Stars, Stripes and Suicides

Blackwater - Xe - Academi

via Fuck Conservatives

At the end of the video, Cenk mentions something fascinating. We're supposedly out of Iraq now, except for 17,000 "private contractors."

Super Con Artist Comes Back from the Dead

Over the last couple years I was wondering where she was while Bush and Cheney were appearing in the news. I can't believe how softly Jon Stewart treated her.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Bush on bin Laden and on 9/11

USA Today published a wonderful article about how former-President Bush remembers the events of 10 years ago.

Asked if he believes those polices — including the USA Patriot Act, which widened government access to Americans' communications and records — prevented another attack, he said, "Yes, I do."

"Some of the tactics could have been different" in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was deposed, Bush said in an interview with USA TODAY. "Same with Afghanistan, same with the terrorist surveillance program" that eavesdropped on suspected terrorists' international communications.

So, the Patriot Act was good but the wars could have been handled differently?  It almost seems like he's  hedging on the invasion of Iraq, but quickly goes back to his old standard.

Still, he said, objective historians will conclude his policies "were necessary in order to protect the country."

The most discouraging thing for me is that Rick Perry seems to be pulling ahead in the GOP race for the nomination. I see Perry as another Bush, maybe a smarter and even more dangerous one.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Former Congressman Bob Ney on the Iraq War

Nay is one of the guys implicated in the Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal, yet concerning 9/11 he seems to speak the truth. What do you think?  Does a politician who's been bought on one deal have no credibility when speaking on another? I don't think so, not necessarily.

Being out of politics, he's free to speak the truth without the consequences his former colleagues pay for doing so.  This is still a polarizing issue.  Speaking out against Bush and Cheney puts one at odds with certain groups, still.

When Joe Wilson spoke about the former administration, he was a bit more forthcoming. He pulled no punches in describing Cheney as the force behind the whole thing.  Former Congressman Ney said basically the same thing, that Cheney was the "instigator" and the he "pushed for it," but then he said: "Bush night have done it, but Cheney was surely there being the cheerleader."

I had the feeling he misspoke and didn't really intend to soften it up that much.

What's your opinion?  What do folks in the military think? What do discharged veterans think about all this.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Iraq and Afghanistan

The Register Guard of Eugene Oregon published an editorial, the type of which you can see in just about any newspaper. It caught my eye because it was brief, to the point and contained some basic stats which I found interesting.

For the first time since President George W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, an entire month has passed without a single U.S. soldier dying in a conflict that has claimed the lives of 4,474 American service members.

The U.S. military is preparing to pull the last troops out of Iraq by the end of the year in accordance with a 2008 security agreement between the two countries. But there is troubling talk in Washington and Baghdad of extending that deadline to have U.S. troops remain longer in Iraq.

While Iraq was becoming less lethal, 67 U.S. troops died last month in the Afghanistan war, making August the deadliest month for Americans in the longest-running war in U.S. history.

Obama should also continue — and expedite — the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, site of a nearly decade-long war in which this country has invested $1 trillion, 10 years of effort and the lives of 1,754 U.S. troops.

I'm tired of the BS from Washington about withdrawing troops which usually comes with the disclaimer that the date could be postponed. What do the guys on the ground in Iraq think? Are they of the opinion that we're doing something worthwhile there? Or are they cynical and angry?

I suppose it's a good sign, no it definitely is a good sign that no fatalities happened in Iraq last month. My sincere prayer is that it may continue like that and somehow the government will do the right thing by the end of this year.

Afghanistan is another story. What in the hell has been accomplished there at such a cost? Was it all about Bin Laden and the Taliban? I doubt it, but whatever else it is, some strategic balance of power in the region or whatever, I say that's enough. Let's get out of there.

Unfortunately, as the August deaths indicate, it's going in the opposite direction. What do those troops think? Is the idea that the U.S. is policing the world in order to make it safer something that sustains them? Bush and Bush supporters always said that, but do people still think that way?

The op-ed I linked to made the point that in order to heal the economy at home we need to stop spending so much on these wars. That may be true, but to me there's a more important reason, a more human reason to end these ill-fated endeavors. We have young Americans dying over there and I honestly cannot see for what.

As has been said many times in defense of pacifist and non-intervention arguments, the best way I can see to support the troops is to bring them home, every one. We can spend some of that money on VA hospitals and PTSS clinics. We can invest in education and vocational programs for these young volunteers.

