes the administration should be held to account for the horrendous situation in Iraq. ”They should be impeached. They should be put on trial.” He also believes the administration is not doing enough to support Iraq war veterans. ”When troops come home we need to have benefits and VA support. There are a lot of people having problems with this and no support. My friends are coming back angry and screwed up and not getting any help.”

Senior Airman Tim Goodrich, another veteran who has served in the Middle East. While serving two deployments at Prince Sultan Air Base for Operation Southern Watch, where he patrolled no-fly zones in southern Iraq during the build-up to the current war, ”that is when it first hit me that this was the wrong idea,” said Goodrich. ”I was watching troop movements for Iraq going through our base between August and October of 2002, army troop movements preparing to go to war with Iraq six months before the war,” he told IPS. Goodrich too is angry. ”I feel absolutely betrayed by this administration. I was brought up believing it was the most honourable thing to do to serve in the military. Now I've learned that it is not a glorious undertaking,and that our country isn't living up to the standards I believed it was -- that our foreign policy has been flawed for decades...” Goodrich believes the situation in Iraq is the reason why the military has failed to meet its recruiting goals recently. And he applauded the platoon in Iraq for refusing to follow orders. ”I think it's about time that someone stood up and did something. They are working with sub-par equipment that is putting peoples' lives at risk,” he said. ”There are not enough armored vehicles and not enough supplies for the soldiers. One hundred fifty billion dollars to fund these guys and the money isn't getting to where it needs to be.” When asked what he would do if he were called up to serve in Iraq again, Goodrich replied, ”No comment.”

In the course of my work, I have spoken with someone active in Special Forces, who I'd categorize as a quiet professional, who had similar stories out of Tora Bora. In particular I recall one in which soliders witnessed the mutilation of one of their own who had the bad fortune to fall out the doorway as their chopper was retreating (evacuating them)under heavy enemy fire. The sense I got from him was that, to a man, everyone there knew that the mission planning for Tora Bora was FUBAR from the get-go. And they know whose fault that was, too.

If President Kerry hopes to continue aWol's
war in Iraq he will get to learn what LBJ
and others learned; best to bring the troops
home sooner rather than later.

Well, we can all see why Bridger has been an NCO for 23 years. The only draft he has ever felt is the one on the back of his neck every time he gets passed over for promotion.

A good poll of the military reported in the NYT a week or two ago showed that 2/3s of the military support Bush. Interestingly, the same poll found that 2/3s of the military believe we do not have enough troops on the ground in Iraq.

Go figure.

The comments today provide an exeptional and informative discussion. Thank you.

Alrighty then.
First of all, the 75% number of soldiers so often cited by the media was gathered using invalid methods. The readers of the Army Times are career-minded officers and NCOs; you would rarely find an E-3 (private first class) who would even bother to pick one up at the commissary. Thus, you have people who are heavily invested in their careers and psychologically (because you can never question orders) who of course would support their commander in chief b/c it is against their nature to question orders. A wider cross-section of the military, I would be willing to bet, would not come out so schewed (sp?) towards Bush.
Secondly, I don't think you're a liar. Some of your facts are wrong-I think maybe the soldier might have been blowing smoke up your ass. To re-iterate-no Basic Training in NC (although you could be misremembering SC), and if it was SC (ie Ft. Jacskon), this guy is a support troop. i.e. chances are he wouldn't be swooping down on Black Hawks. There are no 82nd units in Germany (although he might have meant Italy-Vicenza), etc, etc. This soldier might have been giving his version of "No shit, there I was..." If this guy refused his anthrax shot his commander would be hauled into his boss' office because it shows up on a monthly tracking system with visibility waaay up at the top. There is no way this guy could have refused his shot-the Army does keep track on a computerized program. Orders to not talk about lessons-learned is counter to Army culture-there are always "after action reviews"-heck, they even compile all of this information and make sure it is distributed. I'm sorry,Steve-this guy was lying big time. There might have been pieces of the truth sprinkled in there, but overall it's just a good war-story.

"There might have been pieces of the truth sprinkled in there, but overall it's just a good war-story."

I tend to agree with the fellow named after a kiddie cereal. It's exactly as he says. Like all those veterans being spit on after returning from Viet Nam. It's just a good war story.

I recall reading somewhere (Robert Novak column?) that the special forces units that help capture Saddam Hussein where sent back to Afghanistan this Spring with orders that amounted to capture Osama bin Laden before the elections. The column indicated that most of those units believed this was purely political and it was improper to use the military for political purposes this way.

