Soldier's Home : Featured

An Introduction to Bravo Battery

David Botti — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:08:58 GMT

Bravo Battery soldiers during downtime. Photo: David Botti

I've begun my embedding with Third Platoon, Bravo Battery 5-25 FA, 4th Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division, a field artillery unit out of Fort Polk, Louisiana. Downtown Baghdad these days is no place for the U.S. Army to set up a line of 105mm Howitzers, so Bravo Battery is now designated as a "maneuver" unit.

Their role is not as infantryman per se, but each day they conduct patrols on foot or in humvees. With their Howitzers miles away in storage, Bravo Battery's mission is to protect the citizens of their neighborhood. The reality here, however, is far more complex than that single mission statement seems to dictate.

The battery's area of operations is Baghdad's Karadah neighborhood, a peninsula whose three sides are bordered by the Tigris River. To the west sits the International Zone, or Green Zone. To the north are the still restive streets of Sadr City where commanders here say militia leaders often left for the quiet streets of Karadah during periods of intense fighting with the Americans.

Karadah itself is normally considered one of the safer areas of Baghdad. Since March, when Bravo Battery moved into Karadah (they arrived in Iraq this past December), the unit has managed to escape much of the intense fighting that often comes to mind when Baghdad is mentioned.

"If Karadah ever goes to hell, then something's definitely wrong in Baghdad," said Sergeant Nicholas Otto, a Third Platoon team leader, on the area's reputation for stability.

The soldiers live in a JSS (Joint Security Station), a company-sized headquarters based within a Baghdad neighborhood to facilitate mutual access between the U.S. Army and the population it's tasked with protecting. Also based here are representatives of the Iraqi National Police and the Army MP's who train them, the idea being U.S. and Iraqi forces are now working hand-in-hand—with the latter taking the lead.

Living conditions for the soldiers here are modest, but by no means uncomfortable. There are bunk beds, air conditioners, free weights, and plenty of electrical plugs for the laptops nearly every soldier has. Many are already veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, deployments which prepared them for the long days and nights of their fifteen-month combat tour here in Baghdad. They tell me that 5-25 was one of the last units assigned a fifteen-month tour before the Army switched deployment lengths to 12 months.

The headquarters of Bravo Battery. Photo: David Botti

In terms of morale, generally troops are in good spirits. There's the usual complaining among the rank-and-file, but as the old saying goes, "If a grunt isn't complaining, then there's something wrong."

Before they came to Iraq, many of Third Platoon's soldiers expected they'd encounter fierce fire fights and constant IED (Improvised Explosive Device) explosions. Veterans of earlier Iraq deployments figured they'd find a similar situation the second time around.

Despite the many complexities Bravo Battery faces in mentoring the various security forces throughout Karadah, for an average soldier the lack of action during these past eight months can be a mixed blessing.

"As much as I want to go home and see my family, and I'm glad we haven't had any guys killed, I'm starting to loose motivation," said Specialist Thomas Dorris.

"Yeah, man," chimed in PFC Brandin Patton. "It's just the same thing day after day."

Pat Tillman's Legacy Four Years On

David Botti — Fri, 09 May 2008 17:58:08 GMT

Though he was killed in Afghanistan in 2004, Pat Tillman's death is still a subject of controversy and tremendous reflection. Tillman, you will recall, was the NFL player turned Army Ranger who was originally said to have died under enemy fire (he was awarded the Silver Star), but later reports found he was killed by friendly fire.

Now his mother, Mary, has published a book in which she charges that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew about the cover-up over the details of her son's death. As she writes [via MSNBC]:

“... I believe Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld knew Pat was killed by fratricide and permitted the cover-up. It is not believable that a man known for his propensity to micromanage would not want to know what happened to his most high-profile soldier. I informed the committee that Pat received a personal letter from Rumsfeld shortly after he and his brother enlisted, commending him for his commitment to serve. Pat was obviously in Rumsfeld's consciousness."

During a recent 60 Minutes interview, Katie Couric questioned Army Secretary Pete Geren over the alterations of eyewitness accounts of Tillman's death used for his Silver Star citation. She asked if he knew who manipulated the statements, and he replied:

"Well, that's one of the questions that we will never completely answer. But it certainly is one of the areas that that raises questions. There are so many mistakes. So many things that happened. If you add them all together, it certainly calls into question the credibility of those who handled this. And raises the kind of questions that Ms. Tillman raises. I don't blame her for that. And I don't expect her ever to believe us. But there was no effort to deceive. There were mistakes and grievous errors by the legions. And as a result, we fell short of our duty to her as a mother of one of our heroes."

Over at the IAVA blog, Perry Jefferies takes issue with Sec. Geren's uncertainty, saying that the process for awarding medals should clearly indicate who writes a citation:

Only a certain amount of people handle the citation for the Silver Star, one of our highest military awards. Each commander signs a block on the document and there is a document called a transmittal letter that accompanies it from office to office. Only organizational will prevents the Army from prosecuting the criminal that a) faked an official document and b) tried to leave a lower grade enlisted Soldier to take the blame.

If indeed the medal was awarded under dishonest conditions, should it still stand? A letter to the Arizona Republic newspaper took this stance:

The awarding of the decoration was illegal, as the incident obviously didn't represent "gallantry in action against an armed enemy," as required by the Army's own regulations. This award does a disservice to all of our veterans who have legitimately earned this august award. The Tillman family should return the award to the Army, which should then rescind the award as unjustified and issued illegally.

Another reader then responded:

Yes, it may be true that this star represents "gallantry in action against an armed enemy." What could be more gallant than a young man giving up not only his career but his life? Pat Tillman gave up his life to serve in an illegal war that has ruined our economy with the billions of dollars being wasted but, more important, the loss of the respect of the rest of the world.

In the New York Times' look at Mary Tillman's new book, there's an interesting historical note of other athletes who've been killed in action.

Eddie Grant, the Giants’ third baseman, died in France in 1918. Christy Mathewson, the great Giants pitcher, had his life shortened from a mustard-gas accident in training near the end of World War I. And Nile Kinnick, the star running back from Iowa, died in a training flight in 1943. But Pat Tillman’s death was different because of the way he was used, posthumously, blatantly.

You can read a Newsweek Q&A with Mary Tillman here.

Trying to Modernize the GI Bill

David Botti — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:41:55 GMT

More than half a century after the GI Bill was first enacted to help send vets to college, politicians and advocates are touting a new proposed bill to expand these benefits. The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act was introduced by a number of Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate. Among them is Virginia Senator (and Vietnam vet) Jim Webb whose posted this statement on his Website:

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act is designed to offer the brave men and women who have served honorably since September 11, 2001 a level of educational benefits on par with those provided to veterans of the World War II era.

In a profile of numerous veterans struggling to capitalize on education opportunities after returning home from war, the Washington Post helps to break down where the current GI Bill stands now. The problem is that these benefits can no longer fully fund higher education, as they once did for earlier generations of veterans.

Many people enlist to earn money for college, and almost everyone signs up for the education benefits -- which, in the case of the main GI Bill, requires a service member to pay about $1,200 into the plan-- but not everyone takes advantage of it. And that buy-in is not returned even if the benefits are unused.

