Here's a guest blog from Sgt. Joe Duran.

A few years ago, I walked away from a comfortable job to fulfill a personal obligation to serve my country. It was also a family tradition as my father, grandfather, and uncles had served in every branch of the military. But I was running out of time. Had it not been for an age waiver granted to me by the Marine Corps, I would’ve come close to missing my chance. But that was then. According to the changes made by Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, David Chu, the age limits have been raised. A 42 year old can now, with an age waiver, enter the service as a soldier. We are healthier and living longer he says. Over the weekend I thought about how I felt about this change, and I’ve decided it depends on whether I see it as a Marine, a Citizen, or my father’s son.

If You Can’t Meet the Goal, Lower the Goal

As a Marine, I wish the Army recruiters well. They had missed their goals last year, recruiting almost 7,000 below their target. So it is understandable that in addition to beefing up their recruiting and referral incentives, hiring a new add agency, and lowering their recruiting goal by 8,000, the Army made their target this year by relaxing their age standards as well. But as stated in the excellent blog by Steven Urbanski, “With recruiters struggling to meet enlistment goals, the recruiters have begun looking the other way.” Now they won’t have to. Along with the acceptance of an older generation of men and women, the Army has to accept their past. According to the Army’s own numbers, waivers concerning prior misdemeanor criminal offenses, drug or alcohol issues or medical problems have been required by 15.5 percent of recruits compared with 12 percent for 2004 and 2003. Last year, when they did not meet their goal, they were at 15 percent.

In addition to the relaxation of age, medical, and criminal standards for recruits, the Army has also relaxed their testing standards, signing up those who score below 30 out of 99 on their aptitude test. The acceptance rate was 2%. Now it is 4%. In an article by the Wall Street Journal, Army General Rochelle said, “I am confident we will not be above the DoD goal of 4%. My advice to the General if it doesn’t pan out: If you can’t meet the goal, lower the goal.

Support the Troops, Join the Army

As a citizen, I remember the pride I felt putting the new Marine Corps Sticker on the bottom left corner of my rear window. With the lowering of the age standard, according to the Army's estimates, 22.6 million men and women will have the chance to feel the same pride and lend a hand. Now, instead of supporting the troops with a yellow ribbon on their car, they can drive their car down to the recruiting station and play an integral part in the foreign policy they are responsible for. That is honor, courage, and commitment. But since the lowering of the age standard, the Army has recruited only 5 soldiers aged 40 and over, and 324 people aged 35 and older since June. Maybe the word hasn’t gotten out yet. But, regardless of whether or not we get 22.6 million new recruits or a thousand, my hats are off to them for the sacrifice they make on behalf of others.

Not My Dad

But as a son, my perspective changes and the change in policy gets a little more difficult to accept. It is heartbreaking to watch the faces of the war dead as I read their names and see their relatively young ages on the roll call of those killed in action. I think of the ultimate sacrifice they and their mothers and fathers have made and the future they will no longer share. Today, as I spoke to my father about this subject and about the time he spent in the Army, I also thought of the change in policy and how we are slowly adding another generation to the rolls of those who may someday not come home to make up for someone elses misjudgments. Although it is happening now with the older reservist pulling more than their share of the load overseas, and dying, it is still hard to imagine a young 20 or 30 something losing a parent. Especially if that parent is yours. So this new standard change, like most policies, is okay as long is it doesn’t affect me. Right? Wrong! Now we have possibly 22.6 million more men and women, to serve proudly, as best they can, and hopefully come home too. Somehow, as a son, it doesn’t comfort me.

For years we have been told we are fighting the Bad Guys. Al Qaeda. Terrorists. Fighting them over there so we wouldn't fight them over here. So we fought and died, trained our Iraqi allies, and depleted our resources to provide the Iraqis with democracy and freedom. Just a few days ago, 2 of our finest were tortured and brutally murdered by evil men drawn to Iraq for the sole purpose of killing Americans. Never before has the face of our global enemy revealed itself in these acts of depravity. Against this foe, we were the Freedom Fighters, the liberators in the "noble cause". It was our duty to rid Iraq and the world of their savagery and lawlessness. It was a Global War on Terror, after all, and they were the enemies of civilization.

Why does the U.S. inprison them here while our "ally" seeks to pardon them over there?

On one hand, the U.S. government is fighting tooth and nail to indefinitely hold enemy combatants of the same sort who mercilessly tortured and killed PFC's Menchaca and Tucker. The Geneva Convention has been cast aside to keep these terrorist away from the "central front of the war on terror". Meanwhile the Iraqis, with our acquiescence, are considering the pardon of these same killers right on our front lines. In the words of the Iraqi leadership, those that kill Americans are guilty only of "legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland." That same high-ranking official went on to say, "These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe". There is a contradiction here, and it doesn't make sense.