Something just hit me, are M1025/6 and M1114 speedometers in Miles or Kilometers? (I can not remember- but I thought it was KPH)

That might be where the "80" figure comes from.

The comments about the probe pushed into the ground getting a DNA reading.
THis just isnt done that way. They may be doing this, but it wont be DNA they are checking. Blood actually has very little DNA in it and would need a lab to give some meaning to the results.
if this blood testing was done then it would probably only give blood group.
Most of the other comments are speculative and seem exaggerated for effect, but then I dont know either. It would indeed by ironic if the votes from soldiers overseas did go against Bush so that he lost places like Florida. At least we will know this one way or the other over the next 2 weeks

There are still people today, like the Swift Boat Idiots For Lies, who contend that no war crimes were committed during the Viet Nam war. The Army is currently considering prosecuting another case, 35 years later. Tiger Force, check out the Toledo Blade's series on it and how it may have caused the Army to finally contemplate charges in a 35 year old case. There is still that mindset among some in the military, you can spot them, the drugstore marines like Ollie North, (that's what Hack calls him). These guys are just like the people whose asses their lips are permanently planted on. We all know who that is. We hope for not too much longer.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

I recently spent time with the son of a friend. The son, a USMC Cpt and CO of a Weapons Company, just rotated back from Iraq. Three things stood out among the various things he had to say:
1) When his battalion first arrived several months ago, they road-marched from Kuwait to their final destination. When they left to rotate home, they flew by C-130's to Kuwait and then on from there. Why? Because Iraq had gotten so much more dangerous while they were there, they decided it was better to fly out than to drive.

2. When they first arrived, they were all about the USMC's "hearts and minds" doctrine -- painting schoolhouses, etc. That quickly went by the boards as they kept taking KIAs/WIAs; they eventually did a Vietnam Redux kind of thing -- pulled into heavily-protected firebases and did aggressive patrolling for the remainder of their tour.

3. The Cpt's life was saved at least twice by his happening to be in a factory - issued uparmored Humvee when it was struck by RPGs or when an IED went off nearby. He said that of the 40 or Humvees his Company had when they arrived in Iraq, eight were uparmored. When he left, the number had "risen" to 12. When asked why all the vehicles weren't uparmored by the time they left, his response was a sardonic "Good Question"

I later got to meet a couple of the other Company commanders in my friend's son's battalion -- one had been with the unit during the original invasion, another had served a tour in Afghanistan. They are due for another overseas deployment in the next year or so. When asked if they wanted to go back to Iraq, the answer from all three was "Fuck no"; they are hoping for Afghanistan, where they think they can do some good.

For those of you who may doubt the above, my friend's son is not available right now to verify the above. He's on leave and he and his wife are traveling to the homes of the five Marines in his unit who were killed so he can tell their families how they died.

"Insulting and Cowardly"

General Wesley Clark issued the following statement today about Rudolph Giuliani's comments about the responsibility of U.S. troops for the missing explosives in Iraq:

“For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.

“The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.

“President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes.”

Man o man does Wes Clark nail the Pretender-in- Chief on the close !!!!

PS: Steve, I think you set a new record on comments for an extraordinary post !

It's made up, too many detail don't track; not leat the entire 82d was in Iraq a year ago and couldn't very well have been told to prepare to go to Cuba.

No one in the 82d is "stationed in Germany." I have a son who's platoon sergrant up there and he is quite adamant in denouncing this.

There are enough verifiably false anecdotes in this story to totally discredit its source. It is irresponsible to post this kind of thing. If you want the stories from guys who have actually been to Afghanistan, visit the mall or a club in Fayetteville, NC. There are plenty of guys walking around who can give you at least as good a story, but they will actually have been in the 82nd Airborne division, and, most likely, will have actually deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

It saddens me to have traveled around the world and come back to such a closed/ignorant society in which a lot of Americans' have the 'kill em before they kill us' attitude(as if the Iraqi's grieve less for their loved ones). How much can you take before a bully gets to you and retaliates on your own turf(America soil) . . . it's just a matter of time. THEN, how safe will people feel when your paranoid neighbor shoots you with his now legal AK-47 fearing you were/are a terrorists--?! HOW SAFE WILL YOU FEEL!
Let's thank our fearless president for opening the worst recipe for our new national disaster.
Coming Soon to a Neighborhood Near You!
A-

"It's made up, too many detail don't track; not leat the entire 82d was in Iraq a year ago and couldn't very well have been told to prepare to go to Cuba.

No one in the 82d is "stationed in Germany." I have a son who's platoon sergrant up there and he is quite adamant in denouncing this."