This is how we can make America strong.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Obama Talking at the American Legion

In Minneapolis today, President Barack Obama gave the first in a series of speeches marking the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The president spoke before a crowd of 6,000 veterans at the American Legion's national convention.

In his remarks, Obama called for Americans to honor the solemn anniversary by performing national service, and repeatedly praised the nobility of the 5 million Americans who have served in the U.S. military since 9/11. He called these soldiers and their families members of the "9/11 generation." Obama also expressed humble gratitude for the sacrifice of more than 6,200 American servicemen and women who have been killed in conflict since 9/11.

Isn't anyone else bothered by the failure to admit the invasion of Iraq, orchestrated by the Bush / Cheney administration, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was a big lie? I certainly am.  I'm offended by that.  Where's the outrage, we asked just yesterday.

The Afghanistan operation was a ten-year-long hunt for Bin Laden, if I'm not mistaken.  Unlike attacking Iraq, at least this one made some sense, presuming Bin Laden was the author of the World Trade Center attack and really was hiding out with his Taliban buddies in Afghanistan.  But, what's happened since his dramatic death? Have we pulled out?  Has word one been mentioned about pulling out?  I haven't heard it.

My cynicism extends to the other major operations, Libya and Yemen, as well as the more hidden and secret ones.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not an extreme pacifist and I'm definitely not a Paulist, like I've recently been accused of. I applaud the heroic troops who usually remain unsung heroes, unlike what happened after the Osama's killing.

I can accept that some of the pre-emptive and covert missions are necessary and save lives. But I don't think that applies to the major wars we've been fighting or to most of the smaller ones.

I believe since the time of Viet Nam the government has been increasingly influenced by the Military Industrial Complex. The lobbying and contribution systems, which Obama promised he'd clean up, are what really run the country.

I'd like to see us less involved in policing the world. I'd like to see the military spending cut way down. I'd like to see fewer servicemen killed over the next ten years than the 6,200 Obama mentioned in his speech.

I wondered if that includes the suicides, but I suppose that's something for another post.

What's your opinion? Is casting a cynical eye on the American military involvement tantamount to NOT supporting the troops?  Wouldn't there be many active military members and recently discharged veterans who question these things like I do?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Iraq Veterans Against the War

A long time ago, I belonged to The Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, even though I was only a Viet-Nam-Era veteran, no combat experience. Watching this video, it occurred to me that not only have things not changed, they've gotten way worse. Now the stakes are so much higher.

The only hopeful idea I can take from this is with the new technology, the internet and social media, that is available today, the charade that we need to be involved in perpetual war, will not remain hidden.

Like other pressing issues, popular opinion can make a difference. Our involvement in Afghanistan and Libya and Yemen and all the other hidden engagements has to be brought into the light and in many cases, stopped.

What do you think?  Please leave a comment.

Where Have the War Protesters Gone?

Salon published a fascinating article on what happened to the anti-war movement.

The movement's drawing power was limited from the start, and then, once the war was on in earnest, it felt -- realistically -- that it had run smack against the brick wall of George Bush's manic pigheadedness. Demonstrators are unlikely to invest their energies in what look from the start like very lost causes. And the demonstrations also tailed off because the mainstream media didn't pay attention -- refused to pay attention. The story line they were promoting was: America kicks ass, new era begins!

I thought that made pretty good sense.  In fact, I'd say one word, "apathy" says it all.  But the author took the article in another direction.

But also, in the new century, once war was on in earnest, the demonstrations dwindled because many former or potential demonstrators gravely doubted how nice the outcome would be if the expeditionary forces left -- or at least, lacking a tragic sense, downplayed the human costs of withdrawal.

From there he goes on with some type of apology for the current wars, comparing them to Viet Nam. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, "getting out" it was the right thing to do, but not today.

What's your opinion? Do you think even anti-war folks feel that our getting out of such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya might be wrong?

I don't think that and I don't think anti-war activists think that. For me personally, the awful realization came gradually during Obama's 2nd year in office. We are powerless to change what "the owners," as George Carlin called them, want. From there apathy and cynicism set in, which unfortunately, would take the steam out of any movement.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Mud-Rake on the Bush Book

Our friend Mudrake wrote a wonderful post about Bush's book.