About 70 percent use at least some part of it, said Keith Wilson, director of the education service, but the VA does not track how many earn degrees.

An independent study found that just over half use some part of the benefits, said Ray Kelley of AMVETS, a veterans support group, and only 8 percent use all. "Congress is realizing we're not giving them the benefits we say we're giving them," Kelley said. "They only have 36 months from the time they start using it to the time they finish." That means going to school full time, year-round.

Earlier this month NPR's Morning Edition broke down more of the specifics of the proposed bill.

Webb's bill wouldn't cover the entire cost of study at a private school like George Washington, but it would pay for tuition, fees and books at the most expensive state university. It would also provide an allowance for essentials based on the federal cost-of-living estimate. As an incentive to private schools, the federal government would also match any scholarship funds awarded to a veteran.
The bill would also decrease the disparity between benefits offered to active duty soldiers and those offered to members of the National Guard.

The report also noted the Pentagon's reluctance to the new bill. Officials there are worried that increased education benefits would encourage soldiers to leave the military for college, thus hurting retention numbers.

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, likened today's planned bi-partisan press conference supporting Webb's bill to the coming together of old rivals:

With the political situation so polarized this election year, it's like seeing players from the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox sit down for Sunday afternoon tea.

On the presidential campaign front, Senator John McCain recently unveiled his own GI Bill improvements after receiving criticism for not supporting Webb's bill. According to The Hill:

McCain’s bill is designed to enhance the existing Montgomery GI Bill, but will compete for Senate votes with Webb’s measure, which already has 57 co-sponsors, including Democratic presidential hopefuls Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)...

...At the same time, McCain and other supporters of the new bill touted it as an improvement over Webb’s measure. Some military officials have worried the Webb bill’s would provide such an incentive for active-duty military to attend school that it would make it hard for the military to retain soldiers.

Below are some of the main bulleted points from both McCain's and Webb's proposals. First up, here's Webb's taken from this brief fact sheet:

Increased educational benefits would be available to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard. To qualify, veterans must have served at least three to thirty-six months of qualified active duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001.

The bill provides for educational benefits to be paid in amounts linked to the amount of active duty served in the military after 9/11. Generally, veterans would receive some amount of assistance proportional to their service for 36 months, which equals four academic years. Veterans would still be eligible to receive any incentive-based supplemental educational assistance from their military branch for which they qualify.

Benefits provided under the bill would allow veterans pursuing an approved program of education to receive payments covering the established charges of their program, up to the cost of the most expensive in-state public school, plus a monthly stipend equivalent to housing costs in their area. The bill would allow additional payments for tutorial assistance, as well as licensure and certification tests.

The bill would create a new program in which the government will agree to match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under S.22.

Veterans would have up to fifteen years, compared to ten years under the Montgomery G.I. Bill, after they leave active duty to use their educational assistance entitlement. Veterans would be barred from receiving concurrent assistance from this program and another similar program.

And, here's McCain's taken from his Website:

An immediate increase in education benefits for active duty personnel to $1500 a month, and to improve retention, those benefits increase to $2000 a month after 12 or more years of service.

Significantly increased benefit for members of the National Guard and Reserves.

Transferability, the ability of service members to transfer their education benefits to dependents. After 6 years, half of the benefit may be transferred and after 12 years 100% may be transferred to a spouse or dependent children.

Student loan repayment. Allows servicemembers to use up to $6,000 per year of Montgomery G.I. Bill education benefits to repay Federal student loans.

Creation of a matching program to help more veterans graduate debt-free. Up to an additional $3,000 per year could be paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs in return for the school retiring some or all of the servicemember’s debt.

Access to Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits for service academy graduates and Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps officers who continue serving.

Builds on existing educational benefits program to ensure rapid implementation with minimal additional administrative costs.

Interview: An Iraq Vet Runs for Congress

David Botti — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:57:34 GMT

Kieran Lalor is a former Marine reservist and Iraq veteran running for Congress in New York’s nineteenth district. He’s also the founder of Iraq Vets for Congress, a group of 14 Republican, pro-war vets running in districts from Maine to California.

Lalor, 32, and I spent many years together as rifleman in the same infantry company based in upstate New York. We served in Iraq (although in different platoons), and experienced the military’s transition into wartime footing after 9/11.

I spoke with Lalor about our shared military experiences, fallen comrades, his entry into politics, John McCain, and how he’s hoping to make 2008 the year of Republican war veterans elected to office. Excerpts:

SOLDIER’S HOME: When we were over there in Iraq I barely thought about the politics of it all. I had some sense of what was going, but didn’t pay to much attention to it. Was it the same for you? When did you start really thinking hard about the political aspect of the war?

LALOR: Officially my campaign began on November 25, 2007, but it really began on 9/11. One of my sisters worked in the north tower of the World Trade Center. On September 11th I was living in here in Westchester, about 40 miles from Ground Zero. I was watching TV with a year of reserve duty under my belt, so I was watching this as a U.S. Marine; watching our country get attacked, wondering if my sister was dead or alive. I just felt helpless. I didn’t ever want to feel that way again, and it just woke me up. I realized our generation had a big challenge.

I went through the 90’s and everything was hunky dory: a prosperous economy, and at least the appearance of peace. I thought we were going to have a free ride. Our parents' generation had the Cold War, our grandparents had WWII and the depression. September 11th hit and I thought, "OK, our generation has some work to do."

In Iraq I don’t think I really thought about the politics except that I just remember thinking of some of these pictures I had taken: the kids and the American flag, the kids running up to us, or hanging out by the gate [of our HQ]. If these scenes could have been brought home five years ago the impression of the war could’ve been different here. We got a lot of negative, and not a lot of positive.

It wasn’t Iraq so much as the wider War on Terror that got me to run. My passion became how do you secure a country of 300 million people, and protect civil liberties.

Did anything specific happen while we were in Iraq that’s influenced your platform, or ideas about politics?

One thing that informs my foreign policy view, and why I continue to support the war in Iraq, is how we were running patrols 24/7 out in the streets of Nasiriyah. We were being proactive. Well, the Italian [coalition forces] relieved us, and their doctrine was react to problems in the streets. And, they got hit [by a suicide bomber], and a good number of them died. I think that the Italian strategy of reacting, and staying home in the compound until something happened in the streets, was basically American foreign policy up until September 11th. On a small scale our [rifle company’s] doctrine of being proactive, and being omnipresent in the streets is what I believe is the best post-9/11 foreign policy.

I asked Lalor about Lcpl Glover, a very good friend of his who was killed in Iraq in 2006. Glover didn’t serve with us in Iraq, but he joined the unit later and volunteered for a subsequent deployment. He was killed along with another Marine from our unit during a sniper attack in Fallujah. I wrote about his funeral for a post on Veterans Day last year.

Mike Glover was one of my best friends, and in some ways I feel responsible for getting him into the Marine Corps. I really feel like we owe it to all those guys, especially Glover because I knew him so well. I don’t want him to have died in vain. That happened three years after we got back, and his death really made me more resolved. I talked to Glover’s family a little bit about that aspect, and they don’t want his death to have been in vain. I’ve also gotten calls from Gold Star Mothers and Fathers saying thanks for carrying on my son’s legacy. It takes my breath away, and I take it seriously.