You are basing your refutation on two points. Details that don't seem to add up, and the fact that marching orders for Cuba are "insane."

1. This is anecdotal. No notes were taken and no recording device was used. Some details may not be accurate. If every complaint that came before a judge was thrown out for minor factual inaccuracies or misspellings, no one would ever be convicted, and prosecutors don't work from memory.

2. That fact that marching off to Cuba in the middle of the Afghan operation is "absurd and insane" is precisley the point. It is insane. The fact that it is insane does not make it false. Just because no one else thinks that you are Napoleon Bonaparte, doesn't mean that you don't think it and believe it.

"There are enough verifiably false anecdotes in this story to totally discredit its source. It is irresponsible to post this kind of thing. If you want the stories from guys who have actually been to Afghanistan, visit the mall or a club in Fayetteville, NC. There are plenty of guys walking around who can give you at least as good a story, but they will actually have been in the 82nd Airborne division, and, most likely, will have actually deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan."

Anecdotes and stories are synonymous. Thanks for playing.

My liberal friend told me about this blog and said I should check it out as it's, yes, "fair and balanced". So I get on and read this piece...hmmm. I read all this about disenchanted soldiers, and I suppose it's touching. However, they signed up for it and now it's their job to support the President whether they like it or not. What's going on here is that our troops have failed to do their jobs, failing to secure the explosives and now they're looking to pin the blame on President Bush. Look, our soldiers who are sacrificing in Iraq are able to go to jazz clubs and pizza places in the Green Zone. That's a pretty good life, better than they find in Pensacola or their othe Godforsaken bases in Middle America.

Our President put together a war plan that conquered another nation in an unprecedented fashion. He gave our soldiers the weapons they needed to take out the Baathists. The least the soldiers could do would be to hold up their end of the bargain and mop up the rest of the country. What would be treasonous would be to mess up this job so badly that President Bush gets turned out on Tuesday. The President has engaged in hard work for four years, and has had the bad luck of terrorist attacks and a military that has let him down. He deserves far more than he's gotten, namely a smooth four years like Clinton got. You know in your heart what I say is true, once you move past your irrational hatred of President Bush.

an·ec·dote n.
1. A short account of an interesting or humorous incident

sto·ry1 n. pl. sto·ries
1. An account or recital of an event or a series of events, either true or fictitious, as:
a. An account or report regarding the facts of an event or group of events: The witness changed her story under questioning.
b. An anecdote: came back from the trip with some good stories.
c. A lie: told us a story about the dog eating the cookies

The Annanberg poll of military & families should help shed some light on this debate:

http://tinyurl.com/3plhg

"Even though they support George W. Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq in general,
America’s military service members and their families are convinced that the Administration
underestimated the number of troops it needed in Iraq and put too much of a burden on
inadequately trained and equipped National Guard and reserve forces, the University of
Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.

From September 22 through October 5, Annenberg polled 655 adults who have either served on
active duty between February and October or who were family members of those who served but
were not available to be interviewed. Their answers were compared to the responses of 2,436
adults polled nationally from September 27 through October 3."

http://tinyurl.com/4z64z

"America’s military service men and women and their families are convinced that the country is
going in the right direction, like George W. Bush much more than the civilian population does,
support the war in Iraq more strongly and are more positive about the economy, the University of
Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey shows.

From September 22 through October 5, Annenberg polled 655 adults who have either served on
active duty between February and October or who were family members of those who served but
were not available to be interviewed. Their answers were compared to the responses of 2,436
adults polled nationally from September 27 through October 3.

The survey did not ask the voting preference of the respondents because a 1948 statute prohibits
polling members of the armed services about whom they intend to vote for."

In other news, happy laughing Iraqi children ran oustide to play in the sunshine among the flowers and bunnies in Fallujah today.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

A DAMNING ARTICLE FOR ALL US REGARDING THE NO-SECURITY OF THE 377 TONS OF EXPLOSIVES. IT SHOWS BUSH'S FAILURE TO HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TROOPS TO SECURE THESE AREAS.

WE FAILED MISERABLY!!!!!!!!

I think the Cuba thing is real. I think it's one of those "no-brainers". You don't invade Haiti because then, well, you've got Haiti! But Cuba! whoa! that's a total prize. And you get a HUGE Cuban vote and a LOT of people get very very rich getting chunks of Cuba (not sure what happens to the Cubans currently living there.)
Well, the Israeli settlers claim the land in Gaza was given to them by god. That certainly avoids all the potential wrangling in courts, deeds, what have you.
However, it's more likely that Iraq has tied up the US and that Cuba is just off the map right now. As is just about any other military action that requires armed people on the ground. White collar soldiers in land or sea based offices? that we can do. And if we are really pressed, we can nuke them.