How’s that George W. Bush scar coming along? Seems that he himself wants to poke around in that quite tender and recently closed set of risky adventures that he directed- adventures that sent tens of thousands of our military men and women to either early graves or a lifetime of disability.  Not to mention the billions of wasted tax dollars and our world-reputation.

We're often accused of being "Bush bashers." But what about the "Bush supporters" like Sepp, who have an answer for every criticism? His comments are really quite amazing.

What's your opinion? In retrospect, isn't President Bush worthy of a little bashing, or quite a lot? I say he should be in Leavenworth.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

It's Deja Vu All Over Again

Truthout reports on the situation in Yemen and its relationship with the United States. (Thanks for the tip Laci).

...there has been a dramatic turnaround in the fluctuating love-hate relationship between the two countries.

And this week's aborted attempt to blow up a U.S. plane by a Nigerian student, with ties to a terrorist group in Yemen, has brought the political spotlight back on a country which is proud of its gun culture.

Yemen reportedly has over 60 million handguns and small arms spread over a population of some 21 million people.

Yehya al-Mutawakil, a former interior minister, was quoted as saying that everyone in Yemen is armed with handguns, while members of various tribes have gone upscale: they are armed with assault weapons, rocket launchers and submachine guns.

Between 2002 and 2008, Yemen received some 69 million dollars in U.S. military aid; and 496 Yemeni military personnel were trained under the International Military Education and Training programme (IMET).

William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New York-based New America Foundation, cites press reports to suggest that Washington will rapidly ramp up U.S. military aid to Yemen over the next 18 months.

The projected total, he said, is about 70 million dollars, or roughly the amount provided during the entire administration of former President George W. Bush.

"U.S. military aid to Yemen is a double-edged sword," Hartung told IPS.

On the one hand, the Yemeni government of President Ali Abdullah Saleh has participated in strikes against al Qaeda and al Qaeda-inspired groups within and around its borders.

On the other hand, he said, "The Yemeni government is one of the most unstable regimes in the world, and there is a danger that U.S. weapons and training could be turned against U.S. interests, if there is a change in government there."

This is my biggest disappointment with Obama. I was hoping he'd get us out of Iraq, wind down the business in Afghanistan and quit policing the world. I thought this was a characteristic of the Bush years. I was wrong. Now the only question seems to be, which will it be next, Iran or Yemen.

What's your opinion?

The New Boss

It's been about six months. Is there any indication that Obama will be significantly different than his predecessors? According to Il Principe, no. In a wonderful article, in which he highlights the Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr who warned Americans against what he called “our dreams of managing history,” the Prince pulls no punches in pointing out that Obama is indeed a new boss, just like the old boss.

One only has to look at the abysmal record of trying to manage the future of two foreign countries the United States invaded and has since occupied to see that the future cannot be certain or managed.

Incredibly, most Americans do not see the connection between the annual half trillion-defense budget and open-ended wars in two foreign countries, to the demise of America as an economic world power.

Forget about drawing a line in the sand like the Bush administration said in 1991 and the First Gulf War, more Americans need to get their head out of the sand and realize the drag on the economy the trillions of dollars spent on the Pentagon is having on the American economy.

What's your opinion? Do most Americans have their head in the sand about military spending? In the beginning of Obama's term we talked about it: Is Afghanistan going to be just another Iraq? What do you think? Are you hopeful that we can pull out of Iraq eventually and manage Afghanistan without going completely bankrupt?

Please leave a comment.

Steven Green Sentenced to Life for Rape Murder in Iraq

On Talk Left, Jeralyn posted about this case several times, including one in which she emphatically makes the point that if the accomplices have been guaranteed 7-year sentences, the government shouldn't very well ask for the death penalty for Steven Green.

Well, wouldn't that same logic apply to the life sentence without parole he has received?

The NYT describes the incident like this:

On March 11, 2006, after drinking Iraqi whiskey, Private Green and other soldiers manning a checkpoint decided to rape an Iraqi girl who lived nearby, according to testimony. Wearing civilian clothing, the soldiers broke into a house and raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi. Soldiers in the group testified that Private Green killed the girl’s parents and a younger sister before raping and then shooting the girl in the head with the family’s own AK-47, which it had kept for self defense.

