It is not a politically correct position to take these days. I can think of no one, including myself, who wishes indiscriminate harm against another human being. This is true with our family and friends, neighbors and communities, states and nations. We demand that when our armed forces go into another country that all precautions be taken to keep civilians safe and to only attack known hostiles. While I believe it to be the moral position to take, our armed forces are also bound by another moral position: protect your homeland from the forces that threaten it. These two positions seem contradictory to me, especially when we cry “foul” when civilians are caught in the crossfire. I am reminded of an article from Counterpunch.org (a website I highly recommend) back in January that sarcastically discussed how the military is trying to kill civilians carefully. Let’s fact it, civilians die in war. We should expect nothing less. Yes, we should cry out against it, yes we should do what we can to minimize it, but not at the expense of putting our own troops in danger. How can we expect our armed forces to do the very job the enlisted for if they are scared of making a mistake, kill innocent civilians and then have the specter of a court martial over their head, not to mention the media frenzy that is sure to ensue?

In his book, Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq, Michael Scheuer, a gentleman who worked both at the CIA and the Counterterrorism Center, points out that we are harming our military when we demand impossible actions. Our leaders in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, politicize an organization that should not be politicized. In a fantastic article, The Nation points out the results of this political tight wire the military must perform in the Middle East, and how even those in the know are being used as sound bytes rather than counsel. Granted, the military should not ever act independently- no government entity should. But the military knows its job and understands war like no other. We demand that all wars be like the Gulf War in the 90s. We want phenomenal force, expedited action and virtually no civilian casualties. This is not what is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan in most people’s eyes. Reuters reports today that a battle in Afghanistan led to the killing of possibly an entire family of eight. A tragic waste of life, to say the very least.

War is indeed hell. I agree with former President Jimmy Carter when he states that at times war may be necessary but never just. How is this possible? Because a people has the right to protect themselves from harm, and when that happens, there will be casualties. War is war! We have to accept the fact that when we mobilize individuals with guns, tanks, warships and technology to harm and, yes, kill the enemy, killing is what will happen. It is ridiculous to think that people will not be killed. And yes, I thank the heavens that Americans do not have a taste for blood. But we do have a taste for security and we are fighting an enemy that exists to destroy that security. How can we possibly have no harm?

Pundits point to Vietnam as the example of a military exercise gone wrong. Countless civilians were killed. We forget that the same occurred during World War II. Of course, we won WWII. I am fascinated at our hubris. We can ignore, even forgive the killings of WWII, a war where we could claim victory, but not Vietnam, a war we were forced to flee.

This is why we should demand that any military conflict we engage we should be VERY sure of our mission and our goal. Iraq and Afghanistan seem to have little to none of either of these measures. Americans wouldn’t be so polarized if we knew the why so that the military could follow through with the how. If people don’t like civilians being killed, which they shouldn’t, then lets make very sure that our leaders think before they act, gather people around them they trust and our knowledgeable, and most importantly, take counsel from those they disagree with. Putting people in harms way demands we be rational and honest. Our next president ought to be sure of the necessities of war before tying the hands of those who will fight that war.

How many times have I seen bumper stickers around town demanding that every driver “Support Our Troops.” A sentiment, by the way, we should heed. Say what you will, but the bottom line is that our troops are fighting because they have been instructed to do. They believe in their mission, and believe in the country asking them to make the ultimate sacrifice. We have a volunteer force, and these troops have volunteered for a duty many people would not even consider taking themselves.

The New York Times reports today that many of our troops are suffering from unchecked and/or unmonitored Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. While I knew it was a significant problem, I had many questions about the travesty.  Thankfully, the Rand Corporation offers some insight. It seems that the Washington big-wigs, both military and non-military, had many assumptions pre-Iraqi war. Assumptions. Imagine that. According to Rand, the first assumption was that “[m]any senior policymakers in government held a set of fairly optimistic assumptions about the conditions that would emerge after major combat concluded. These assumptions tended to override counterarguments held by officials elsewhere in the government.” Now this actually makes sense, if you have a mentality that conflict with Iraq in the 2000’s would be the same as conflict with Iraq in the 1990’s. That mentality hasn’t panned out too well. Rand furthers that “[s]enior military commanders assumed that civilian authorities would be responsible for the postwar period, a notion that focused the military’s efforts on planning for the invasion and the execution of combat operations.” At this point, it seems to me that squabbling over who is responsible for assisting troops in need is just stupid. People need help. Now.

The BBC published an article in 2005 that discusses, among other aspects of this illness, the need for immediate follow-up after a traumatic experience. In fact, the article specifically points out that victims should receive assistance within one month of such trauma. This is not happening. The New York Times article speaks of veterans who are not receiving assistance of any type, be it by choice or access. As a result, many are turning to alcohol and drugs as a way of making it through the day.  This choice is becoming deadly. A soldier from Ft. Bliss in El Paso, TX, has been indicted for killing a woman will driving under the influence. It is the third such incident in Ft. Bliss in six months. As if this weren’t enough, the Pentagon estimates that as many as 20% of all Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans have problems with alcohol or drugs. The Army reports 115 suicides in its ranks last year alone.  Soldiers need help.  Now.  Why isn’t it happening?

There is something rotten in Washington.