"My liberal friend told me about this blog"
Some of your best friends are liberals, right?
Joe, you are a true bush supporter. Pass the blame on down, and the money on up. You are a "true" faith-based American. I salute you. With what I need not say.

Steve-- I imagine that this sort of conversation makes a hell of an impression, but even so your post is fairly long and detailed and even includes direct quotes. Did you take notes? If so, did you do so in this soldier's presence, or during a bathroom break or while he was asleep or something? Did you disclose to this young soldier that you're a blogger and were going to write up a detailed description of your conversation for your readers online? If so, did he tell you to go ahead? If you didn't tell him, did you ponder whether it was appropriate to write about it? Also, when did you decide you were going to blog about this conversation--during your talk on the flight, or later? In general, should anyone speaking to you assume that the conversation is for public consumption?

Just curious.

Congratulations, Steve, you've finally hit the blog big-time: You've got trolls! I'm uncertain as to whether or not Terminix can do anything about them, but I can guarantee you your well-reasoned (and reasonable) responses ain't gonna do a damn thing.

Keep up the good work.

"He deserves far more than he's gotten, namely a smooth four years like Clinton got."

What are you smoking, and where can I get some? I suppose your hatred for President Clinton is rational.

I will repost Standa's post from Wesley Clark

"Insulting and Cowardly"

General Wesley Clark issued the following statement today about Rudolph Giuliani's comments about the responsibility of U.S. troops for the missing explosives in Iraq:

“For President Bush to send Rudolph Giuliani out on television to say that the 'actual responsibility' for the failure to secure explosives lies with the troops is insulting and cowardly.

“The President approved the mission and the priorities. Civilian leaders tell military leaders what to do. The military follows those orders and gets the job done. This was a failure of civilian leadership, first in not telling the troops to secure explosives and other dangerous materials, and second for not providing sufficient troops and sufficient equipment for troops to do the job.

“President Bush sent our troops to war without sufficient body armor, without a sound plan and without sufficient forces to accomplish the mission. Our troops are performing a difficult mission with skill, bravery and determination. They deserve a commander in chief who supports them and understands that the buck stops in the Oval Office, not one who gets weak knees and shifts blame for his mistakes.”

I wish Kevin wouldn't have posted the link to this blog. It attracted the nutcase trolls, who are really out in force this Halloween season. This used to be a place where you could have a great, informed, troll-free discussion.

Go away trolls!

As I read the article I could not help but chuckle at how assinine it is. By the time I finished laughter had taken over. Then I read some comments. Now I understand how kerry has any support, there are a lot of stupid people out there that believe this BS and his BS. Facts are not an issue with kerry, this author of fiction, and those that swallow kerry's BS. Thank God for a strong military as the US population in weak emotionally, physically, and mentally.

This is as good an opportunity as any to unload something I've been thinking about for a while.

As a soldier in the US military, I tire of people, on both sides of the political fence, treating me as a member of an oppressed minority group. I don't want you all to feel sorry for me or use me as an example in support of your cause.

I don't want to be treated as though I can't handle criticism, and I don't want the American people getting the impression I'm so sensitive that I can't fight if my MREs aren't tasty enough.

My friends have volunteered to face death. They have looked down the barrel of a gun and seen bullets flying toward them. Some have, very literally, put themselves in mortal danger to save the lives of others. These are warriors, and deserve to be spoken of as warriors, not sniveling children who can't go on if someone's pet cause isn't addressed.

I strongly recommend the book 'On Killing' by LTC Dave Grossman for a far better informed and more thoughtful perspective than I can offer.

The kerry supporters have to prove they have as little self-respect or respect for the truth as he does. This stoops pretty low but kerry is much lower. Hopefully after he loses on 11/3 the traitor will be tried and jailed for life! There are no statute of limitations for treason.

although ben thomas and i disagree about the article above, i do agree with the comment he made here: "As a soldier in the US military, I tire of people, on both sides of the political fence, treating me as a member of an oppressed minority group." i'm not a big fan of people who obsess about how the troops will react to hearing one news story after another. after farenheit 9/11 came out, there were many on the conservative side of the aisle that claimed it was a slap in the face of the soldiers. most of the soldiers i know went to see it (although quite a few others refused to for whatever reason) and every single of one those that went thought the world of it, especially the end.

we don't need to be coddled, but we do need rational planning, serious consideration of the risks involved in all missions (nco's learn this very early on and it is supposed to be second nature to anyone in a leadership position), and a credible effort to minimize whatever risks possible. in short, we need clearly defined objectives. we need to avoid open-ended goals because that leads to "mission creep." again, this is part of basic nco training.

from what i can tell, these basic planning skills were missing. there are only two ways this can happen:

1 - extreme negligence on the part of the military, which is unlikely because by its very nature the military is extremely conservative. we plan for every conceivable contingency, because if it can go wrong, it probably will. murphy's law is probably the only widely respected law in warfare.