Much has been written lately about how atrocious this crime was, but, I don't know if I'm getting jaded or what, given the backdrop of combat and the fact that the army which has such problems with homosexuals but will readily enlist possible psychotics into its ranks, as Zirgar said today, I say, what do you expect. In fact part of the defense in Green's trial was that the army was partly responsible.

In the sentencing phase of the trial, the Army stress counselor, Lt. Col. Karen Marrs, a mental health nurse practitioner, testified that Private Green was disturbed by deaths in his unit and had expressed a desire to hurt Iraqi civilians. But Colonel Marrs also said such sentiments had been expressed by other members of the unit and were not uncommon among troops in combat. On questioning from the prosecution, she also said that she thought Private Green clearly understood that hurting civilians would be wrong and that he had no plans to act on his anger.
The defense argued that the Army should have provided stronger leadership to Private Green’s unit and should have removed Private Green from front-line duty for more intensive mental health care.

Obviously that defense didn't fly. Or perhaps it contributed to the hung jury in the penalty phase. But the defense of shared responsibility certainly didn't do much to ameliorate the sentence: it was down to death or life without parole.

What's your opinion? Is it acceptable to excuse combat troops to some degree for their misdeeds? Does what he supposedly said about wanting to hurt civilians sound normal to you, as Colonel Marrs said? I can see the troops wanting to hurt the enemy, I can even see their having some difficulty distinguishing between enemy soldiers and enemy civilians, but to say you want to hurt civilians to me sounds like a major red light should have gone off for someone in a supervisory role.

What do you think?

John King Interviews Dick Cheney

Obama inherited a big mess. Do you agree with that? Cheney says it was global not limited to the Bush Administration. Does that make sense to you?

Is Cheney different from Limbaugh in wishing Obama well? Or is Cheney just more political in describing the same thing. Is it true that Obama's administration is expanding government? Wasn't it Bush who did that with the executive privilege and Patriot Act?

John King asked if Obama is brazenly trying to deceive. Did Cheney agree? I think he did, but I wasn't sure. Did you like his response to the tough questions about the statistical record of the Bush administration? The economic crisis is global, he repeated, it cannot be blamed on Bush. Do you agree with that?




Do you agree with his analysis of the situation in Iraq? Was Saddam Hussein one of the worst dictators of the 20th century? Obama has modified his campaign position and that's a plus. Agree? Do you think it's true that to move from low-enriched uranium to high-enriched uranium is easy? Doesn't that sound like more of those scare tactics?

Obama's Iraq Withdrawal Speech

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

President Obama is the greatest political speaker I've ever heard, and that includes J.F.K., whom I happen to be old enough to have heard live, and of course many times since his assassination. I found the following comments about the troops both sincere and satisfying. What do you think? Are these comments adequate? Are they sincere?

I also want to acknowledge all of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes the Camp Lejeune Marines now serving with - or soon joining - the Second Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq; those with Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force in Afghanistan; and those among the 8,000 Marines who are preparing to deploy to Afghanistan. We have you in our prayers. We pay tribute to your service. We thank you and your families for all that you do for America. And I want all of you to know that there is no higher honor or greater responsibility than serving as your Commander-in-Chief.

One of the impressions I had during the campaign was that he is sincere, at least more than your typical politician. I have had some doubts since his taking office, but I'm still holding onto hope. Whenever a politician speaks like this, naming hard dates and clear goals, he leaves himself dangerously open to failure and criticism. It's bold. If his intentions are not sincere, then saying things like this would be nothing short of foolhardy. What do you think?

As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops. Those consultations are now complete, and I have chosen a timeline that will remove our combat brigades over the next 18 months.

Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.

After those comments he went on to talk about the "transition period" and our being "advisors" in Iraq. I thought, "Oh, brother, here we go again." But, the President went on to make it right. He continued with these remarks.

Through this period of transition, we will carry out further redeployments. And under the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government, I intend to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.

He told the troops they would receive a pay raise, earning an explosion of cheers and applause from the Marines in attendance. He went on to describe the heroic deaths of two young Marines who died to protect their comrades. The crowd was hushed, tears welling up. Overall, it was one of his best speeches. What's your opinion? Did you think he was sincere to name dates like that, or foolish? What was your overall impression?

Opinione: The deafening silence of the press in America

Over on Opinione I discovered a terrific critique of the what's happened in Iraq and continues to happen and how it happened: The deafening silence of the press in America.

