Support the Troops.......

.....but don't go out of your way.

The Bush administration has tried to make sure that most Americans don't have to make any sacrifices for the war on terror or the Iraq war. The political reasons are obvious, support for the war is already faltering and if people had been required to make sacrifices support would now be non existent. While many show their support with yellow magnets on their cars few are now willing to send their sons and daughters off to join the effort. This is having a serious impact on the moral of the soldiers and their families who are required to make sacrifices, all too often the ultimate sacrifice. This is the topic of an article in The New York Times and a commentary in The Portland Oregonian.

All Quiet on the Home Front, and Some Soldiers Are Asking Why

WASHINGTON, July 23 - The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war, but a nation with only its military at war.

From bases in Iraq and across the United States to the Pentagon and the military's war colleges, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: if America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?

There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry, and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and new counterterrorism missions.

There are not even concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.

"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice, except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq, voicing a frustration now drawing the attention of academic specialists in military sociology.

[....]

In the speech, at Fort Bragg, N.C., on June 28, Mr. Bush mentioned a Defense Department Web site, Americasupportsyou.mil, where people can learn about private-sector efforts to bolster the morale of the troops. He also urged those considering a career in the military to enlist because "there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."

While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support, and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel.

"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."

And on the other coast of the United States David Sarasohn of the Oregonian tells us about his conversation with an Oregon Air National Guardsman who has recently returned from Iraq.

From Iraq, things look different here

What Evans does is air-battle management, and for a year, ending this summer, he did it as a mission crew commander with the Oregon Air National Guard at Balad Air Force Base, 45 miles northwest of Baghdad.

Air-battle management is a particular kind of skill, and Evans practiced it for four earlier months in Iraq in 2003, in South America as part of antidrug campaigns, in Italy to support efforts in the Balkans and in a place he describes as just "Southwest Asia." In between, he's been mayor of Monmouth and an adjunct professor at Western Oregon University and Oregon State. Now, he's back to part-time service in the Guard, giving some speeches and trying to publish a vampire novel he wrote during down time in Iraq.

And talking about a war that he believes in, and a fight that he thinks looks very different there and here.

"The bottom line, in my opinion, is that a whole lot of people are sacrificing everything -- marriages, careers, lives," Evans says. But "Americans may not fully understand the level of support that may be needed."

[....]

Evans is concerned about an administration trying to achieve a transformation of Iraq on the cheap. But he also thinks the responsibility extends to the nation that supported the administration.

"Elections matter," he argues. "In 2002 and 2004, the country voted for a Congress and a president that support the activity."

To him, those elections also created a direct political responsibility to provide the resources and manpower to reach the goal that voters backed.

"If that means (Bush) needs to visit every college around the country, or help his daughters enlist, that's up to him," Evans says. "If recruiting is down, he needs to deal with that. If money is the issue, he and Congress need to deal with that."

And Evans concludes his comments with"

"When you go to war to fight for your country," Evans says, "the relationship between you and your country becomes very personal."

One way or another, those who go are entitled to ask other Americans to take Iraq personally.

During the Vietnam war the administrations involved tried to keep sacrifices to a minimum realizing that support would quickly fade if too much were asked of the citizens at home. But during the Vietnam conflict everybody knew someone who had been drafted or was eligible for the draft so that war was closer to home.