2 - more than likely these risks were signed off on by civilian planners from the beginning. this is why i take extreme umbrage to joe jones' post. his ignorance is breathtaking. the army that went into iraq was not designed to secure wmd sites. it was designed to quickly topple a government and get out. it was not an occupation force; it was a combat army stripped for speed. it was not built for security or social reconstruction.

who do you think made that choice?

i'll give you a hint, joe. he wasn't a democrat.

"Navy Seals in the mountains of Tora Bora? Maybe Army Special Forces, or the Mountain Brigade, but Navy Seals?" Posted by Ben Thomas

I don't know about the rest of the info, but the Seals were definitely fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan, including the fighting around Tora Bora. Just do a Google.

For photos:
http://www.specialoperations.com/Navy/SEALs/OEF_gallery.html

"Humvees don't go 80 mph."

Yeah, really? Dang, my HMMWV's speedometer must have been broken when I was driving from Camp Humphreys Korea to the DMZ and back during my year there (94-95). I know for fact I was doing 80mph. Not that we are supposed to drive that speed... I did it non the less, with my NCOIC in the passenger seat.

Yes, the HMMWV can do 80mph, but you should be wearing ear protection, it is a VERY loud ride.

Great post. I just don't think Bush and the chickenhawks really understand what war is all about- what it actually means to put your life on the line in battle. It's just sickening that Bush's cause is so misguided. It's at these moments that one recalls the following lines from the English war (WWI) poet Wilfred Owen:

"If in some smothering dream you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori."

-Asheesh Siddique (m)
Editor, Princeton Progressive Review
http://progrev.blogspot.com/

I have no clue if what this soldier said is true, or whatever. I still like this site and it's good to read the feedback.

But I wanted to share some info I had on that ArmyTimes poll. The Army Times makes no effort to reach to junior enlisted and they make no appologies for that. I had the pleasure of discussing this with the Military Times Media Group's Senior Managing Editor, Robert Hodierne (rhodier@armytimes.gannett.com) and it was a pleasure because I know these are busy important people. I saw his email address at a web site for journalist so I emailed him. I ask him about the poll numbers that appeared in that USAToday article a while back. I asked him WHY (notice I didn't ask "IF") the Army Times didn't work harder to poll junior enlisted. He said it was a fair question but they simply sent the poll to suscribers and those who responsed made up the poll results. He said the Army Times isn't allowed on the base to poll individuals but nonsubscribers could have went online to take the poll (like every GI in the barracks got a laptop, right?) I asked why they didn't try another way to get the opinons of the lower enlisted. I never got a response.

I'm a veteran too but I have no knowledge of what other soldiers think and I think anybody who goes around claiming to know what "all the other soldier's think blah, blah--I just think oh give me a break... the guy standing next to you in formation probably don't even vote and maybe never has so gives a rat's ass what you think he thinks

Seems to me the best way to serve the Commander n Chief in to make sure he knows the real deal; and that means these generals have to do more than say "it's all good" because it's not all good right now. I don't think soldiers are helped by a bunch a hype. Nor are they helped when people presume to know what they think.

Now that you know more about the Army Times poll, what's the harm in this soldier's comments? They are no more slanted than that slanted pool.

Great post, Steve. Really chilling. So Bush's thinking about going after Castro? If that's under consideration, I can't help but wonder what kinds of other wacky adventures we'll be going on if there's a second term. And he scoffs at the prospect of a draft.

Say hi to Oakley for me.

About how to pull out:

Why cant we just draw lines and allow the Shia to self govern. Separate the Sunni and the Shia.

We know that the UK screwed this up way back so make a wrong right and institute genuine change as we pull out.

Goal to redraw Iraq and support the birth of freedom. We must separate them to win.
They are now united against US.

I was in Iraq for a month last November-December, embedded mainly with the 101st in and around Mosul. Everything the soldier on the plane told Steve Clemons is absolutely true. Anger among troops at Bush was VERY high when I was there, and that was a time when insurgent attacks and U.S. casualties were about 1/3 as bad as things are now.

