Anonymous, you're wrong, and here's why.

To civilians, yes, "soldier" is a generic term. But to those who serve or have served in the military, it's a specific term for members of the Army. You may think it's a silly distinction, but trust me when I say it matters, a lot, to the people who actually bear the title.

And if we ever want to get our kids out of the hellholes of Afghanistan and Iraq, we have to have the troops (a good generic term, if you're looking for one) and veterans on board. As a veteran, I cringe when I read articles that casually misuse military terminology, even if (as here) I think the overall point of the article is a good one. It weakens the author's credibility. And I guarantee you that for every vet like me, who's willing to overlook the errors, there are ten whose gut reaction will be, "They can't even get the words right, why should I listen to anything they say?"

I was a soldier, then an airman; now I'm a veteran. All three are important to me. If you refuse to understand that, then you deserve the same contempt as the neocon chickenhawks who consider all our troops to be disposable parts regardless of what uniform they wear.

Suppose you were chatting with a doctor about AIDS, and you said, "So people who have this kind of cancer --"

And the doctor holds up his hand and says, "AIDS isn't cancer. They're both serious diseases, but they're different kinds."

Would you say, "Don't be so brainwashed! Maybe you medical people make these silly distinctions, but as far as I'm concerned, any serious disease is cancer!"

Or let's say you take your car in to the mechanic's, and it turns out you need a new battery, and you say, "Okay, so can you fix my engine?" And the mechanic says, "Oh, your engine's fine; it's just the battery." I can hear your response now:

"Why do you automotive people insist on this terminology? To normal people, anything under the hood is the engine!"

Are you starting to understand where the contempt comes from now? It's not about "brainwashing." It's about wanting language to be used precisely. In particular, it's about a gut reaction to the deliberate use of imprecise language to blur the distinction between the many different types of military personnel currently serving in Iraq. And that's a trick I associate with the fuckheads who got us into the war, not with people who (I assume) oppose it.

I'm not saying that you're doing it for the same reasons as they do, you understand. With them, it's part of a deliberate plan to deny the humanity of those who serve, so they can continue to treat them as interchangeable parts. With you, I think, it's a kind of lofty faux-populism, as with the examples I gave above -- and those aren't entirely made-up examples; when I was working in patient care (first as an Air Force medic, then as a civilian EMT) I often ran into precisely that level of aggressive ignorance, and I've overheard similar conversations at mechanics' shops. Whatever the motivation, though, it makes your arguments much easier to dismiss, regardless of their merits ... and since I'm pretty sure we're on the same side, big-picture-wise, that seems like something to be avoided.

Yellow Dog wrote:

Except for the germ theory and some classes of pharmaceuticals (AIDS drugs), "modern" medicine has not provided that much added value in its two centuries of existence.

So ... next time you get seriously ill or injured, you'll restrict yourself to the level of medical care that was available in 1807?

... conservatives believed in a small government with sharply limited powers?

Well, okay, neither do I. But I remember when they at least claimed they did. Now they're showing their true colors: thugs who brag about watching your every move and "Anonymous" sheep who cheer them on. I'm honestly not clear on what's "conservative" about that, but I suppose they must be conserving something. Maybe, since the Cold War ended and Russia and America are no longer engaged in a giant game of nuclear chicken, they feel they have to conserve the total amount of fear in the world? Hey guys, here's a hint: there's a word for people who cause fear to achieve political goals. It begins with the letter "t". And it's not only swarthy Middle-Eastern types who fit that description.

... is a leading Republican candidate for the Presidential nomination turning his back on a wounded veteran asking hard questions.

So here's my question for the MSM: where's the outrage? I guarantee you that if Clinton or Obama or Edwards or, hell, Kucinich did something like that, we'd be treated to weeks of droning pundits telling us about how Democrats don't support the troops, don't believe in America, and want al-Qaeda to win. Not just the individual candidate who did it, you understand, but all Democrats. But when a Republican does it? Wow, listen to those crickets chirping ...

... is someone who doesn't know very much about nature.

That goes for any other economic system too, of course. Marxists think communism is natural and inevitable. Medieval noblemen thought feudalism was ordanined by God. Communal anarchists think we can all get back to some imagined natural, prehistoric system that will magically sort itself out without any rules.

It's all bullshit. We decide on the "laws" of economics. Capitalism is a choice -- better than most to be sure; that doesn't make it perfect -- and we make decisions, including moral decisions, that subtly alter the way it works every single day. What modern capitalists call capitalism would be utterly foreign to Adam Smith.

For those who think it's natural ... spend a week backpacking through the high Rockies and get back to me on that. If, that is, you survive the experience of trying to convince an angry bear to buy some derivatives.