I submit this revision and apology to those who did not comprehend the original because, I confess, I treated a sensitive situation rather glibly and satirically. Nevertheless, my ultimate goal was legitimate concern for our troops and their safety, surely not to ridicule them, and absolutely not to trigger insubordination while on tour — as one unit did the other day, regardless that it had good intentions, following orders is sacrosanct, unless, of course,such as vis- a- vis prison abuse in Iraq.

Why would you retain loyalty for a commander in chief that ordered you into a combat zone without sufficient protective gear?

The Baltimore Sun reports that Pennsylvania University National Annenberg Election Survey found that 21% of troops and families surveyed indicated that active troops were improperly trained and equipped; while 42% said the same of national guardsmen and reservists. The Washington Post reported that Lt. Gen. Sanchez’s official document, buried for ten months, complained, “ his soldiers needed 36,000 sets of body armor.”

Were you that naive to think that a war of choice had such urgency, equivalent to post Pearl Harbor, that you would forgive your leaders for lack of preparation and strategy?

The administration’s feigned urgent “rush to war” without imminent danger is bad enough but to be fully aware there was a shortage of equipment is unforgivable. It should have waited until everything was in place.

Why hold Kerry hostage for not voting the $87 billion when you knew that appropriations were but an Administrative afterthought and political ploy, and would take months to implement, nor even now have you perceived its effects?

Given that Kerry’s action appeared deplorable, it was nonetheless within his senatorial rights to demand an accounting of what was essential in the way of military equipment and reconstruction and how to pay for it.

Is not this afterthought evidence enough that the administration and Pentagon deliberately sent you into harm’s way without the necessary numbers and combat equipment?

It is indeed an afterthought evidencing their omission to enter war without full protective gear, and I should add ammo later that had to be purchased from foreign countries.

Have you no guilt that your presence in Iraq has preëmpted the support for your comrades in Afghanistan?

At the outset, I trust that this ran through the minds of many troops when Afghanistan still was not secured.

Were you still not questioning your commander in chief while you patrolled the streets of Baghdad in your “civilian” humvees lacking side armor?

In seeing their buddies in vulnerable vehicles blown up, it is inconceivable that fellow troops did not question the logic of patrolling the streets when so exposed. In questioning, however, does not imply insubordination, as they still would follow orders to the fullest.

Did you still feel comfortable in your body armor that could barely stop a sidearm bullet without the necessary ceramic component?

Especially if part of the 36,000 who had the cheap ones. And those who think that frontline troops were fully geared up, and that only the rear-echelon was lacking proper equipment, I respond, having had some combat experience, that in this kind of enemy swarming all over the place, there is no rear-echelon.

Are you not misleading your families when you echo your president that the situation is well in hand when you know it isn’t — especially when a recent survey, noted above, states that two-thirds of military personnel and their families believe Bush underestimated the number of troops needed for your mission?

What is the point of this when so many military experts concur that the mission was undermanned and along with Sanchez reporting that his supply situation was so poor that it threatened his troops’ ability to fight.

Are you that gung ho that you do not harbor the slightest resentment that the much heralded coalition is nowhere to be seen, tucked away in their enclaves?

Until now, that is, with over a thousand British troops moving toward Baghdad, but Britain was always significantly in the fight to the south and I have no argument with these gallant troops.

Are you still convinced that Kerry, who had some combat experience, would not empathize with your combat needs and forge a strategic initiative designed to strengthen the front lines and end the war with honor?

Here, of course, political ideology of the troops enter the stage: the majority are Republicans and made that clear in the elections of ‘92, ‘96,and ‘00. I respect that and even though they might be upset with Bush’s leadership, they’re still going to vote for him because they have a history of disrespect toward Democratic presidents, though following orders with noble discontent.

Wouldn’t you rather have General Zinni or Wes Clark as your Defense Secretary or either one coaxed out of retirement for appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?

Again, the answer is no from the majority of the troops because they are set in that Republicans can do no wrong and would seldom if ever trust any Democrat to lead the nation to war.

Is it not time to be honest with yourselves?

I should have added here: before you cast a ballot.

At least, I have admitted to my mistake by assuming too much in my writing — a take it or leave it attitude. Since this was a sensitive issue, I should have been clearer that it was about questioning a rather cavalier attitude of troops who lionize their commander in chief, provided he is a Republican.

My admission to presumptuous writing is more than I can say for some bloggers who toss off wild statements without thinking it through, nor do they care to.

Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 22, 2004.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com