The biggest gripe the troops had was about the "missions" they were sent on several times a day. I was with a company in a small basecamp in a former social security building in downtown Mosul, surrounded by a jerry-built wall that wouldn't have stopped the blast from a grenade, much less a car bomb. Troops were sent out day and night, on foot and in un-armored Humvees on so-called "presence patrols." None of their Humvees had even canvas doors, and all of them were among the first Humvees every built, back in 1985 or so (how many reading this are still driving a 1985 car, and moreover, how many of you would be eager to go to war in a 1985 vehicle with several hundred thousand miles on it?)

I asked several colonels and the commanding general, MG David Petraeus, (currently in charge of training the new Iraqi "army") what was the purpose of a "presence patrol," as I had never heard the term before. Sheepishly, each of them found a way to say it was a form of "showing the flag" to the locals. I asked them what the actual combat purpose was -- in other words, what did they actually expect such a "presence patrol" to accomplish, since during none of the patrols I went on (several dozen) were we given an actual "mission," such as, go and look for this bad guy, or search for weapons, or go shoot the hell out of that house full of bad guys, because no one knew where any bad guys were, no one knew where any weapons were, no one knew where any houses full of bad guys were. No one knew ANYTHING about enemy insurgents, and even the commanders themselves admitted this. Again, sheepishly, the senior commanders hummed and hawed, but no one had a good answer as to what the actual combat purpose of a "presence patrol" was.

Several lieutenants and sergeants, and MANY lower ranking enlisted soldiers told me exactly what presence patrols were: they were make-work, do-nothing, chicken-shit operations. The troops had nothing else to do in Mosul, since they couldn't find the guys who were setting IED's all over the place and mortaring and shooting RPG's at base camps with impunity, so they were told to go outside the walls and the wire and walk around or drive around for awhile and come back after a couple of hours...and then go out and do it again.

The only "patrols" that I went on that had an actual purpose were the so-called "logpac" missions twice a day, around 5 am and 4 pm, when three vehicles and about 10 guys had to drive five miles over to the Brigade Support Area to pick up breakfast and dinner from the KBR dining facility and bring it back to the company base camp. In other words, twice a day, ten guys had to risk their lives driving down the very streets where almost daily they found IED's, in order to pick up food from the CIVILAN CONTRACTORS who lived and worked deep within a heavily fortified base camp and lived and worked in air conditioned comfort.


That's what's going on in Iraq right now. A bunch of bullshit, do-nothing, make-work chicken-shit so-called "combat missions" which amount to exactly nothing. A friend of mine here in LA recently returned from a month in Baghdad where he worked for one of the major networks. He told me the Army has pulled everyone out of the small base camps in the inner cities of Mosul and Baghdad (not to mention Fallujah, Ramadi, Najaf, etc etc) and put them in heavily fortified base camps some distance outside of town. When I was in Mosul, the 101st was sending out a total of about 200 so-called presence patrols a day. According to my friend, very, very few patrols go out these days, and as he put it, a combat patrol is considered a big success if no one gets killed or wounded.

Ask yourself this question: what was the last war we won when the measure of victory or success was that nothing happened on a combat mission and no one was killed or wounded?

As for the presence patrols in the 101st, the troops had their own name for them: Target patrols. As one sergeant told me, "You know, sir, where we're the target?"


Lucian K. Truscott IV

I can corroborate the driving fast part. In May I got an E-mail from a friend in the CPA.

As I am new to my weapons, and because I’m such an exceptional driver, I usually get tasked with the driving of my Suburban. Making trips to the airport, I’ll drive at speeds up to 120 mph and take other precautions to avoid being an easy target. Crossing town at speeds of more than 60 mph is difficult considering the traffic. Iraqis almost always make way for me, but passing a military convoy raises a few life-threatening issues so I tend to avoid doing so.

Army Officer is wrong about the driving.

Just discovered your terrific blog. Thanks for your story and for the thought provoking responses it elicited. I have relatives in the service now many in my family have served in previous wars, and I was a military wife. I was oppossed to this war being waged when Sadam was being contained, and still feel this has been a sinful loss of life and resources. Sadam would have continued to be contained, but that wouldn't have provided the lucrative contracts for Halliburton, its subsidiaries, and The Carlisle Group. (Check out Naomi Klein's piece on James Baker in the Nov. 1 issue of The Nation to see how the money flows on!)