I never talk about him in a political context. I’m comfortable talking about him to you because I know you. I told a story about him in a speech on Veterans Day, but I asked permission from his family to mention him. But, he kind of symbolizes all of the other guys [four marines from our unit killed in Iraq from 2004-2006]. What’s ironic is that they all volunteered, and didn’t have to go. It’s kind of eerie, but it says a lot.

Why did you form the group Iraq Vets for Congress?

To help individual campaigns. If there are veterans who vote because a guy is a fellow veteran, that individual person does that on his own. [I formed the group] because politics has become a millionaire's game. A high, high percentage of people in congress are millionaires. So, by joining forces with other veterans we’ve been able to get more national attention. We’re starting to break through nationally and what that does it raise our individual profiles. And, the biggest thing is fund raising. I have to raise more than a million dollars for this campaign. I have about a hundred thousand so far, and my opponent already has a million dollars.

Does the fact that McCain, another Republican veteran, is also running have any affect on your individual campaigns?

McCain always brings out a lot of veterans who vote. He’ll bring out a few thousand people that are veterans that don’t normally vote; that seems to be a trend. Also, because of Iraq Vets for Congress I’ve been contacted by the McCain campaign. What we offer him is 14 guys in districts where there’s no republican Congressman. There’s two guys in Ohio and two guys in Pennsylvania which are big states that you have to win. We can help him, and he can help us. Also, we try to hammer home that we want to make 2008 the year of the republican veteran. With McCain on the popular ticket, the 14 of us, some other Vietnam vets, and Gulf War vets running, that’s a theme we’re trying to build.

A lot of people paint Republicans as chicken hawks: people who cheer lead for war, but don’t want to put their lives on the line. Our campaigns dispel that myth.

Is there a danger of placing too much of your campaign’s emphasis on the fact you’re a veteran?

I don’t think that’s enough to get somebody elected, but it definitely gets peoples' attention. There has to be a balance. You have to be more than just a guy who served in Iraq.

What about the fact that you were a reservist? We were called up twice on relatively short notice, leaving behind or jobs, school, and families. What impact has that had on you?

That kind of balancing act: living in a couple of different worlds and being well-rounded, is very helpful running for Congress. I’m not completely of the military mindset, which I think is good. Being half in the military world, and half in the civilian world gives you double the amount of perspective. I can see the other side: what it does to employers, and what it’s like trying to get back into the work force for example. Sometimes I’d go into interviews and I’d feel like I was sitting in that chair because this guy wanted someone to debate the Iraq war with–even though I had no chance of getting that job.

How have people reacted on the campaign trail towards the fact that you’re a veteran?

People have been pretty good. There’s been positive feedback. I don’t think it’s enough to get elected. The Iraq war is a difficult issue for republicans, and every republican is going to have to deal with it. And somebody who’s served in Iraq can deal with it better than anybody. When I get questions about it I say, listen: I risked my life there, I lost friends there. If I thought it wasn’t making our country safer I’d be the loudest voice saying that.

Obama's Comment On Taliban Weapons

David Botti — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:25:08 GMT

Over at the IntelDump last Friday, Phil Carter was urged by his readers to examine an anecdote Barack Obama gave in the Democratic presidential debate the day before. In the military community Obama's recollection of his conversation with an Army captain about the use of captured weapons prompted curiosity, skepticism, and disbelief. As Obama said:

I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.

They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead.

What's got everyone talking is the idea that U.S. troops are so ill-equipped that they are actually using the enemy's weapons to turn around and fight the same enemy. My rifle company landed in Iraq in 2003 with hardly any M240G machine gun ammo. The rumor was additional ammo was graciously provided to the machine gunners by some Navy SEAL's. But that was when the war first started. How about now?

Carter provided a few follow-ups which sought to fact-check Obama's comments. Here's what he found out through a friend:

I talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured or found weapons or ammunition. One relayed the story of mounting a Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition requisition.

Then there was ABC News National Correspondent Jake Tapper who went straight to the Obama campaign staff seeking an interview with the Army soldier Obama referenced. The story checks out; but Tapper saw fit to elaborate:

They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."

So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Carter also pointed out this post on the National Review Online which took issue with the idea that captains were commanding rifle platoons; a job normally reserved for lieutenants. At one point I had a captain commanding my rifle platoon; so, that takes care of that, fact-check. Particularly in the Marine Corps Reserves, where officers must complete a period of active duty service before switching to reserve duty, you find hardly any Lieutenants. The result is that higher ranks are sometimes taking up lower billeted job positions.

Finally, over the weekend, the Associated Press fact-checked Obama's story. The article also mentioned that Sen. John Warner, ranking Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is seeking information about the anonymous captain and his platoon. Warner is looking to speak about the situation at the next committee meeting.

What Veterans Think of McCain

David Botti — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:20:55 GMT

As the only combat veteran among the remaining presidential candidates, John McCain has a unique relationship to the current generation of vets cycling home from the fronts in Iraq and Afghanistan. What do veterans think of McCain? Are they inclined to hold him in higher respect, or follow his candidacy with a more critical eye? Can he count on their vote, or does he need to work twice as hard to assure them his plan for Iraq is the right one?

VoteVets.org (which lists Gen. Wesley Clark on its board of advisers) has a prominent feature linked off the homepage titled "Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq." The gist of their bullet-pointed argument is that Sen. McCain's policy toward the Iraq war is too closely aligned with President Bush. Among other points, VoteVets.org maintains:

McCain echoed Bush and Cheney’s talking points that the U.S. would only be in Iraq for a short time.

McCain said winning the war would be “easy.”

Senator McCain has constantly moved the goal posts of progress for the war – repeatedly saying it would be over soon.

Senator McCain opposed efforts to end the overextension of the military that is having a devastating impact on our troops.

In January VoteVets.org chairman Jon Soltz addressed the issue of Sen. McCain's military service:

John McCain is a true war hero, and we all respect his service. I don't doubt for a second that he cares for our troops. But, every time he opens his mouth, I'm less and less convinced that he realizes how dangerous his off the cuff words would imperil our men and women in harm's way, and our national security, if he said them as President.

Earlier this month the San Jose Mercury News took a look at a group of veterans gathering at a California American Legion hall to cheer on Sen. McCain. Doug McNea, a 60-year-old Navy veteran, told the paper he admires the connection Sen. McCain can make with veterans of all wars:

Having spent time in the military gives you a better appreciation and more respect for people serving in the military," said Doug McNea, a 60-year-old Navy veteran about McCain, who would ultimately win the California primary. "It gives you a better understanding of the sacrifices that veterans make and the long periods of family separation.

Stories of veterans connecting with McCain are all over the local papers as they poll vets at VFW and American Legion halls across the country. Mark Hemingway of the National Review Online took a look at McCain's relationship with veterans on the even of the Michigan primary. Hemingway argued that as a historically tough voting bloc to pin down, veterans may prove useful to McCain. Citing the traditional blocs of female, minority, and evangelical voters, Hemingway looks to see how veterans fit in to the vote-gathering scheme. McCain spoke frankly to Hemingway on this issue:

“I think longtime observers will probably tell you that it’s hard to mobilize the veteran voting bloc. I think it might be different this time because of the obvious difficulties with the Veterans Administration health-care system. In all my elections, I’ve had strong support from veterans, but the percentage of their voter turnout has been on par with the rest of the population,” McCain said. “Today, I think veterans are more motivated because of the wars we’re in and the strains on the veterans system. I see more engagement, and frankly, from a selfish point of view, I hope that means we see greater veteran turnout.”