One of the reasons President Bush and his boss Dick Cheney were able to launch the war in Iraq in 2003, was due to the relative silence of the American press and the lack of investigative journalism into the conflict of interest of two former oil industry executives desire to go to war in Iraq.

I thought it was quite witty to call Cheney Bush's boss, but before the sentence was out, we have a serious inference. Could the fact that these guys had been in the oil business have had something to do with it? And, as il grande principe asks, why wasn't the press more vocal about that?

The results have been tragic for many and very profitable for a few. Some believe the American casualties, dead and wounded, are over 100,000 and the Iraqi numbers over 1,000,000. The profits for politically favored military contractors have been incalculable.

The relative silence of the US press to make an issue of the recent nomination and approval of former defense company lobbyists William Lynn and Michele Flournoy for high-level Department of Defense positions is another example of the diminishing power of the press in America. Similar to the conflict of interest that Dick Cheney had in granting a non competitive defense contract to a company he had been the president of, the recent Congressional approval of former lobbyists in the Pentagon also presents a conflict of interest for the Pentagon and the new Obama administration.

Is this something that can be blamed on the press? Or is this just the way business is done in Washington D.C.? Do you think these appointments, and others like them, will derail the Obama administration into being another train wreck like its predecessor?

What's your opinion?

Afghanistan - Another Iraq?

The New York Times has a piece today about the difficulty Obama will face with Afghanistan. Everyone seems to agree that winning a war there is a next-to-impossible task. As President Bush placed most of the emphasis on Iraq, the Taliban grew in strength in Afghanistan, controlling huge areas of territory outside of the major urban areas.

Enter Mr. Obama. During the campaign he promised to send two additional brigades — 7,000 troops — to Afghanistan. During the transition, military planners started talking about adding as many as 30,000 troops. And within days of taking office, Mr. Obama announced the appointment of Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Balkan peace accords, to execute a new Afghanistan policy.

But even as Mr. Obama’s military planners prepare for the first wave of the new Afghanistan “surge,” there is growing debate, including among those who agree with the plan to send more troops, about whether — or how — the troops can accomplish their mission, and just what the mission is.

I don't know about anyone else, but that sounds ominously familiar to me; an ill-defined plan, inadequate resources for the immense task at hand. Even before the election, I wondered what was going on here. Does Barack Obama really need to perpetuate the supposed man-hunt for the phantom bin Laden? Is that what it's all about? Or is Obama beholden to the military industrial complex? Perhaps this was part of the deal. Is it too cynical to suppose that deals like this are made in Washington?

On Reuters there's a wonderful article by Bernd Debusmann which explores the possibility of a solution to this dilemma. Since the real problem is the illegal opium production, controlled by the Taliban, why don't we buy the entire crop? It would cost far less than the war, and would afford other opportunities concerning the world-wide heroin problem.

Richard Holbrooke, the man President Barack Obama has just picked as special envoy for Afghanistan, said: “Breaking the narco-state in Afghanistan is essential or all else will fail.”

The problem is it may be easier said than done. Which makes me wonder what these guys are up to. Do they really want to do what they say?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, addressing the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, described Afghanistan as “our greatest military challenge right now” but said there could be no purely military solution — not even with the additional 30,000 troops Obama plans to dispatch over the next 18 months.

James Nathan, a political science professor at Auburn University in Alabama and former State Department official, outlines the radical solution.

Purchasing the whole crop would take it away from the traffickers without cutting more than half the economy of Afghanistan,” Nathan said in an interview. “Such a purchase would directly confront Afghanistan’s most corrosive corruption. It would end the Taliban’s money stream.”

And the cost? By Nathan’s reckoning, between $2 billion and $2.5 billion a year, no pocket change but not a large sum compared with the around $200 billion the U.S. taxpayer has already paid for the war in Afghanistan. The idea may sound startling but its logic is not far from the farm subsidies paid to U.S. and European farmers.

On a more modest scale than Nathan’s buy-it-all idea, a European think tank, the International Council on Security and Development (ICOS), is lobbying for an alternative to traditional counter-narcotics policies dubbed Poppy for Medicine.

What's your opinion? Is that a reasonable solution? What's wrong with it? Isn't it better than spending the next five or ten years stuck in another war?

