A soldier's life.

[jBirch]

http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp...3042293&page=1

It's important to read this and at least attempt to understand what he's saying.

Best Regards,

James.

[erooMynohtnA]

That's a really interesting article. I think everything described is accurate, yet with a shift in perspective.

For my friends who are going back to Iraq or are there already, there is little enthusiasm. Any fondness for war is tainted by the practicalities of operating and surviving in combat. Wells and McCarthy and I can speak of the war with nostalgia because we belong to a different world now. And yet there is little to say, because we are scattered, far from those who understand.

Even though he says it himself, I think it bears repeating. He's looking at Iraq romantically because he's not there right now. While he's certainly speaking on the reality of combat, that's only one aspect of war.

I can't count the number of people (myself included) who tell tales of marches in the rain, family events we didn't want to attend, IEDs going off, of punishment in basic training, terrible blind dates, arrests, or any unpleasant experience with a certain fondness or nostalgia. We have a fondness for those memories, but we have to be careful not to confuse that with our mental state during the event itself.

Another point that bears elaboration that he only touched upon:

Every day in Iraq, if you have a job that takes you outside the wire, you stop just before the gate and make your final preparation for war.

The implication is clear. Many people stay on base for almost their entire deployment. Last I heard, they were called fobbits. They leave the perimeter once or twice, maybe even ten or twenty times, but it's just not the same thing as going on weekly or daily patrols with combat and death as the main objective. Just because someone was in Iraq doesn't necessarily mean they understand where this guy's coming from.

I certainly feel the same as the author sometimes. I enjoyed the lack of financial responsibilities and the moments of excitement. But I'm careful to remember why I didn't enjoy it and don't want to go back.

[jBirch]

And contrast that first article with this other interesting perspective, this from the parent of a killed officer...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...3/landeck.html

I'm not sure how to explain the drastic difference, but I think it's important to read the first article BEFORE reading the second I just posted.

James.

[Slim]

http://men.msn.com/articlees.aspx?cp...3042293&page=1

It's important to read this and at least attempt to understand what he's saying.

Best Regards,

James.

Great article James. Thanks.

[Slim]

And contrast that first article with this other interesting perspective, this from the parent of a killed officer...

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...3/landeck.html

I'm not sure how to explain the drastic difference, but I think it's important to read the first article BEFORE reading the second I just posted.

James.

It's easy to explain. It's two completely different perspectives. One lived being there, one didnt. Parents experience something completely different than what the soldier experiences. And I'd much rather be the soldier faced with death daily than watch my kids go off to war.

The parent of the killed soldier is angry he lost his son. It's understandable he is angry. Given the constraints within which we are forced to fight, I'd be angry too.

[jBirch]

It's easy to explain. It's two completely different perspectives. One lived being there, one didnt. Parents experience something completely different than what the soldier experiences. And I'd much rather be the soldier faced with death daily than watch my kids go off to war.

The parent of the killed soldier is angry he lost his son. It's understandable he is angry. Given the constraints within which we are forced to fight, I'd be angry too.

Oh yeah, but the point of the matter is that the soldier who died...likely isn't so angry. Why that would be is what's so hard to explain.

James.

[erooMynohtnA]

Oh yeah, but the point of the matter is that the soldier who died...likely isn't so angry. Why that would be is what's so hard to explain.

James.

I find the dead are usually the least angry, definitely the least vocal.

I don't think it's hard to explain. Dead soldiers don't have to deal with their own death.

In all walks of life, it's the living that grieve, rarely the dying, and never the dead. I don't think it's something that's necessarily a soldier's prerogative, but they do have a greater incidence of the fatalist attitude.

[jBirch]

I find the dead are usually the least angry, definitely the least vocal.

I don't think it's hard to explain. Dead soldiers don't have to deal with their own death.

In all walks of life, it's the living that grieve, rarely the dying, and never the dead. I don't think it's something that's necessarily a soldier's prerogative, but they do have a greater incidence of the fatalist attitude.

That's part of it, to be sure. And there certainly is a bit of selfishness in our decision to go even though we may hurt our loved ones by not coming back (or coming back broken).

But it's also deeper then that.

Soldiers are trained that success in the mission is simply a matter of effort. If you simply try harder, you'll succeed. Combat soldiers modify that to include the "fickle finger of fate".

To that end, we're all optimists. If the mission is a failure it's because WE failed. Which makes us less angry at our leaders, and more angry at ourselves.

But even that doesn't explain the whole of it.

Maybe it's the fighting for the attempt to fight?

Like I said, hard (at least for me) to explain...

James.

[Slim]

Soldiers are trained that success in the mission is simply a matter of effort. If you simply try harder, you'll succeed. Combat soldiers modify that to include the "fickle finger of fate".

To that end, we're all optimists. If the mission is a failure it's because WE failed. Which makes us less angry at our leaders, and more angry at ourselves.

I think this has to do with the psychology of war and combat. If you dont achieve the mindset that you can conquer anything if you put out, as a combat soldier you'll crumble when the $hit hits the fan. It's all about mindset and why the training for the elite units is so mentally and physically brutal. And why most people that dont experience it can't easily comprehend it.

To train people to achieve this mindset, then to set them up for failure by tying their hands with limited rules of engagement OR to blame them for so called "politically incorrect" things that may occur during battle is something that really, really gets my blood boiling.

Not having been under direct fire (but having been in operations where it could have easily happend), I can see that there is definitely some adrenaline rush factor. And I can certainly see this effect leading to people longing to get back into the experience of combat and not being the least bit angry at those who have made the decision to put them in harms way.