Air America interviewed IAVA Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff last week on McCain's recent vote against extended Army interrogation standards to the FBI and CIA. His words show that despite tremendous respect most people have for McCain, he is not infallible in veterans' eye:

John McCain voted against it. And I think that’s a critical vote. If he is against torture and I was hoping we were going to have two candidates who were against torture across the board, this was a vote that may come back to hunt him; this is a really troubling vote. I mean, I’ve been talking with some veterans in the last couple of hours and I can’t tell you how disappointed they were to see that McCain voted in this direction.

For a great look at how McCain's military service has shaped his career, take a look at NEWSWEEK's recent cover story.

"Re-Upping"

David Botti — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 19:05:31 GMT

Both the Army National Guard and the Marine Corps had recruitment ads before the previews at the movie I saw this weekend. The National Guard ad in part depicted post-Katrina-esque scenarios where guardsmen went to the aid of civilians. The filming was sweeping and highly dramatized. The Marine Corps ad offered not so much long scenes, but quick clips of intensity as infantry stormed houses and drill instructors marched recruits. They were both obvious sales pitches. The mere fact you could see two military recruitment ads before a Sunday matinée gave a nice little reminder of what kind of times we're living in.

It did another thing. It made me feel for a fleeting moment like I had to get the hell out of there and reenlist.

Recently my good Marine friend thought about doing just that. On inactive reserve, he signed back up to rejoin our old unit for one very specific reason: the scuttlebutt says they'll be heading back to Iraq soon, and he wanted to be with them. The unit was both of ours for six years. We were mobilized with its Marines and still feel the pull of bonds we'd cemented there.

He arrived to find just a handful of Marines left whom we'd known in the old days. They all asked the same thing: why the heck are you here? They told him he had a good thing going in civilian life, and that'd he done his time in the Corps and with the unit. Even the officers thanked him for offering to return, but said it wouldn't be the best thing for him to do. So, that was it. He left the headquarters never to return. Still, it was only by going to see these Marines face-to-face that he could be sure that chapter in his life was over.

I'm certain most of the Marines I've known have contemplated "re-upping" at one time or another. Each man has his own personal reasons why he did or didn't go through with it. I've also seen the same phrase uttered over and over again by friends and family trying to dissuade their Marine from going back to war: "you did your time." That one phrase can grate at your own thoughts already conflicted over having to make such a difficult decision. But it wasn't until my friend was told he'd done his time by Marines themselves it suddenly became valid.

With a war still on it's difficult to think that you will never wear a uniform again--even if you have no real intention of ever doing so. Even seeing over-dramatized recruitment ads in a movie theater can make you feel guilty for sitting there instead of in a patrol base. I've often wondered if veterans of wars long since gone feel the same way. My father, a Korean War veteran of the Air Force, still insists he'd strap himself into a fighter jet if they'd let him. How much do they see of themselves in the young veterans coming home, and what have they learned since their own homecoming that today's vets don't know?

In the end there's nothing much one can do except offer support, look at old pictures, and tell war stories with your friends--and think with faint jealousy of that young image of yourself, pulling up to the gates of boot camp totally scared sh*tless.

Article on Veterans Committing Murder Stirs Debate

David Botti — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 21:18:15 GMT

Over the weekend the New York Times published an in-depth look at murders committed by current war veterans in the United States. In what the article called a "quiet phenomenon" many of these crimes were said to be in part the result of emotional trauma caused by the veterans' wartime experiences. Through it's investigation the Times reported 121 confirmed murders committed by veterans, while also saying there were probably more. There's no central database that keeps track of such figures.

Here are some of the major facts presented by the Times:

-Three quarters of the 121 cases studied by the Times involved the veterans committing murder while still in the military.
-More than half of the killings involved guns.
-About one third of the victims were "spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives."
-About one quarter of the victims were fellow service members.
-Murders committed by active-duty military personnel rose 89 percent from the pre-war period to present day (184 cases to 349) - three quarters of these cases involved Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
-13 of the 121 veterans committed suicide after committing the murders.
-Of the 121 veterans only one was a woman.

The article approaches its statistical findings as thus:

Clearly, committing homicide is an extreme manifestation of dysfunction for returning veterans, many of whom struggle in quieter ways, with crumbling marriages, mounting debt, deepening alcohol dependence or more-minor tangles with the law.

But these killings provide a kind of echo sounding for the profound depths to which some veterans have fallen, whether at the bottom of a downward spiral or in a sudden burst of violence.

In the short amount of time since the article was published there's been a strong backlash against the paper, citing worry that it perpetuated the stigma of veterans returning home as crazed and unstable. The first criticisms of the paper's investigation seemed to come from the article itself, as it quoted the Pentagon's reaction to the reporters' findings:

The Pentagon was given The Times’s roster of homicides. It declined to comment because, a spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, said, the Department of Defense could not duplicate the newspaper’s research. Further, Colonel Melnyk questioned the validity of comparing prewar and wartime numbers based on news media reports, saying that the current increase might be explained by “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.” He also questioned the value of “lumping together different crimes such as involuntary manslaughter with first-degree homicide.”

Many online criticisms of the article are pointing to this post by Phillip Carter at Intel Dump:

...I worry about the larger narrative of this story. It seems like we've been down this road before — casting veterans in the role of crazed, violent, disturbed young men who come home from war to become homeless or criminal (or both). America needs to wrap its arms around its sons and daughters who go to war, not alienate them and push them away with this kind of narrative. We sent these men and women to fight; we have a sacred trust to ensure they're taken care of when they come home. Irresponsible journalism like this impedes that effort by giving people the wrong impression about combat veterans.

In counterpoint to such criticisms Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org characterized the Times article as "stunning" and "well researched." Writing for the Huffington Post he used the article as a launching pad for highlighting the continued issue of PTSD among veterans. He expressed no concern over any negative characterizations of returning vets:

The trend of our newest veterans being involved in killings on the homefront can be largely attributed to four letters -- PTSD. Our failure to properly screen for and treat this mental injury is the source of so many problems our newest veterans face -- from drug and alcohol abuse, to homelessness, to joblessness, to spousal abuse, to suicide, and now, to murders.

At the military blog Blackfive one reader's email to the website described the experience of greeting vets returning from overseas shortly before the Times article was published:

Our men and women came home last night to a happy, welcoming crowd, who were more than pleased to see them and thank them for their service to our beloved country. And this morning, those same men and women will see a local paper with a prominent headline implying they are murdering criminals let loose in our society.

Is the New York Times guilty of cursory reporting, or does the article simply highlight a truth that's hard to swallow? It's clear many veterans (at least those with an online presence) are outraged, but for others it's yet another wake up call that the war is never simply left on the battlefield for returning vets. One thing is certain: the dialog over this article has already gone way past the actual focus of murder to now include the very way veterans are seen in our society.