What has changed?

What has changed is the element of time for we have over-stayed our welcome and purpose. Now, after years of "stay the course" and 2,500 of our best killed, our allies on this Global War on Terror now have "turned the corner" on us claiming that those who shed American blood are now the Freedom Fighters. Killing Americans is now their "noble cause". Liberate and leave has changed to liberate and languish and those that killed PFC Menchaca and PFC Tucker can expect a full pardon providing they had not shed Iraqi blood if the Iraqi government has its way.

How did we go from liberators to "the enemy"?

Liberators liberate and leave. That's what we do and we are good at it. But because we have not begun to drawdown and redeploy as we should, Jack Murtha's toughly worded but honest assessment that we have "become the enemy" has become tragically real to the families of PFC's Menchaca and Tucker. When the majority of the Iraqi people believe it is justified to kill Americans, this pardon/amnesty would make the torture and killing of servicemen like those young men legal. The proposed Iraqi pardon of those who have shed American blood is concrete proof of his honest assertion and will cost us lives and credibility. We know we are not the enemy. We know we were there to give the Iraqis a better life, but a line has to be drawn somewhere when the very same Iraqis believe we are "the enemy" and their government takes steps to legitimize that belief.

...Who Needs Enemies?

We should pull out to the periphery, test the Iraqi national will and allow a government emboldened to pardon whomever they please to finally stand for themselves. If they falter we will be close enough to strike in the same way we struck Zarquawi but far enough away to cease being targets. But to keep our troops where they are, in the service of a foreign government where American lives are just collateral damage is irresponsible and indefensible. We must not allow the enemy that has destroyed the lives of our servicemen and their families a chance to torture and kill again and we must not allow the Iraqi government to legitimize evil in order to keep a fractured country together. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Here's a message from Joe Duran, giving us some perspective on the proposal to provide amnesty to ex-insurgents who may have killed Americans, but not Iraqis.

"Thunderstruck, bewildered, and pissed off."

That was pretty much the words you could use to describe the reaction of my fellow Marines and I as we discussed the latest news this morning.

The news that the freely elected Iraqi government is considering giving amnesty to those who have killed our servicemen and women hit us like a kick in the gut. The fact that they are even considering amnesty dishonors those brave young men and women who have sacrificed their lives to help them secure their freedom and endangers those still standing by emboldening the enemy to strike Americans. That hit a nerve, and hit it hard. You might say we were thunderstruck today, and that is not an easy thing to do to Marines. We are caught in the middle with no help from the Iraqi government we helped establish and protect.

After hearing the news this morning, some Gut Reactions:

"It's a B.S. move"

"It's a bad deal"

"What a bunch of As*&*$%*es"

"Give 'em an inch, they take a mile."

...and these are just for starters. A group that is relatively unmoved by their own government's decisions got fired up by a supposed ally on this Global War on Terror... Global unless you happen to kill an American in Iraq. Then you are a free man.

A majority of Iraqis believe it is justified to kill Americans. This amnesty would make it legal.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

As the day progressed, the gut reactions developed into serious questions and nightmare scenarios.

One example: "So, we find these guys who made the IED that blew up my buddy. We take them prisoner and hold them. They are granted amnesty and are free to fight again as an insurgent in the streets, or infiltrate the Iraqi Security Forces and detonate a bomb in the very building that held them, killing more Americans and Iraqis."

Are they trying to piss us off? Or worse?

There can be no defense of this amnesty. To defend this would be to admit that this Global War on Terror is neither global, nor a war. To defend the Iraqis for suggesting this is to place their freedom to release terrorist over the welfare of our troops. And don't tell me that mission accomplishment has anything to do with releasing convicted terrorists. Isn't the reason we are told we are there is to fight those responsible for killing Americans on 9/11? What sense does it make, then, to release those very combatants for committing the very same act of murder on their soil? We disregarded the sovereignty of one regime unconnected to the events of 9/11 to avenge those deaths. Why are we stopping now?

So they can "reconcile"?

The word "reconcile" has been used by our leaders recently to put this outrage into a rosy and unrealistic light.

If we let them out to "reconcile," fine. Just get us out first. Then they "reconcile" each other to death. Leave us out of it, we did our part.

"Psychology, as I understand it, means knowledge of the soul. Yet, how shall we speak about the souls of others, when we do not even know our own? Is there a single one of us who can say with certainty how he will react to a certain event? Nevertheless, as leaders we must have some knowledge of the souls of our soldiers; because the soldier, the living man, is the instrument with which we have to work in war...no commander lacking in this inner knowledge of his men can accomplish great things."

