BlackFive

First, I looked up the original source of the editorial at the Tribune Media Services.  It has the title listed as "Heroes Don't Come Wholesale" with a date of April 9th.  So maybe editors are re-titling the editorial. 

Next, let's look at what Mr. Rooney has to say.  I'll leave the questions alone as they were meant for soldiers in Iraq (I forwarded the letter to Kevin at Boots On the Ground - he just got back from Iraq). 

Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home.

I would submit that most soldiers would never assume the mantle of hero.  For perspective, Rooney is from the Greatest Generation where just about everyone was involved in the war effort.  There was a huge draft and a stigma attached to those who didn't volunteer.  I think he is confusing 1944 with 2004.

Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people - sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them.

To me, someone is brave if they fear to do something and get up the gumption to do it, anyway.  I'll bet that everyone last one of them are scared at some point.  They should be.  But the majority of them also don't let that stop them from getting the mission done.

To face danger and not be fearful isn't a demonstration of bravery - it's stupidity.  Mr. Rooney has it all wrong.

We pin medals on their chests to keep them going. We speak of them as if they volunteered to risk their lives to save ours, but there isn't much voluntary about what most of them have done. A relatively small number are professional soldiers. During the last few years, when millions of jobs disappeared, many young people, desperate for some income, enlisted in the Army. About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home.

True enough that, when the economy is bad, recruiting for the Armed Forces goes well.  However, it's not like the military ADDED divisions, fleets, and air wings just because they had more people than slots to fill.  The difference between today and 1944 is that our force is 100% voluntary.  Note to Rooney:  "Look up definition of voluntary".  As for the Reservists, I don't know of one who doesn't know that they might be called on to serve on active duty.  They may not like it.  Not many of them will want to leave their spouse, their kids, their job, their home to face danger.  Yet they still do it.  Of course, they want to come home.  The point is that Mr. Rooney is twisting what is common sense into something negative and partisan.

One indication that not all soldiers in Iraq are happy warriors is the report recently released by the Army showing that 23 of them committed suicide there last year. This is a dismaying figure. If 22 young men and one woman killed themselves because they couldn't take it, think how many more are desperately unhappy but unwilling to die.

This is a low number of suicides by any standards for a population under huge stress.  This via USA Today:

...The numbers suggest the rate in Iraq is above normal. Last year, the military services reported 8 to 9 suicides per 100,000 people. The Army rate is usually higher, 10 to 13 per 100,000. That mirrors the rate for the same age group in the general population....

Any deaths, especially by suicide IS dismaying, but I think Mr. Rooney is reading the data to support his hypothesis that Soldiers in Iraq aren't heroes.

We must support our soldiers in Iraq because it's our fault they're risking their lives there. However, we should not bestow the mantle of heroism on all of them for simply being where we sent them. Most are victims, not heroes.

It is our fault and/or responsibility that the military is in Iraq, but they are most definitely not victims.  We sent them there.  For all of those out there crying out, "I was against the war!", either there weren't enough of you or you didn't try hard enough to stop the invasion.  If pols had been different, perhaps President Bush would not have taken us to war. Knowing the atrocities by Saddam in northern Iraq, I supported (and still support) our presence there. 

You cannot be for the troops but against the war.  If you don't support the war, the troops will get less support from Washington.  If the troops get less support from our government, they will be put in more danger.  Why?

1.  Because the insurgents will be led to believe that if they do enough damage to us, we will cut and run.  They probably read the pols more closely than you do.

2.  Because less support means less troops, less equipment, less air power, less money.  That's Vietnam, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Mr. Rooney is pretty far off of the mark here.  The questions that he wants answered have to do with a country's committment to NOT treat it's soldiers like it did after they returned from Viet Nam.