Meet the New Generation of War Veterans

David Botti — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 17:56:57 GMT

From Newsweek's Dec. 31, 2007-Jan. 7, 2008 issue:

I grew up in an era when war veterans were the aging men at Memorial Day parades wearing triangular hats. It never crossed my mind that a vet might someday be a kid like me. If it had never crossed yours, either, this year probably changed all that. At my graduate school in New York, I can count at least five classmates who know an Iraq War veteran firsthand—and that's just one class, in one school. More than 1 million veterans have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, lifting our collective profile by the sheer weight of our numbers.

During the past year, veterans' issues were all over the media—and often the news was grim. In February the Walter Reed hospital scandal broke, with revelations about decrepit housing and substandard care. Next came a series of reports on Iraq War data: we learned that the Army suicide rate had reached a 26-year high in 2006; that there'd been 4,698 desertions during the 2007 fiscal year, an 80 percent increase since 2003; that the number of Iraq vets diagnosed with mental-health issues triples during their first six months at home. I followed these stories with a strange sense of relief. For too long, people seemed to think veterans came home and simply melted back into society. Now vet issues were finally getting attention—even if it took bad news to make it happen.

When I started my blog this year, I wondered if there would be enough news about veterans to get me through one day. I couldn't have been more wrong. There we were in the rhetoric of politicians, in countless newspaper features, even on reality TV. For the blog, I've made an effort to examine not only the challenges that my fellow veterans face but also their accomplishments. As one Wall Street Journal columnist wrote, "The media struggles in good faith to respect our troops, but too often it merely pities them."

Stories like the Walter Reed scandal can invite this kind of pity and overshadow the fact that most of us are immensely proud of our service. A single tour in Iraq or Afghanistan can define a person's entire life; collectively, our experiences will echo for decades. If 2007 was the year when veterans' issues entered the public's consciousness, we need to make sure they don't go away in 2008.

Thoughts of Marines from Iraq War's Beginning

David Botti — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:02:59 GMT

During my deployment to Iraq in 2003 I kept a journal thinking someday, when I'm old and gray, I'd want to remember how things were back in the summer of '03. One section of this journal was comprised of interviews I did with Marines in my platoon over a period of two days. We'd been in Iraq less than three weeks, and so far had not moved from our initial position guarding a bridge in the middle of nowhere.

The interviews were not done for any journalistic purpose, but simply to get a sense of what other people in my platoon were thinking. I've posted excerpts below. One thing to keep in mind as you read them is the diversity of answers. Some of them may sound crass, but that's just the kind of black humor that gets you though the day. Also remember that at the time the war was less than a month old:

Interviews taken April 16th – 18th, 2003

How has your opinion of the war changed?

-“At first I didn’t give a sh*t, but now I’m glad, I like giving little kids tootsie rolls.”
-“At first I thought it was good because there was viable cause with weapons of mass destruction. Now I think it’s a farce because they’re aren’t any and if there are they’ve been brought in by the Americans. Anyone with shiny things on their collars [officers] is an idiot.”
-“I always wanted to come over and kick ass, glad we did it this time.”
-“Before I wasn’t sure how Iraqi civilians felt about us coming, how they felt, if they actually wanted us to fix their country. If it was really an Iraqi freedom operation. Now I think they’re happy, they’re friendly, they’re glad to see us (except the six we just captured). It’s a rich oil country, but people live Third World, no shoes.”
-“First the constant is that the U.S. has it’s own ideas on capitalizing from this. But I feel better being here now, because we are here, but it’s worth it that we’re helping these people. The U.S. is a bunch of pigs because it’s for oil–not humanitarian, but the people will be helped.”
-“I didn’t think we’d face as little resistance as we did from hard core Islamics, because we’re a non-Arab army in an Arab’s country. War becomes more legitimate with each person I see every day.”
-“First our intentions were not to help these people, so not entirely. But a little good has come out of it, but who knows what kind of mess this will lead to.”
-“War is not what it seems to be on TV, only a few exciting seconds are shown. I still think it’s good for why we’re here.”
-“Since the beginning I wanted to help people. My understanding of war has changed, it’s a messy business. America promised too much, Iraqis had basic needs under Saddam. They’re starting to wonder how America is going to end up here.”

Have you thought about September 11th since you’ve been here?

-“I think we’d still be here even if 9/11 hadn’t occurred.”
-“No, I look at my watch twice a day at 9:11, that’s the only context.”
-“We’ve all moved on from that.”
-“Last night. I’m trying to relate it to here. I want people I know living in New York City to live and not have to worry about things.”
-“No, surprisingly I don’t think I have.”
-“Yes, since then our country has taken on a different stance in dealing with the world. That’s part of what we’re doing, not just freeing Iraq, fighting terrorism. The world wouldn’t be where it was today.”
-“In the beginning. Now I have no time to think about that sh*t.”
-“I wonder if Saddam had anything to do with it.”
-“No, not really. Now that you mention it, I’m surprised I haven’t.”
-“Every day. A family friend, a firefighter, was lost. This was my first experience of America being attacked.”
-“All the time. It began this odyssey. Personally it was the start of a long journey to this point. It will never be over in full, but my own contribution to my country will have been resolved, so I can move forward. This is closing the chapter on the journey. Time to move on to a new phase.”

If you could speak to the Iraqi people on television, what would you say?

-“I have a ten inch c*ck – just kidding. I’d say Saddam is gone, but the job is not done. Make sure you help us get you a new government, so we can get out. Never become as cowardly as suicide bombers.”
-“You owe us.”
-“That’s all you had?”
-“Look forward to a brighter future.”
-“If you’re happy we’re here, good. If not, we’ve won, f*ck you, we did it fast. Your country sucks d*ck and I don’t know why you stay here.”
-“Bring me meat and bread.”
-“I’d thank the people for their cooperation. I’m glad they’re free.”
-“You’re welcome.”
-“We’ve given you a chance to unf*ck yourselves, don’t f*ck up, take full advantage. Tolerance is key.”
-“I’d advise them there is a lot in this world they’ve never know, and to be open to this. We’re giving you a chance to see something beyond what you’ve known before.”
-“Patience, Patience. There is no magical stick to change everything. You need to do things yourselves, Americans won’t do everything.”
-“Thank you for tearing us away from our loving families to live in your miserable country.”
-“I hope we actually helped them. Everything done was done for their good. I’m sorry if they had to suffer at all.”
-“Now it’s up to you guys.”
-“Freedom to live the life you want is the greatest freedom you can have.”
-“Now we’re here to help, we mean no harm. Take precaution on how you approach us, we’re still alert. Please cooperate and obey the laws.”

How do you think you will look back on this in forty years?

-“Talking to the grandkids–it’s nothing, not a big deal. There’s more reaction to things now, not in the future.”
-“In forty years America’s power and influence won’t be as strong. Our mideast expansion is the beginning of us overextending.”
-“I’d just miss everybody. You don’t have friends like this at home, or anywhere.”
-“I won’t.”
-“I’m trying to appreciate what we’re doing. I feel proud, I’m proud now.”
-“I’d be proud I did something productive.”
-“If I hadn’t come here I would have been frustrated. I’m glad I was here no matter what we end up doing.”
-“I hope to forget, but probably never will.”
-“Everything was worth it–stopping our lives for a second time and making sacrifices.”
-“I really have no idea. I probably won’t talk about it. People wouldn’t understand. Only if someone was there would I talk about it.”
-“It characterized the youth of my life. It formed the foundation for the rest of my life. Friends here will know you better than anyone. This is life.”