Is it too much of a stretch to suspect secret deals behind the scenes in Washington? Could the new administration be just a corrupt as the old one as far as this stuff goes? Does that make me a conspiracy theorist? I admit, I never thought Oswald was the lone gunman.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Marines and Motorcycles

CNN reports that more Marines have died over the last year in motorcycle accidents than in Iraq.

Motorcycle accidents have killed more Marines in the past 12 months than enemy fire in Iraq, a rate that's so alarming it has prompted top brass to call a meeting to address the issue, officials say.

Twenty-five Marines have died in motorcycle crashes since last November -- all but one of them involving sport bikes that can reach speeds of well over 100 mph, according to Marine officials. In that same period, 20 Marines have been killed in action in Iraq.

So, does that mean the Iraq number is very low or the motorcycle number is very high, or both? It sure caught my attention; I'll tell you that. I can easily identify with the young Marines who drive too fast and engage in other risky behaviors that 20-year-olds often engage in.

What really caught my attention, though, was at the end of the video when Barbara Starr, the Pentagon Correspondent, said the Marine Corps had considered "banning Marines from owning these types of sports bikes."

Bob S. has often asked me to compare my ideas about guns to problems with other things, cars for example. He would say things like, so many people are killed in car accidents, why not ban cars? I'm paraphrasing there, but that's more or less the question. I've always resisted going into those types of comparisons because I don't believe in gun control or gun bans. But just for argument's sake, if the Marine Corps banned motorcycles, most or maybe even all of these 25 guys would still be alive. Does that mean it's the motorcycle's fault? No, of course not. Does that mean it's the fault of the availability of the motorcycle? Yes, indeed.

How does this apply to guns? If someone wants to do harm with a gun and none is available, he might grab a knife or club, something less lethal and do less damage. If a young Marine wants to ride fast and feel that freedom that riding a fast bike gives, and none is available, he might get in a car, drive fast and if an accident happens, possibly survive.

This is not to say let's have gun bans and motorcycle bans as a solution. It's simply to say, just like the availability of those powerful motorbikes is the problem, gun availability is a big part of the gun violence problem. Can we all agree on that?

Wassup?

This one's going around the internet. It's funny, poignant, appropiate.



Hat tip Jon Talpin via Marc Cooper

Suicides among Army Recruiters

CNN reports on the grim story of a disproportionate number of Houston based army recruiters committing suicide. There have been four in the last three years.


"The United States Army Recruiting Command is deeply concerned by the instances of suicide within the Houston Recruiting Battalion," said a statement released by the Recruiting Command. "The board's objective will be to prevent future suicides, increase suicide awareness, analyze trends and highlight additional tools and resources to combat suicide within the Recruiting Command."

The Army's examination comes after a sergeant first class, a member of the Houston Recruiting Battalion and an Iraq combat veteran, killed himself at his home earlier this month.

It seems strange to me that recruiters would be particularly hit. Their work doesn't seem to be especially stressful. It begs a larger question: what is the suicide rate at large among service men and women and veterans of recent wars.

Due to the recurring deployments that have proven necessary to sustain operations in the Middle East, it is likely that a large majority of our recruiters are also veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The recruiter suicides come at a time when the total number of suicides in the Army's ranks has been growing, Army officials said. Through August there had been 93 active duty suicides in the Army.

Last year there were 115 active duty suicides, the highest for the Army since the Vietnam War, according to Army statistics.

Why do you think this would be happening? My first thought is that, not unlike Viet Nam, these engagements have become extremely unpopular. Perhaps that awareness has filtered through and has infected the troops themselves, like it did forty years ago. On the other hand, that may be too complicated a theory.

A simpler theory is this: the stresses associated with war are perhaps heightened by a number of factors. The continual fear of suicide bombers, although this did exist during Viet Nam, in recent years it's become a major concern. I guess we can thank the Israeli / Palestinian conflict for that. Another interesting thing I read is the number of battlefield casualties who live is at an all time high. This is due to improved medevac equipment and procedures. The result is a higher number of damaged individuals returning to society. I'll bet they make up a good percentage of the suicides.

What do you think? Part of my solution is to get out of Iraq, a war we never should have been involved in in the first place. I'd get our foreign combat activity down to a bare minimum. Isolationism might be preferable to the breath-taking costs of sustaining these wars.