"They're Not Supporting the Troops"

In the wake of the brutal murders of our brave warriors Thomas Lowell Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, I'm reprinting a letter from warrior Anthony Ippoliti that first appeared in his hometown newspaper The Ridgefield Press. Mr. Ippoliti was giving an answer to all those "peace" activists who claim they're supporting the troops even as they disdain the war. Mr. Ippoliti tells them just how wrongheaded they are. Read and learn.


"They're Not Supporting the Troops"
by Anthony Ippoliti

I am fortunate enough to receive The Ridgefield Press every few weeks and enjoy keeping abreast of local issues currently pressing in our small town. I am a U.S. Marine Infantryman currently serving in Fallujah, Iraq, and my mother usually includes The Press in the many care packages she send me.

Since we have very limited access to telephones, The Ridgefield Press is the primare means by which I receive local news. Almost every week, I open The Press and find an article or letter to the editors denouncing the coalition effort in Iraq. Invariably, the individuals behind these anti-war letters and rallies mask their political agenda by asserting that they "support the troops but not the war". People like Vince Giordano, Paul Sutherland, and Anne Stubbs are pictured in the April 13 edition of The Press carrying a yellow-ribboned coffin and signs that say "Bring Them Home Now." They read off the names of the dead and claim to "show support for our troops" while urging lawmakers to "bring them home." They believe that the U.S.-led coalition should never have entered Iraq and that the current effort is a never-ending quagmire that has made no progress. They believe that things are progressively getting worse and think that our forces should just pick up and leave. They do all this under the pretense that they are supporting the troops. However, what they are really doing is using our lives and the issue of our safety and well-being as a means to achieve a political end.

My primary concern is the assertion that these individuals support the troops in Iraq but not our mission. It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale. Supporting the troops but not the war is like saying that you support filmmakers but not making films. One cannot claim to support an individual in a given profession but not support what the said profession entails. This is essentially a slap in the face to those in the service.

How protesting the job we are doing in Iraq while demanding our withdrawal constitutes supporting us is beyond me. Futhermore, I'm particularly interested in how these people support us, specifically. I have never once received a letter from an individual who claims to "support the troops, not the war." Not a single Marine I know has received anything that could be considered remotely supportive from any of these people or the groups they represent. We have received phone cards, hygiene supplies, food, etc., from members of state and local government, radio stations, schools, private individual and organizations, but never once from any group claiming to "support the troops, but not the war."

I ask again: How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong? How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain? How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause?

I reply to the questions I pose with a simple answer: They can't. As a matter of fact, I assert with a considerable degree of confidence that their effort make our already difficlult job even more difficult. I'll go so far as to say that their rallies and protests cost more and more servicemen their lives and limbs every day. I support my assertion with evidence gathered first hand. I see the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I speak with the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I don't sit behind a desk and do paperwork or resupply efforts in the military. I an am Infantry Marine and I walk the sewage-filled streets of this city every day. In Falllujah, the people watch Al Jazeera. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to "Bring The Troops Home," they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely. Furthermore, they know that the insurgents will not end their efforts early. That leads them to the conclusion that when we leave, the insurgents will still be there--if we don't finish the job. Much that they see on American television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon our efforts before the new Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and its citizens.

The actions of these aforementioned organizations and the heavy media coverage their rallies often generate serves as a fuel for the insurgency. Insurgents believe they can drive us out through the idea of "death by a thousand cuts." The longer they persist in their efforts, the more the America public becomes disenchanted with the coalition effort. The insurgency sees this as a result. These criminals will continue to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army and coalition forces so long as they see that their efforts are alienating the American public from its military.

And for those of you that aren't up to speed with the situation in Iraq, the insurgents attack and kill established public services (such as Iraqi police and Iraqi army) more often than they attack coalition forces. As a matter of fact, an explosive-laden insurgent blew himself up last week outside the Iraqi police station that is attached to our compound. The insurgents aren't fighting simply to drive America out of Iraq. They are fighting to destroy any semblance of the Iraqi goverment so that they can impose their will on its people. Publicly protesting our efforts in Iraq fuels the insurgency. Doing it under the pretext of "supporting our troops" is disgraceful.

Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen's right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution. However, voicing one's opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support. Additionally, using deployed service members as a mask to serve your purely political purpose is downright shameful. If your desire is to protest the war, then protest the war, but don't use me or any reference to our troops as a tool to bolster your purpose.

I'll summarize by saying this: Organizations such as The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War do not support our troops. No matter what they say or what is printed on the signs they carry, hey effectviely do the opposite of supporting us. They downright hurt us. Such organizations damage the morale of the men and women in the armed forces and progressively cause them to believe less and less in the mission at hand. The conditions here are difficult as it is. Opening a month-old edition of The Ridgefield {ress and reading an article about an anti-war demonstration that uses our troop in an effort to maks it's true cause doesn't help. Please don't feign support while effectively telling us that we are fighting for an unworthy cause. I think I speak for an ovewhelming majority of our troops when I ask organizations like The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War to discontinue using Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors as a means to serve a political end. You are neither supporting us nor honoring us. You are doing the exact opposite.


Couldn't have said it better myself, soldier. Semper Fi!

I Wannabe Ann Coulter!

I wannabe Ann Coulter!

Yes, I admit it. Even though she said some pretty controversial things in her latest book, I wannabe her. Honestly, I haven't read a single book she's written, at least not all the way through. But I like her take-no-prisoners style when debating the issues on tv.

I love the fact that she's an outspoken--to put it mildly-- conservative woman. Ann Coulter shatters the Left's doctrine of identity politics, that restrictive notion that a person's political and social views should be determined by the group(s) to which he belongs. According to the doctrine, women are supposed to be liberal, voting Democrat under the unquestioned assumption that Democrats are the only politicians who can help them as women. Ann Coulter is a proud, right-wing woman, fearlessly voicing her disdain for the Left and all it's toxic "solutions" for our nation's problems. No wonder the mainstream media hates her.

Ann Coulter is the poster child for what I call individualist politics, the idea that a person's political and social beliefs are and should be determined by his education and life experiences as an individual, not by the group(s) to which he belongs. Usually, people who practice individualist politics are members of "oppressed" groups--women, gays, minorities-- whom the Left insists must be left-wing. For an individual member of such a group to think for himself and come to a different view is heresy of the highest order. Such people are subjected to the most venomous hatred by the devotees of tolerance and diversity. Just ask Ann, she knows.

And that's why I wannabe Ann Coulter. I practice individualist politics, but I'm not nearly as courageous in expressing it as Ann is. I'd settle for just half her chutzpah. If I had that I could knock down some doors instead of being semi in the closet. If only Ann could send her spirit to possess those seeking courage; I'd be a willing vessel. Find me a psychic! Find me a channeler! I wannabe Ann Coulter. She rocks!

Michael Berg Sucks

On the day when every American should've been rejoicing over the killing of terrorist Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, Michael Berg could only express sadness at the demise of his son Nicholas Berg's killer.

If you remember, Nicholas Berg was beheaded by al-Zarqawi in 2003, but if you're to believe the incredible statements by the elder Berg, al-Zarqawi probably wasn't Nicholas' killer.

In an interview on Fox News, Michael Berg, a professed pacifist, openly doubted that al-Zarqawi killed his son, dimissing both the videotape showing al-Zarqawi beheading Nicholas and claims of al-Zarqawi's guilt from the "lying FBI". Instead, Berg insisted that George Bush was responsible for his son's death because Bush started the Iraq war. According to Berg's thinking, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq al-Zarqawi never would've been in the country. Never mind that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war began.

Michael Berg hates America. He might try to hide his hatred behind a mask of pacifism, but the animus he harbors for the US oozed out of every word he spoke on Fox News. No one who loves his country could engage in and believe the kind of reality reversal that Berg so painfully practices and believes. His desperate need to see America as the bad guy, in total disregard of the evil committed by her enemies, can come only from hate.

I cut Michael Berg no slack because he lost a child in the Iraq war. Many people have lost children in this war but they haven't gone over to the enemy's side. And they don't preach a "pacifism" that opposes only America's wars, not war itself. Michael Berg's status as a grieving father earns him no pass on the outrageous things he said about al-Zarqawi, Bush, and this war. He is routing for America's defeat and that makes him a traitor, plain and simple. And if you don't see that, you're as treacherous as he is.