What would you do back home if people are still protesting the war? / If they did so to your face?

-“I wouldn’t care. / I’d punch them, then kick them when they’re down.”

-“They have every right to. / I’d walk right by them.”

-“I think they’re stupid. / I’d punch them, I’d be so angry I couldn’t even speak. They haven’t earned the right to protest, not until they serve their country. Civilian couch potatoes don’t know their d*ck from their ass.”

-“They do it because some have nothing better to do, to do something. They have no idea what it’s all about. / I’d say that’s your opinion, but I don’t agree and I’m not going to discuss it with you because you weren’t part of it.”

-“It’s good. It’s America. Some people do it because it’s the hip thing. People think it’s cool to be anti-something, but not anti-troops, that’s bad. Before being here I’d be more easily swayed into protesting. It’s still for oil, but I’ve become more for it. If we leave without capitalizing on oil, I think that would be great. / Hey, whatever. I’d have the same conversation we’re having right now.”

-“Every American is entitled to opinion, go for it, but I don’t agree with it. I hope the news shows it as we’re seeing it. After people see how it is right now, there should be no more protests. If they’re protesting they’re just hypocrites. / If you protest you protest the soldiers, and that’s wrong, they don’t make policy. Soldiers will fight when you hate the cause and when you love the cause.”

-“Protesters are naïve. Their agendas are not as benevolent or pro-Iraqi as they might seem. They’re all under the Iraqi banner but using the war for their own agendas. / I might be personally angry but would try to educate them that I’m a professional soldier, that’s my job.”

-“They have every right. I don’t agree with a lot of it. You can protest anything, that’s what’s great about our country. / I’d just keep walking.”

-“If they were here and saw the people here with nothing and smiles when they see us, they would change their views real fast. They protest just to argue. / I’d go nuts on them. I would love to hear their reason, then show them a video of Iraqi people and then see what they would say.”

-“They have a right to, but a lot don’t know all the facts. They haven’t been to Iraq like we have, but they have a right to do and say what they want, which is why we’re the most powerful nation. I just hope they don’t call us baby killers. / Depends. If they were hostile I’d punch them. If they were decent, I’d try to talk to them about what they saw.”

-“They don’t have a f*cking clue what’s going on. Cowards. They’re over privileged kids directing their own ideas against this. They can afford to go against their government. / I’d honor their right. If they made accusations against me, things would get heated. I’d ask them to back up what they say.”

-“I like them, they’re the ones who care about the troops.”

Attending a Veteran’s Funeral

David Botti — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:25:47 GMT

Photo: Seth Wenig/AP

When I heard Captain McKenna was going to lead a platoon of volunteers from my old reserve rifle company who were heading to Iraq, I was relieved. He’d take care of them. He was an enlisted man’s officer. He was pure and simple a decent person, and a respected leader.

He was killed on Aug. 16, 2006-shot by a sniper near Fallujah as he went to rescue a wounded Marine, Lance Corporal Glover, who also died that day. Their funerals both took place in New York City within the same week.

I often wish that every American could attend at least one funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are one of only a few occasions when military and civilian rituals can come together as one. They are the proud and largely unknown moments of American history. Since 9/11, they’ve taken place more than 4,000 times.

The first Marine I recognized as I arrived at Capt. McKenna’s funeral was the first sergeant in charge of my rifle company when we deployed to Iraq in 2003. He returned there in 2005 and was wounded twice, first by a roadside bomb then in a mortar attack. Despite his injuries it was clear he was in charge.

Senior Marines coordinated the funeral detail with unparalleled intensity. Now was not the time to have something go wrong. Again and again they walked the rows of Marines lining the church steps, making sure they knew when to salute and when to stand at attention, and ensuring that each man’s uniform was worn properly.

A silence fell outside the Immaculate Heart of Mary church, as the Marines were suddenly called to attention in anticipation of the approaching hearse. Bagpipes sounded like distant chirping from blocks away. The parents and family arrived. Some had composed themselves and walked tall and stoic past the assembled and into the church. Others held handkerchiefs to their faces, clutching each others’ shoulders for support, shuffling up the stairs as if they couldn’t see what was before them.

The officers, who for years led us with barely a flicker of personal emotion, appeared worn and somber. Capt. McKenna was one of their own. Some bowed their heads as their eyes turned red.

I don’t know why, but I can’t remember much of the funeral mass. I guess my mind was drifting too much. It seemed in the course of several minutes my thoughts ranged from the absolute pride of being a Marine and being associated with such men to the darkest guilt of not being there with them when Capt. McKenna and Lcpl. Glover died.

As I stood at the back of the church as the mass ended, I saw my old company commander walking down the aisle. He was the officer who’d led my company in Iraq. We caught each others’ eyes. His right hand held the arm of his wife; my right hand held a funeral program moist and buckling from sweat. We awkwardly grasped each others’ left hands and shook. No words were exchanged, and it seemed we were both startled to see each other. It was years ago that we’d served together, when the war was still new and thought to end soon. That was such a long time ago, and innocence had been lost over and over again since.

I remembered the first time I met him, in the tranquil summer of 2001, during an easy two-week training mission to Ukraine. I remembered him holding our rifle company together during the frustrating year of 2002, when we were mobilized in response to 9/11 and kept stateside. I remembered him standing atop a Humvee in 2003, commanding us as we faced down our first group of Iraqi protesters lobbing bricks at our lines. I remembered seeing him at the Marine Corps birthday ball in 2004 and learning he’d be going back to Iraq soon. His battalion would lose 48 Marines on that deployment.

Now in Brooklyn, in 2006, we still weren’t able to leave it all behind us.

A few days later the funeral for Lcpl. Glover was held in Rockaway Beach, Queens, a quiet middle-class neighborhood on the south shore of Long Island. I put on my good suit and got ready to meet the war face to face once again.

In the church parking lot we former Marines gathered together and fell back into the old ways, as if we’d been sitting on our HQ’s roof watching the sun set over the Euphrates River. We rehashed old war stories, we bummed cigarettes, we busted chops, we told familiar jokes.

This little reunion of ours felt good. Really good. This was one of the few times we’d been together since coming home from Iraq three years earlier. Suddenly we didn’t have to explain ourselves to anyone who wasn’t a Marine.

Lcpl. Glover’s funeral drew an assortment of his closest friends and complete strangers. Seeing his flag-draped casket, carried with meticulous movements by Marines, is one of the saddest and proudest moments I’ve ever witnessed.

At the cemetery I saw members of Glover’s old machine-gun squad from before he deployed. They’d lost all the sarcasm and the sh-t-eating grins I remembered from the last time I saw them, a year earlier. Their eyes were red. They stood close to each other. They didn’t seem to know what to do with themselves. They just stared, looking at nothing in particular.

The service had, unfortunately, become familiar. I braced myself for the playing of taps by the bugle and the folding of the flag before Lcpl. Glover’s parents. I watched people around me flinch as the rifle salutes cracked and faded over the quiet cemetery. Once the ceremony was over, there wasn’t much we could do. We said our goodbyes, to Glover and to each other, and went back to being civilians again.