- Adolph Von Schell, "Battle Leadership" (1933) Standard Marine Corps Reading

After spending billions of our dollars and lives Mr. Bush is slowly finding out what he could have learned for the price of a used book or a youth better spent:

Experienced troops need experienced leadership.

Never has a gap in a life's history become so apparent, and so dangerous, than now. Had he the experience of a warrior, he would truly understand what the military man needs to win a war. Had he the soul of one, he would have learned the role that faith in leadership plays in the hearts of our troops. Now, as his leadership moment passes into history, a chance of a lifetime to atone for missing time when he was needed most gone, he has chosen to align himself with something other than the soul of a soldier.
And this soldier's soul will never forget.

More thoughts from Sgt. Joe Duran:

The battling analogies...Fukuyama, a noted thinker and essayist likening the Iraqi pre-emptive war to committing a suicide to prevent a killing...a day later Rumsfeld, the right's version of Kennedy's best and brightest, comparing the notion of leaving Iraq now to giving Germany back to the Nazis...c'mon guys...

This is America. In America you use sports analogies when discussing geo-politics and anything else that isn't sports. It's March Madness for crying out loud! The NFL draft is just around the corner! We're thinking brackets, not BRAC! Draft selections, not Iraqi elections! So if Fukuyama or Rumsfeld, or anyone else important wants to get our attention about this war, we'll give you a hand with your analogies and make them something we can understand.

First of all, the Iraq war is not football, basketball, or any other game with a clock. Those games have a beginning and an end. This administration has decided that our opponent cannot know when this war ends, less they be emboldened to win. I have a hint for these smart ones. Our enemies know that if we are still there -- the game's not over!

The Iraq War is not a tennis, bowling, or baseball. While there are no clocks for these sports, there is a definite scoring system involved. This administration has not decided on any concrete way to measure victory. The Iraqi Security Forces are able to defend themselves as stand alone units? What does that mean to the sports fan? It means that the game isn't over until the JV suits up and takes over the game. I don't know about you, but if I were the other team, I would just wait for the JV to take the field, and then pound them. This definitely wouldn't happen in any sport I know.

So now they know which sports analogies not to use. Which leaves us with this last one. What sport has no scoring, no time clocks, and yet has a definite winner at the end that can claim "complete victory"? Only one.

And it was played over a thousand years ago in the Coliseum of Rome for an Emperor that watched as men wielded weapons that he had only seen and never touched. It is the ultimate sport that all sports analogies derive from. "Sudden death" or "complete victory". Only one man had the power to decide this with the up or down of a thumb. This, my friend, is the ultimate sports analogy, and one we should remember through this March Madness.

What we want is to win. The best way to win is to do it quickly. Not this cat and mouse game. The longer the insurgency goes on, the stronger it will become. History shows this. You see, in 10 - 20 years the fighters will be born into the insurgency, not just trained. That is a tough enemy to beat.

Your unique voice captured my attention, the very first time I heard it, and when you captured my attention last night I listened to you because I can relate to what you were saying. You're different. Ms. Sheehan too had the same unique voice and quality about her, and in her I saw my mother, a woman of conscience and courage. I felt a smear against her was a smear against all service-members mothers, including my own, and I spoke out publicly in her defense.

Now she is a celebrity of sorts, with an agenda that has grown with time. Her list of friends and supporters has grown from the concerned families who lit candles on the side of the road to what appears to be an industry, and this industry includes a man that has a serious beef with our administration. I still understand her big picture and as a citizen she has a right to speak out. But Ms Sheehan has traded in her once unique voice in return for a larger audience.

Sometimes smaller is bigger and "unique" always captures our imagination. Hanging with Chavez just stereotypes her. I thought her cause was bigger than that, and I'm disappointed. Ten years from now Chavez will be a memory if this admininstration has anything to do with it. I was hoping Cindy would've realized that. Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and Cesar Chavez were unique too. Their message played to everyone and their voices were stronger than any world leader's stage. They made their own stage with their message. She may be trading in the legacy of one Chavez for another, and by that, diminish her truth. Unique people would never do that.

Flav- these are the things that effect morale. Not the truth, never the truth, but the ineptitude of policy-making that kills, maims, and wounds the heart.
James Glanz of the NYT writes:
"Sweeping statistics on insurgent violence in Iraq that were declassified for a Senate hearing on Wednesday appear to portray a rebellion whose ability to mount attacks has steadily grown in the nearly three years since the invasion.
The statistics were included in a report written by Joseph A. Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office, who testified before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee during a hearing on Iraq stabilization and reconstruction."

Here's another note I got from Sgt. Joe Duran:

Something I was thinking about on the ride home today after talking with the guys: You can tell Cheney never served by the way he's handled this last issue. Military guys tend not to wait to be handled. They go on guts. Bush waits. Cheney waits. They all wait. To bad Hackett pulled out. Not a very strategic guy, at first, but sometimes its good to let it all hang out, like Murtha did. Its more genuine. And in times like these, I think thats what we need. Its been so long since we've had bare-your-soul honesty, f*&* the polls, focus groups, and donor lists.