It seems to me that caring for soldiers in need is the just and moral thing to do.  Providing necessary treatment for soldiers whose lives are under constant strain deserve the best our medical field has to offer. Why is this even a question? Yes, it is true that there is need all over the country for mental health services. And yes, access should be easier and more affordable. Soldiers, in my opinion, did not have much say in performing duties and following orders. We can have as many disagreements about the war and foreign policy and violence as we want, and indeed we should have them. But while we are doing so, soldiers need help now, not when we get around to it.  As the NYT points out, we cannot as soldier to be warriors in one minute and ladies and gentlemen the next unless we are willing to help them realize this ridiculous expectation.

It was Virgil who said, “Trust one who has gone through it.” Virgil was ahead of his time. It seems other soldiers who have “been through it” are able to help those who are struggling. American Combat Veterans of War are assisting those in need by doing something that our society does not seem to value as much as it should. How?  By seasoned veterans listening to recent veterans. The Christian Science Monitor points out that “[t]he approach is both simple and profound: Providing a safe, nonjudgmental place where someone who’s ‘been there’ can simply listen.” It seems to be working, and thank god for such support. I hope the rest of us can let those in power know that while we thank those who have gone through it for helping those with similar experiences, it is the ultimate responsibility of the government to help all of those suffering such afflictions. To not do so cheapens our government and dishonors those who value the honor of serving their country.

A Saturday in mid-May in Iraq. Perhaps a day to reflect, relax, a day for respite. Unless, of course, you have a gun needed something to shoot. Out of targets? Well, then used the Koran. If this action sounds ridiculous that’s because it is. But, once again, America gives Muslim fundamentalists a reason to question our position in Iraq.

The New York Times posted an article on May 19 of an incident with an American soldier using the holy book of Islam, The Koran, for target practice. Major General Jeffery Hammond in Iraq read from a statement of the unnamed soldier that reads like a student who has plagiarized an essay from the Internet, trying to take credit for words written by others: “I sincerely hope that my actions have not diminished the partnership that our two nations have developed together,” reads part of the statement.

The statement may be indicative of a continuing problem with Iraq. The excerpt from “Soldier Anonymous” identifies the partnership of “two nations.” The problem is that the incident affects at least three nations; the United States, Iraq and the Islamic nation. Failing to recognize this third nation in a statement of apology simply adds fuel to the fire of disgust Islam fundamentalists have for the US, giving more propaganda for use by those wishing our extermination.

A more fundamental issue, though, is the action itself. The shooting of the Koran is completely against the basic tenets of democracy, a form of government we are attempting to sell in the Middle East as an ideology of tolerance and religious freedom. How can we possibly expect others to embrace what we know to be a great system of government when to others it appears to be a system of laws of convenience? But there is a religious reality we should acknowledge as well.

If someone where to use The Bible for target practice, the uproar in the US would be fanatical. It is difficult to imagine any reason given to the public for such a barbaric act to be acceptable to any Christian or any American. It is an act inherently provocative, meant to incite hate and intolerance, which it surely would do in every corner of America. And it has.

The BBC reported on the same day that the murder of Chaldean Catholic Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho would result in the execution of Ahmed Ali Ahmed. While the severity of the two incidents are vastly different, the targets themselves are too similar to ignore. In no way do I claim that one act lead to another. On the contrary, the fact that the two are quite probably unrelated indicates that religious intolerance is the norm- and the US government is involving itself in the fray.  We praise the death penalty for the murder of a religious leader.  We want criminals held accountable.  But isn’t the act of aggression taken by a US soldier likely to lead to further violence?  Is the soldier going to be held accountable for the actions?  I have no idea. All I know is that the soldier is no longer in Iraq, according to reports.  Probably a smart move.  A move that also may allow the soldier to escape culpability for his or her actions.

The “Koran-as-bullet-repository” incident is an act of aggression against Islam, not against terrorism or fundamentalists or Iraq or even the Middle East. An American used a holy book, a book that praises Jesus Christ, to empty a weapon of war. It is not an act of bad judgment from a soldier- it is an act the screaming hatred.

I find myself at odds with the report, however. As much as I would like, I simply cannot completely blame the soldier. I have no idea what his/her motives were. For that matter, he or she has been fighting in a war under horrific conditions. It is easy to sit in judgment. I refuse to try and convict anyone based only upon one report found on the world-wide-web. It is my right, however, to register my dissatisfaction and disgust with the act.

An American soldier unrelated to the incident apparently kissed a Koran (one that was intact and not riddled with bullet holes and gun powder) and gave it to some local Iraqi “tribal leaders.” I wonder if the leaders find themselves in a moral dilemma: How can we keep a sacred text that has been kissed by the infidels?

Christians in this country should be mortified by the actions of the military. Unfortunately, the ones with the loudest mouths on the tallest self-made pedestals are probably nodding their heads with smiles on their faces thinking of how this latest incident foretells of The Rapture. They don’t realize that as they yell of the second-coming, voices of reason- that same reason taught by Christ- are drowned out. They choose to ignore the fact that when everyone is shouting in the name of God that they are simultaneously choosing to drown out the voice of God.

The only thing this incident should foretell is a need for calmer heads. Democracy is not religious pulpit. This democratic society needs to take a stance and say once and for all that religious intolerance goes against its ideals and it will not take sides in a Christian/Muslim war. The only wars we should be fighting should be those conflicts that threaten our freedoms and the freedoms of others, not the protection of people who insist on a pissing contest where the loser is killed. When that pissing contest mean deficating a religious text, well, what reaction do we think we are going to see? We must stand firm against religious intolerance. Our government should lead the charge. A Democratic people should expect nothing less from its soldiers, leaders and diplomats. I know I expect nothing less.