Later that day three of us ate at a restaurant near the Brooklyn Bridge and reminisced about old times. If anything good had come out of our experiences from the preceding days, it was to remind us how much we still needed to rely on each other-even though we no longer carried our rifles.

I wished those Marines still in Iraq had been present to see Capt. McKenna and Lcpl. Glover celebrated and laid to rest. But of course they couldn’t be. It would be another two months before they left Fallujah to come home.

Often it feels surreal that those Marines I once knew in the mundane moments of everyday military life were suddenly lifted to the highest possible place in American lore, and will forever be remembered as “the fallen.”

I don’t even know what I’ll do when someday I have to face their names on a wall.

A West Point Graduate on His Fifth Reunion

David Botti — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:29:46 GMT

A West Point graduate and two-tour Iraq veteran, Matt Mabe recently returned to the military academy for his fifth-year reunion. He left the Army as a Captain, and served as a combat engineer during his Iraq deployments. Matt and I are classmates in graduate school, and I recently interviewed him about his emotional return to West Point. Excerpts:

S.H.: You served two tours in Iraq since graduating from West Point. What was it like to return to your alma mater as a combat veteran?

Matt Mabe: It’s funny. When I was a cadet, I would look at graduates returning for their reunions as people who had triumphed in life. Some still wore the uniform. Others had left the Army to pursue careers in civilian life. They all carried an air of accomplishment. They all seemed to have won the lottery of life.

I always fantasized about returning one day as one of those content, successful, confident graduates I admired. And when I finally did make it back, I guess I played the part.

It was Homecoming weekend. There was a tour and a parade. There were barbecues and a football game. There were thousands of cadets enjoying one day of respite in a punishing four-year experience. It was novel and pleasant.

But, deep down, I felt empty. I began to think about those of my classmates who could not be there to share the experience with those of us who could.

I thought of Todd Bryant, who was killed by a roadside bomb outside Fallujah on Halloween Day 2003 after only a few weeks on the ground. He had been married for two months.

I thought of Jim Gurbisz, who suffered the same fate in Baghdad in November 2005. He was honored with a burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

I thought of Drew Jensen, who was shot in the neck by a sniper in Baqubah in May, paralyzing him from the neck down. He had been trying to save one of his soldiers who was pinned behind a Humvee after a bomb explosion. Last month, Drew asked his wife and mother to take him off life support. Before having his final wish granted, he donated $10,000 to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to establish a fund to help families cover expenses while visiting their wounded loved ones.

I thought about the values that the academy imbued in all of us over four grueling years. Things like Loyalty, Selfless Service, Honor.

I felt proud to have once walked the same halls as these men. It comforted me to think that their souls will always dwell among those hallowed grounds.

I am haunted by the sacrifices that thousands of Americans like them have made. The faces of the cadets I saw at my reunion reminded me of the innocence they will soon lose when they, too, are thrown against the guns.

And my heart broke for my country.

What are your last memories of West Point as a cadet?

My last and most vivid memories of West Point are of my graduation in June 2002, and not just because it’s how I spent my last day there. The morning was hot, bright, and perfect. It was the culmination of four anxious years spent in intense training and labored study.

Graduating cadets had put more effort into polishing their brass breastplates and hat crests, pressing their white belts, and shining their shoes than they had in all four years before.

We were the bicentennial class. Accordingly, a great deal of preparation had gone into the week-long ceremonies. VIPs, old graduates and media had descended on the place to be a part of it, to remember it and to record it. I felt privileged just to be present.

President Bush was the keynote speaker. He delivered what is now considered to be his second in a series of speeches to the American public that would make the case for war, the first being his post-9/11 State of the Union Address.

After the speech, I lined up in the queue to receive my diploma and my shiny new lieutenant’s bars. I was so nervous that I didn’t even hear my name called. I had to be prompted to walk up the ramp and salute the superintendent.

Then, diploma in hand, I walked a few steps further to stand face to face with the commander-in-chief. He shook my hand.

Cadets spend their entire time at West Point dreaming of the emblematic moment when they can “see the academy in the rearview mirror.” Driving away with my parents and my sister that day, I know I must have turned around and taken one last look at those fabled, formidable gates. But I don’t remember it.

All that resonates from that day is what President Bush said to me when I stood before him on the graduation platform.

“Take care of those soldiers, son,” the president told me.

I said that I would.

What part of your reunion brought about the strongest emotions?

I am not a sports fan. I never have been. But the most moving part of my reunion occurred in the stands watching Army’s Homecoming football game against Tulane.

The sight of a sea of cadets in their crisp white summer uniforms assembled in support of an often beleaguered team reminded me of the camaraderie I once enjoyed. It made me miss the Saturdays in the fall when I could let out all the frustrations of an exhausting week with my buddies in the stadium. That phenomenon at West Point has clearly not changed.

And I may not have even noticed the significance of the current cadets’ raucous gathering had it not been for the perspective of the woman I brought as my date.

She said it was refreshing to know there is still a place that exists where young people embody values that many Americans seem to have forgotten.

It made me think that what the cadets today face after graduation is immensely more harrowing than what my classmates and I ever imagined our service would entail. When the towers came down in New York, cadets in my class were already locked in to our Army commitments. Before that, all we knew was that we would be joining a “peacetime Army.” Had any of us wanted out after September 11, it would have been tough luck. (To my knowledge, none of us did.)

It is one thing to have to go to war. It is quite another to volunteer for it.

The young men and women today who decide to enter the ranks do so with the certainty that they will, and I am humbled by their courage.

Coming together for the first time in five years, how much did you and your classmates talk about Iraq?

None. I think that we were all sick of talking about it. I mean we all have our war stories. What I needed was a vacation from the reality that the Iraq tragedy has created.

My conversations with classmates centered around our time as cadets. We laughed a lot about our misfortunes as plebes and our antics as upperclassmen. We recalled the miseries of merciless winters. The inconveniences of daily discipline at the academy, which seemed trivial after graduation, became important again.

For me, West Point is a magical place. It exists in a fairytale setting, tucked away in the hills along the Hudson River. Its ramparts dominate the twist in the river where General Washington’s Continental Army was once garrisoned.

The timelessness of the academy almost makes one forget that there is a world outside.

My classmates and I talked for hours about lots of things: our young years, new families, aspirations for the future. But Iraq did not come up. And for that day, it was fine with me.

Interview: Ken Burns on WWII Vets [Part 1]

David Botti — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:06:33 GMT

Last month filmmaker Ken Burns debuted his seven-part World War II documentary on PBS, "The War," an epic chronicle of combat and home front experiences. I spoke with him this week at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism about working with veterans during the six years of production on the film. Today’s is the first post in a multi-part series. Excerpts:

S.H.: For The Veterans History Project you gave advice to regular people interviewing veterans in their own families. You talked about establishing a “comfort zone” for the interview. How did you do this with vets you interviewed for The War?

BURNS: What we look for at the essence of an interview is free exchange. We aren’t investigative journalists. We aren’t there with their tax returns for the last ten years grilling them. This dynamic is most critical when you’re interviewing veterans, because quite often you’re dealing with people who have, understandably, locked away horrific things that they’ve seen, and horrific things that they’ve done–and people they’ve had close to them that they’ve lost.