Hackett should've taken this quote to heart: "Don't just fight the fights you can win, fight the ones worth fighting." Its gotten so bad that people wouldn't know the truth when they hear it. They'd just assume they're being handled and spun.To quote a movie-again: "People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference." I just hope people like you can help the rest of us make the distinction between strategy and honesty. They've been serving us sand margaritas for so long.

Hope your "gigs" are successful because your wins are the people's wins.

I don't think the Administration is on the cusp of losing the support and morale in any significant way, nor will the negative feeling spread in a way that effects our performance in any substantial way for 2 reasons.

The first reason is that the Marine Corps is very good at managing the education and informational input of its troops and by extension, what we think and feel. I first noticed this shortly after the attacks of 9/11 when the hallways of work were filled with professionally produced posters bearing the image of the burning and smoking Twin Towers in the middle and photos of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on either side of it. It was a very powerful image, and very wrong. It is no wonder that, "while 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq." (Zogby , 2/28/06).

These astounding percentages nearly 5 years after the attacks and over 4 years after the invasion of Iraq is a testament to the power of this administration’s management of information and education of its citizen soldiers. They have only begun to flex their power.

I can further describe what the Pentagon has created within its forces with this quote:

It is a "culture of silence - rather than being encouraged and equipped to know and respond to the concrete realities of their world, (the soldiers) are kept submerged in a situation in which critical awareness and response are practically impossible - and it becomes clear that the whole educational system was one of the major instruments for the maintenance of the culture of silence". (Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970).

Freire’s culture of silence is an apt description of our current state of the union and or armed forces and how any negative feelings that you mentioned will not spread in any real way. No one talks about them. They come secondary to the task at hand.

The second reason the president has to do no further than what he has done to keep our morale at sufficient levels is more visceral to me. As the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major Estrada, told a small room of NCO’s of which I was a part of today, "it comes down to doing our job, a job that not many people would step up for, one that we might be asked to kill, or be killed, doing. That is why we are the few, the proud." Almost 300 years of military tradition will squelch any significant negative feelings from spreading quickly throughout the military, and if it does, we are being trained to wear that hardship as a badge of honor. I could feel the goosebumps rise on my neck. It is a powerful antidote to bad news.

We must keep our promises. The leadership in DC is attempting to impose commissions and spending bills that will ultimately reduce military benefits and the Department of Veteran Affairs funding. These programs are committments made--not welfare. The servicemen and women have worked hard keeping our promise to defend this country. All we ask is for the same committment from those who send us to war.

We need accountability. The last thing a soldier should worry about is faulty equipment. The military families worry too. It is the responsibility of our leadership to provide the best equipment to its troops and to correct deficiencies. We cannot fight this war "on the cheap". We owe it to the troops and their families to hold those responsible for sending us into harms way without adequate armor. They must be held accountable for their actions and inactions. We owe it to the troops and their families to investigate this and bring it to the light of day.

We need to increase the size of our force. Right now we are spread too thin. Many hardworking men and women are asked to go back for a second and third tour. This puts an undue strain on the military families at home. These military families have done more than their share and should not be penalized for a failure to plan ahead. Hurricane Katrina spotlighted the glaring gap in our readiness created by the over extension of forces. People like my wife, a first-responder as a sheriff's deputy, were tasked with jobs reserved for the National Guard. Inadequate force size leaves us vulnerable at home. It doesn't have to be this way. We need to utilize all resouces available to the United States to avert war. Unending war only weakens this country. The economy, the environment, dependence on foreign sources of energy, healthcare and AIDS funding, and every issue that affects not just the people of Louisiana, but every American is neglected. By employing a strong and smart diplomatic effort, America can deal from a position of strength and increase her respect in the world. Respect and strength leads to a de-escalation of conflict, and allows America's leaders to focus on issues that need more attention.

We must take care of the military family. TRICARE should be extended to all servicemembers. As the National Gaurdsmen and reservist shoulder more of the load in this war, it is only fair to cover them and their families for the extraordinary service they have given to our country. It is the right thing to do and they deserv> e it. In addition, due to the increased responsiblity placed on our veterans, it is important that we recognize their years of hard work by lowering the retirement age to 55 from 60. It is also of vital importance that we institue a pay increase to reflect the current cost of living for our servicemembers. This will increase morale and show our committment to those who have raised their hands to defend America's freedom.

If these committments are kept by our leaders, we will retain our supremacy and strengthen our security in this time of terror and tribulation. Anything less would be a failure of responsibility.