I have the utmost respect for the honorable service that you, RMP, Bebop and others here have performed for this country. I am honestly curious about how many of those comments you have compiled have come from the group who read Glenn here at UT vs. other comment sections at Salon. I wonder because I get the feeling that most of Glenn's commenters have a similar take as I, and I just don't remember a trove of derogatory comments here on UT aimed specifically at individual soldiers who are out there doing their job in a competent and honest manner.

I have no doubt that the military is not a political monolith. That just wouldn't make sense. I suspect that it is similar to the general public in that those on the right are, perhaps, more vocal and forthright in airing their views. With the current administration's efforts to politicize every arm of government, as well as the military, it is not surprising that people like Boylan have risen to the top. Criticism of officers like Boylan and Petraeus is absolutely necessary, but your point is well-taken in that we must be thoughtful and not lump all military members into the same category.

Somebody here wrote recently about Col. Boylan, "This is not some grunt we're talking about, he's Gen. Petraeus's spokesperson."

Some grunt? What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You see, it's just little crap like that, that some people at Salon just don't get. Some grunt? Indeed.

I have a close friend, someone who I have looked up to all my life as a surrogate older brother, who served two tours of duty in Nam. In all of our conversations on this subject he at some point or other would use the term 'grunt'. He tells me the word is a term of honor, applied to those who did the most difficult and dangerous work while serving. I know in my mind there is a huge difference between the 'grunts' who are serving honorably and a REMF like Boylan who is the current public face of the brand of corruption that the administration has brought to every last corner of our government.

By all means confront those who are being disparaging. But don't make the mistake of being angry at the entire group. We may not have your sensitivity to this issue because we don't have your experience, but we pretty much know an asshole when we see one and we will join with you because we do respect your service and your knowledge.

"This is not some grunt we're talking about, he's Gen. Petraeus's spokesperson."

It was meant as an example of people insinuating that "some grunt" corking off hostile email to Glenn could be expected because after all, "some grunt" might do something like that whereas, the insinuation continues, you wouldn't expect that from a colonel. -- Garry Owen

That is not how I read that at all. My interpretation of that statement was: a disgruntled grunt's email to Glenn really has no more implications or significance than a pissy letter from any of the rest of us. But missives from the spokesperson for the General in charge of one of our wars, well, that's a whole different situation, as most of us seem to agree, for a lot of different reasons.

I really did not see that statement as an attack on the soldiers. Honest.

Am I missing something? "here at UT"?

UT, Unclaimed Territory, was the name of Glenn's blog before he came to Salon. People who read him there, then followed him here, often refer to his blog here by the same name. As Anonymust said, this group of commenters is really not like most others at Salon. And we couldn't really remember many comments like you'd described taking place here either. So yes, we were consternated. We don't mind being called to account for our own 'sins', but it grinds the hiney just a teensy bit to be accused of others'. ;->

Boylan apparently started out as a Huey pilot. If that's true, he never was, nor could he be, an 11-Bravo grunt. Different MOS entirely.

Now, don't go all shy on us. I believe the term you want is 'REMF'.

In fact, my criticisms were pointed at the editors and publishers of Salon, who I mostly admire but fight with all the time.

Ok, now here's something else that I have misinterpreted, and I don't think I'm alone on this: When you air your (legitimate) beefs in Glenn's comments section, and demand to know what, if anything, he is doing about all of it, it certainly seems as if your criticism is aimed at Glenn and/or his commenters.

You are angry and, after reading this entire thread and thinking back on others, I understand your anger. It's justified. Anger serves a useful purpose in life, but it can also cloud our judgement. IMO, one of the drawbacks to communicating in an internet forum is that one loses the visual and vocal cues that give so much of our interaction as humans meaning. It is a medium that lends itself readily to misunderstandings. It's something I try to keep in mind when I'm reading responses to my own posts.

an incurable optimistic pessimist

Is this the same as a 'humorous curmudgeon'? Ya gotta love a good curmudgeon.

and how in Glenn's mind, "some low-level grunt" could be expected to write vile letters to editors rather than a colonel on the general staff.

Well, I can't get into Glenn's mind any easier than you, but I do not believe, in any way, shape or form, that this is what Glenn was suggesting.

You have put something into this that did not exist.

Can a 'humorous curmudgeon' also be a flaming liberal?

-- Retired Military Patriot

Gore Vidal and Ed Asner come immediately to mind.

This is funny, you'll enjoy it.

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-09-23-goodrumps.html