All of this is clearly the responsibility of the president - or, as he is fond of calling himself on the campaign trail, the commander in chief or the war time president. (However, referring to the receintly reported missing weapons, former mayor and adulterer Rudy went on record today saying that mistakes made aren't the fault of the president - they're just because our troops aren't doing their job carefully! This is the guy the president is taking with him on the campaign trail.) Even if Bush was going to go ahead with his unconstitutional, illegal, immoral war, how could he send our troops into battle so ill prepared? Again, that was no body's fault but the president's - although he assumes no responsibility for it in his role as commander in chief - and again I see that as an immoral act. I guess since God told him there would be no casualties, that's why we aren't allowed to see the coffins of our returning dead and mourn them with the respect they deserve. Because our commander in chief doesn't believe they exist. A man should be judged by his actions, not his words, and this is a very bad man.

wow ... this is like gossip central ... long second-hand stories I have long ago learned to do without!

Steve, did you have any idea that this interesting story would become the top, top thing to read on the web today? You seem so committed to reasonable, thinking discussion that you must be pretty stunned by all of this that you kicked off. Your long-time fans want to congratulate you, Darc

Steve, if you wish, you can discover whether this story is true by asking these people questions about where the 82d is currently deployed and which locations it was at in the past:

http://www.bragg.army.mil/www-82DV/public_affairs_contacts.htm

The veracity of this story is discoverable.

Dear Ben --
Thanks for the link. I'll give it a go. The debate raging above on all aspects of the post has been somewhat overwhelming. I am not a military reporter, and while I don't think I got anything wrong that this soldier reported, there are a lot of things regarding framing that I can't answer. One of the posts above distinguished between the 82nd Division -- and some smaller unit of the 82nd. I had no idea that these distinctions could be drawn. I know that he is with the 82nd Airborne -- but clearly, he could have been with a smaller unit assigned by the 82nd elsewhere. I'll do my best with the link you shared with me.

For those asking whether or not I was professional with this person in the sense that I would write something about this -- yes, I told him that I had a blog, gave him the address of it, told him I would protect his identity -- and encouraged him to contact me directly or to have others do so if there were issues that they wanted to report about.

I know what this soldier does and what his roles have been in the various places that are mentioned. I can't reveal these -- but I can say that his support roles are pretty basic stuff and have none of the self-promoting glamour that one wanting to brag would have.

I have already done some fact-checking on the story, and most of what I have been concerned about rings close to what I was told.

To those who asked, yes...I took notes. I didn't at the beginning of my discussion with him -- and then asked if I could after we got going. He also drew maps for me of what happened in some of the armed encounters he was close to.

In any case, thanks to all for keeping the general tenor of the discussion serious, despite a few lapses here and there.

best regards,

Steve Clemons

"...anger and resentment are high. He says that 90% of the officers remain far out of harm's way."

Don't the officers actions speak more to their character? These same officers will remain at their post regardless of who is elected. Voting for Bush won't help us? Neither will voting for Kerry. Kerry may get them out of Iraq, but their commanders will still be their commanders.

Who are the elisted people really mad at, the officers for their lack of care for them or the President?

With respect to you and your soldier's pontificating about invading Cuba, hundreds of contingency plans are made and updated daily by the DoD. Who knows who ordered what and when and if this really occurred. The order for the development of a plan like this doesn't even have to come from the West Wing. You would probably be stunned at the kind of contingency plans that are filed away at the DoD.

Does one really think that an officer would trust an enlisted man with this information and that your source would be around high ranking officers that might even know this? Come on Steven, don't you think you should be a little more skeptical about this? The enlisted guys in the field have probably heard every story known to man. It's a pretty intense game of telephone out there in the field. I am stunned that you bought this.

Mr. Clemons,
I do not think I really know the person you talked to on the plane, but I might because the world is pretty small and I have been in sevaral of the situatiuns that you have written about today and which some of my pals have been reading about because the general atmosphere you are saying is right on the money for many of us troops. i dont really talk that much politics with people but President Bush, even though as military guys we respect him, is not considred to be our friend. We know we have a job to do and we are going to do it but we think that the bosses in Washignton dont know what this war is about anymore and neither do a lot of we soldiers. so, what I am trying to say is that i don't know whether the soldier you met was telling you the truth or not but from our perspective here in germany, we think he is an honest guy who is not beefing himself up. there is a sargeant over here for instance who believes in talking to his juniur people and telling them everything he knows. it is an interesting thing because not that many officers or sargeants do that because they think it is better that we just stay in the dark on a lot of things. Anyway, sorry for the long note but I wanted to say that there were a lot of things going on in Shkin, which is a terrible place where a lot of our people died and Tora Bora had a lot of players there. Dont think that just because the news cameras didn't show the 82nd parachuting down on Binladen that there werent some folks there. there are a lot of jobs going on in the military from moving supplies and munitions and mail and processing things and people are moved around. so I think that a lot of the people who are beatin their chests that they know so much one way or another dont know nothin unless they are here. so i really dont know if your guy gave it to you straight. All I wanted to say and some of the other people here who like your blog a lot and have been checking it out think that this guys story could be our story too and could be a lot of other peoples story -- but there are some who could see it different. that's ok. but we think that he's got some honest things to say and think it's a good thing that your wrote about this.
ok, later.