You have to be respectful and mindful of the fact that they may not get there. That they may not reveal that. And there’s no amount of trickery or cajolery worth it to try to do that.

So, what we look for is to film them in a comfortable situation. To do so in places where they feel comfortable, to be non-threatening, but to also pursue questions, and not just have a rigorous set of questions, so that you might miss following up on something that was quite meaningful.

A particular veteran [Quentin Aanenson] in our films said “I loved airplane flying when I was a kid, that’s where I want to go–that’s where I want to be sometime.” But if you watch his eye crinkles you know that’s not where he wanted to be. That what he saw when he eventually became a pilot was so horrible. And so we moved–we just tested him, and he gave up stuff his wife had never heard, his children had never heard before. Maybe I missed lots of stuff he would’ve told me.

I was with him in a public discussion a year after we finished the film, and he told us something he had never said on film: that he’s lived outside of Washington D.C. for the last 50 years, and every time he and his son went to a Washington Redskins football game, as he was singing "The Star-Spangled Banner," he went through all the friends that he lost in the war. He never told his son, never told anyone else, and as he began to tear up in an audience of his sons and all the other people, you began to realize that you were present once again at the very thing you hope to have, not just with veterans but with anybody.

Particularly with veterans because they are getting at the dynamic of combat and a war–the most exaggerated state that human beings get. Not something that’s distant, but something that’s present.

This is a guy who wakes up most every night from nightmares, from the Second World War, done for him for 60 years, with his hands in a palsy, in a shake because he’s remembering the time when he caught some Germans out in the open and was cutting human beings in half with his 50mm machine guns off his Thunderbolt [fighter plane].

He still has this. His wife always reads him as he comes into the kitchen, and will sometimes hand the cup of coffee to the other hand.

Sometimes I found with a veteran [Paul Fussell], a man who’s actually written about war, and is known as kind of a well-spoken and avuncular chronicler of the human experience of war–I found myself saying, 'I’m not interested in that.'

I’m interested in you as a 19-year-old lieutenant on the line whose average life expectancy was 17 days, and you didn’t take a shower, or brush your teeth, or change your clothes in six months. And you outlived those odds until you were severely wounded, and they moved you to the head of the line, and patched you up for the invasion of Japan which fortunately did not happen otherwise you would’ve gone mad.

I just said to him at some point early on “you saw bad things.” And the chin, almost like a little boy, started to quake. The eyes started to crinkle up, and for the next several reels of film he gave us priceless access to that 19-year-old–who is as present in his own memories as he is today at 80-years-old.

That’s what we were after in the film. It required a kind of direct unmediated contact with people and their now recently expressed, or just expressed, memories.

[Part 2] [Part 3]

Words of Fear from a Translator's Emails

David Botti — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 15:35:34 GMT

I wait for emails from my former Iraqi translator to appear in my Inbox—too long a wait, and I assume he’s dead. I fear mentioning any part of his name that might identify him to the wrong people.

Sitting on the steps of my platoon’s HQ in southern Iraq some time in 2003, I asked our translator what he had done while his city was being bombed by Americans during the invasion.

He started into an impassioned 5-minute monologue. A 20-year-old student, he told of how Saddam’s Fedayeen guerrillas tried to recruit his university’s English class to defend the city as Marines closed in. He described days of remaining in his home as the fighting began, the fervent praying in a cramped room with his sister’s annoying children.

In subsequent conversations he would speak of life under Saddam’s regime, the murder of his anti-government uncle and the torture of a friend whose fingernails had been ripped out after emailing the United States.

He still tells stories.

In November 2003 he wrote to my unit (then recently returned from Iraq) about the bombing of our former HQ, where he was working with Italian soldiers.

"im okky my friend god help me from this explosion i was in petrol with my friend italian it was every thing horrible thanks for god because he saved me"

He wrote that he feared being killed and how he hated Iraq and wanted to leave it.

"just tell me what ican do if when i walk in the street one day terrerist man will kill me in front of all people in the markit or in any where."

Another email, sent on April 10, 2004:

".im so angry from the situation here ,i think if the situation stay in the next dayes the same ill leave my job.i ask my god to stay with us to bless our life and i hope for my iraq the good futre for the good people not the bad .any way i hope my brother from god this message not the last message for me if my god safe my life and i dont be in grave"

At Christmas later that year he seemed to be more at ease:

"dont worry about me ,im so brave no body from the followers of al zargawy or osama ben laden will hurt me because i have the heart of marines ."

Then this past year, after months of not emailing, I contacted, him confident the situation in southern Iraq was calm enough for him not to worry. He quickly set me straight:

"i heared that the (JAM)Al sader army in the next stage will threat the interpreters and i afraid that you will not hear any news about yourbrother in iraq again i hope this news uncorrect because my familly said to me you have to leave this jop as soon as you can because it's too dangerous for you"

I try to keep his spirits up. I ask him about his family, and tell him what I've been up to. But how much can I really write? How can I write against the extremely real prospect of death from my comfortable apartment in New York City?

A Word on This Blog's Title

David Botti — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:40:49 GMT

I’ve named this blog after a story Ernest Hemingway published in his 1925 short story collection, “In Our Time,” about the experiences of Harold Krebs, a young Marine returning to Kansas after fighting in World War One.

Krebs sleeps late every day, and passes time in his parents’ house, sometimes strolling through town or watching from his porch as the neighborhood girls walk by. He lies about his military experiences because people in town are sick of hearing about the war. He’s terse with his mother who prods him with questions about his future. He lacks ambition, drive, and an overall desire to interact with the rest of society. He reads history books about the battles he’s just fought. He compares life on the home front with the military life he’s just left.

The specifics of Krebs’ post-war experience are not necessarily the same for those veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, but Hemingway’s overarching portrayal of a brand new veteran’s feelings of displacement back in his hometown is a common theme I’ve heard among fellow veterans of my own generation.

As an infantryman in the Marine Corps Reserve, I left Iraq in late July 2003, among the first waves of Iraq veterans to return home. I moved to New York City where the city’s daily life seemed to proceed unfazed by the four-month-old war. Others in my unit returned to their homes throughout New York State and beyond. Some deployed again to Iraq, others refused to even consider doing so.

I first read “Soldier’s Home” around 1999 for a college English class and didn’t think much of it. When I read it again after returning from Iraq, I felt relief that I wasn’t alone in feeling numb, depressed, and ambivalent about my future as a civilian. Hemingway, himself a war veteran, showed that at its core a soldier’s experience of coming home is similar throughout all generations.

Each war, however, brings its own sets of circumstances. Current issues such as veterans care, troop rotations, PTSD, and family hardship are among those which not only affect those involved, but the mood of the overall country as well. And then there are the private stories of the lone veteran who is one day in Iraq, and the next day back home away from his or her comrades – the only people with the shared experience of deployment.

New veterans are still being made every day the moment they board a homeward bound plane from Iraq, Kuwait, or Afghanistan. They will play an important part in American society for decades to come.

The purpose of this blog is to give the public a better glimpse of what life is like for that neighbor, or friend of a friend, or soldier interviewed on TV. If this blog can get readers talking, and even just a little more aware of the veterans around them, then it is most certainly doing its job.