1 Outstanding piece, Bluto. I thought about writing a piece about the editorial at CT but decided that Mr. Stein probably got enough of an ear full from others. I might send him an e-mail or give him a call.

2 In point of fact, Stein did a better job of using good grammar than Russel. "Cannot" and "Do not" are not sentences unless the writer is working for an ad agency. I'm a veteran. I did 10 years in the navy, so while I've got no better idea of what the Army thinks than Stein does, I have some insight into things military. "Supporting" our troops: I've got no idea what this is supposed to mean. The only support from civilians that I was aware of was financial and involuntary--my paycheck and the $10K repair bill for a new receiver assembly on our CIWS mount, for example. I would have been ticked off if U.S. civilians went out of their way to blame me for our foreign policy, but tying ribbons on trees and waving flags did nothing to encourage me. I joined up knowing my job was to go in harm's way. Catching an exocet was an occupational hazard. A patriotic display by the folks in the states didn't change this. Officer Babble: Anything written by a presently serving comissioned officer over O-3 for public consumption is B.S. Officers do not get promoted for telling the truth to civilians, nor should they. They aren't even very candid with enlistedmen. I thought the least of our officers when they drew us up in ranks and bloviated while we stood at attention stared into the distance. We ignored the propaganda, but I think they knew that. One of the rare and fine things about the U.S. military is that its people don't *need* to be pumped up with propaganda. They train. None of their adversaries do. What the troops want: No one I knew in the military wanted a U.S.O. show or praise, least of all from a civilian. We wanted sex, fun, and money. In dangerous places we wanted safety too, but we were inclined to barter off an alarming amount of it for the first 3 things. Our officers were more interested in our safety than we were. My big disappointment in the Med was being prevented at the last minute from taking a tour of the battleground at El Alamein when we pulled into Egypt (too dangerous!) A shipmate got busted in Israel because, rather than party in Haifa, he went to go see the hellhole of south Lebanon. I don't know what Stein was talking about when he got to morality (the true last refuge of the scoundrel.) Joining the military isn't supposed to be a statement of support for a president or for a given policy. Both could change overnight and you'd still be obliged to serve the successors. If you've got a problem with our foreign policy, the person to blame is the president, not the guys who are hired to enact it.

3 ShannonKW, you might have noticed that I said Russell was a better writer than Stein, not grammarian. Grammar is the province of editors, and besides, good writers know when to break the rules. An example, from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "...to take arms against a sea of troubles..." This is a mixed metaphor; it's grammatically incorrect. An editor would probably change "sea" to "host", and by so doing, ruin the tone and flow of the passage. Russell's writing is better than Stein's because it has what writing teachers call "truth telling" in the piece. "Truth telling" (I know, I hate that phrase, too, but I didn't make it up) adds power and emotional emphasis to writing. Stein's lacks this power, mainly because he simply didn't know what he was writing about, which he admitted on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Stein's writing also lacks maturity and the wisdom that comes from experience. It's sad that you wasted ten years of your life. Pretty much all of my friends and family in the military understand and value the support they feel from the folks at home. And they don't appreciate Stein's column. Very much don't. I've had to work under some true assholes who were ex-officers (and they always seem to have been light colonels). But I've also met and worked for some damned fine former officers, too. I wouldn't even make as absolute a statement as you did about officers about lefties. Support for the troops is independent of their mission, or the party of the Commander-in-Chief. If you were incapable of being at least somewhat cheered by the thought of average citizens wishing you well and being thankful for your service - going into harm's way, well, you aren't representative of the military people I know, and I have to feel a little sorry for you.

4 I think Joel Stein is making a point about the hypocrisy of most contemporary pacifists and anti-Iraq war critics. He's right you can't both wrap yourself in the flag and criticize the war. He also makes the point that a soldier makes a choice in going to war. If you don't agree with the soldier, its hypocritical to pretend you think he or she is some sort of moral hero. Face your own convictions. I think this war is wrong and the people who enlisted for it were duped. Sorry about that, but it doesn't make me immature, like people are suggesting here.

5 One doesn't have to espouse a position to illustrate it John. What he said was classic sedition, just like the rest of the libs spout constantly, and for which people used to be executed when this nation was still interested in survival.

6 John B., a soldier makes a choice in volunteering for the military, not "going to war". What you, and the uninformed Master Stein seem to forget is that all soldiers take an oath, not only to uphold and defend the Constitution, but to obey the "lawful orders" of their superiors. To suggest that serving member of the armed forces pick and choose which wars they'll participate in is...what's the word I'm looking for?...retarded.

7 When Joel Stein sees first hand the fact that an entire race of people has been subjugated by an immoral dictator for at least 35 years, he will see the fact that human beings, much like himself, have hopes and dreams and desires, however, they may not be realized due to the unfortunate circumstance of the country in which they have been born. Is this their fault, hardly. But if noble men do nothing but stand by and observe this, than they are no better than those who have subjugated those whom they (and the rest of us) pity. -- Joel Stein's point is completely invalid about Soldiers' morality until he sees the suffering of those whom have been oppressed by an immoral government against which he himself admits he is afraid to take arms against himself. In fact, he is a moral coward, and I pity him in his ignorance.