To: LindyBill who wrote (98918 ) 2/6/2005 8:40:46 AM From: LindyBill Respond to of 793754 The Voice of the Average Soldier By Cori Dauber With their deployment at an end, the Post breaks with normal practice and asks some soldiers what they think about the progress of the war. With no combat casualties, you can bet this isn't a unit that's gotten much attention to date. (Somewhat backwards if you think about it: shouldn't a unit like that be getting a great deal of attention?) But the questions have to do with progress, whether the war is won, or will be won, and when. All completely legitimate questions, without a doubt, and ones it would be nice to see reporters asking troops more often. And because of the timing, the question of how the soldiers feel about their efforts comes up. But the explicit question of whether the soldiers feel what they've done was worthwhile doesn't seem to be coming up. But boy can this be read more than one way:washingtonpost.com Soldiers ranging from privates to senior officers described last Sunday's national elections as vindication for over a year of hard service. The unexpectedly strong turnout, they said, altered their perception about the willingness of Iraqis to embrace the American mission here and helped project a rare positive image of the U.S. military following such stains as the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal last year. (My emph.) Now, which do you think the troops actually meant: thank God, something positive finally came out of this mission? because nothing good has happened to counter abu Ghraib -- which happened months ago? Or, alternatively, the elections finally gave the newsies a positive image they were actually willing to pick up? and one so strong even the newsies have to admit it balances abu Ghraib? Look at this quote: "This was the opposite of Abu Ghraib," Agueda said. "I think it's safe to say that this is the biggest thing that anyone of us has ever done. I mean, in our humble positions, we helped make history. We did something that could have a positive effect on the entire world." There's obviously no way to tell. But which is more likely: That this was a spontaneous way the soldier thought up to articulate the importance of the elections? Or, an answer to a specific prompt, a question asked about how the elections might wash away the "stain" of abu Ghraib? The question of whether soldiers thought the war worthwhile is only asked explicitly at the very end of the article (and the answer there is tinged with ambivalence). Capt. Chris Duncan, 28, a Johns Hopkins University graduate from Kingsland, Ark., said he staunchly supported the war. But when he heard a soldier had been killed, or saw one of his friends wounded, he occasionally found himself asking, "What was it for?" On election day, Duncan said, he stood near a precinct and watched Iraqis stream to the polls. "First you had one, then two, then 50," he said. "Then the line was around the polling site. And this was in a neighborhood where people really had a reason to dislike us -- former Baath Party members, former military regime guys." Duncan, who has spent 20 months in Iraq over the past three years, said the image solidified his resolve. "Now I know what it was for," he said. Just the same, this is more space given over to the voice of the average soldier (when he isn't either complaining or refusing orders) than is almost ever seen in a major daily. And that voice is more positive than most people would, as a result, probably have expected. Maybe it will start to happen more often.