Steve, Wow. I just stumbled across your blog today and am amazed by the breadth, fairness, and seriousness of your posts and a lot of the discussion. This soldier doesn't sound like a "chest-beater" to me, and I think you've done a service sharing a shap-shot perspective that one young soldier has of his situation. I find it amusing to see the standards that many of your readers want to hold this young guy to. On these DNA testing devices, it's perfectly plausible that this guy thought that was what they were. Whether they were or not is an entirely different issue. Anyway, congrats to you. Steve Saker

Steve, I think you get some doubt from the military posts here because this story hit us in our collective gut (I am former Army) and our gut says, no, this isn't our Army. We've got better leaders and better practices than this. As others have noted, there was a lot your buddy said that doesn't add up, but at the same time, there is no questioning as to their (well-placed) dissatisfaction with the current policy. If it is true, and I sincerely hope it is not, then the whole story will eventually come out, and Bush will be a truly despised individual for his inept leadership during this war.

I liked workingclass's posts, I think they captured some very pertinent points. Frontline just did a piece on Rumsfeld's relationship with the Army, and I think it had a very powerful message (See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/). It's that the Army leadership worked very hard to improve their capabilites after Nam, and post-1991, many of the leaders (and us in the trenches) were saying, damn straight, we are mean, lean, and ass-kickers. Now we get stuck with occupation duties, and the frontline show had Secretary Tom White saying how he backed up his Chief (General Shinseki) on the point that occupation does take much more manpower than just conducting an invasion, countrary to what Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz told the Congress and press.

I think the real source of all this aungst is that the Army leadership is trying to follow Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz direction and it is just ripping apart the fine organization that so many leaders had developed in the 1980s and 1990s. God help us all, have they broke it beyond repair?

Dear Al -- Your post is thoughtful and much appreciated. I have been pretty stunned by the debate that is going on here. And my email box is clogged with about three times the material that has appeared publicly in the comments section.

I tried to be true to this soldier's story and not let my own biases get in the way of some of the things he said. I know, for instance, that he thinks that these probes at Tora Bora were testing DNA on the spot. Did they really? I have no idea -- but it sounds like a technological ability that I've never heard of before. But do I think that this guy thinks it -- yes, I do. I can't say more about his profile because I really fear exposing him -- but there is a gap that people need to understand between those with high degrees of education and ability to manage complexity and those who may be less spin-prone, perhaps less education, and who articulate what they see as they see it.

There is no doubt in my mind after reading the hundreds of emails I have received over night, some of which are from 'military' i.d.'s, that there is a real gap in perspective out there between people with military service. I don't know how to account for it -- but there are some like one of the first posts on this string of comments that immediately asserts that the soldier to whom I was speaking was full of bullshit. I know he wasn't; I can't emphasize enough that this guy was not trying to sell me anything, had no notions of self-importance; and given that he was uncomfortable and often unable to find words to express things - was not verbose. But I now have many other similar stories from soldiers that ring closely with what I heard from this guy on the plane. But there are other soldiers who think that I heard a lot of drivel.

All I can say is that the news is no longer whether the soldier I spoke to was truthful or not; the story is that there is a major perception gap between people with military experience. I don't quite know what to make of it.

ONE IMPORTANT NOTE TO PEOPLE WRITING ME FROM THE MILITARY, WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH ME, DO NOT write to me about these controversial subjects using your military email address. I do not want to get anyone in trouble for sharing views...and if you write from a government email address, it can be traced by the government more easily than personal/private accounts). Some of you have been sharing accounts with me that I just don't want you to have to be held accountable for...

In any case, Al, thanks for your comments and question. I grew up in the Air Force -- and I am familiar with some aspects of military culture -- but don't know if the guts of the fine machine we had are getting torn up or not.

The soldier I talked to convinced me that everyone he knows wants out of the game. I think that's an indication of a problem.

best,

Steve Clemons