Say What?

2007-04-03T10:37:00.000-04:00

“It’s OK, Mom, I’m a Soldier”

Lately I have been writing to my representatives about my son and what is happening within his body physically and how he will once again be in a war zone but this time with a body less capable than four years ago. I've been speaking out about the madness of sending soldiers back to a war zone over and over again and again - the need to put bodies over there no matter what the bodies can or cannot do - let alone the spirit of the person and what the spirit can or can no longer do. . . .

When my youngest son came to me and said he had enlisted into the military, I have to say my heart sank. No one in our family had belonged to the military. I knew that could possibly be a difficult life, but he told me he wanted to be a soldier and make a difference. It is something he's always wanted to be. I remember the day he left for boot camp. We both cried because I couldn't hold back my tears as I hugged him and he never could stand to see me cry.
I then remember the day he came back from boot camp. I went to the airport to meet him, and there came this man down the walkway, proudly wearing his uniform. I stood, again tears rolling down my face, and he hugged me saying, “Mom, it's okay. I'm a soldier.“
I was proud then, and I am proud of him now.

When 9/11 happened, all the fears in my life came into play. I had a daughter living in New York, and I lost contact with her because of the situation. Once again I held my breath and prayed in the evenings for the safety of one of my children so far away and so much in harm’s way. I also had a son in the military who I knew deep in my heart was going to have to face this enemy, and I found myself holding my breath and praying, hoping that wouldn't be necessary.

Four years ago when the President decided it was more important to invade Iraq than it was to pursue the group that attacked us on 9/11, I spoke out about it in letters. My daughter in New York walked in peace rallies. I couldn't grasp the whole meaning of attacking a nation that didn't attack us, and nothing and no one convinced me that was a good idea.

Unfortunately, my son was called up to go and help invade Iraq. With tears, I sobbed over the phone as I said good-bye to my son, and he told me, “It's okay, mom, I'm a soldier.”
I sat glued to the television days on end. I watched in horror the unfolding of the war. I cried openly for those soldiers who died and for their families and yet was secretly relieved that it wasn't my son who died or our family grieving. I am torn with such horrific feelings. My heart was in my throat the whole time my son was in Iraq. There was a knot in my stomach, and I found myself holding my breath every time the phone would ring or I would see a huge bombing in Iraq.

My son is scheduled to go back for the third time; this time, Afghanistan. He has a family, wife and two little ones. He missed the birth of his first child while he was in Iraq, and then missed a year of her life when she was two, and now will miss another year of her life and that of her brothers. This doesn't even take into consideration his wife and her facing the challenges of life alone while her husband is in a war zone.

I watch my son change over the years -- changed because he has seen things none of us really want to know about or experience. He has been asked to go back to hell three times, and I cannot imagine anyone outside the military that would openly say, “Great, I'll be there in a second.”

Slowly a part of my son is eroding, and I can't stop it. I cannot nourish him any more, and I cannot protect him any more. I love him and will fight for him as he fights for me. But ultimately, all I can do now is 'breathe,' and with every breath speak out and try to help stop this madness that we have allowed our soldiers, our sons and daughters to be led into with no end in sight.

I am a mother of a soldier. I love my son with all my heart and all my soul. I would die for my son. I pray that my words will give life for my son and my children and their children. It is a fine line to walk, to protest an unjust war and to support the men and women in it. Mothers have learned to walk many a fine line, and I find myself supported by other women who too are mothers, who too know the feeling of one's heart in their throats and the knot in their stomach and the moments of holding their breath and praying every night for the safe return of their child.

Before anyone condemns a protester of this war, ask if they have a loved one in it then ask them if they do not support the troops. I find it ironic to be accused of not being a patriot, of not being a true American and being anti support for the troops, for what sane person would want their loved one thrown into the fires of hell and want them to remain there indefinitely? -- SCH

Posted by Augie's Parents

2007-03-18T16:33:00.000-04:00

Our friend Diane Hartman has posted a terrific article at BC Politics. Here's the first part:

"To assert that the Democrats alone are responsible for what is now perceived by many as wars that cannot be won would be to suggest we were winning before the Democrats took the majority. We weren't winning before the Democrats took the majority. By "wars" I mean both areas of combat — Iraq and the oft forgotten, still raging Afghanistan.The Democrats having won the majority has had the net result of zero.

"Military leaders — their assessments and advice — have been summarily dismissed with alarming frequency throughout the wars. As it stands now, more servicemembers than not question the validity and viability of the war and the administration's handling of it. No one is listening to the servicemember or the servicemembers' leaders. This has not changed with the advent of the Democrats’ majority.

"While we can go on and on about what might be or what might have been, it is far better for all involved to look at what has actually been and what is actually going on. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans appear to be doing this and both are suggesting band-aids for the large, gaping wounds they're just sure the other side caused.

"Either they (politicians) don't believe a large, gaping wound can get much worse in short order or they don't care if it does (meaning the large, gaping wound is not, in fact, their concern). Either way, the loss is life — not their lives — and more is lost as they banter back and forth about non-issues."

And here's the link:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/21/074716.php

Augie's Parents

2006-12-19T10:37:00.000-05:00

McCain calls for deployment of more troops to Iraq

By Daniel Black
Originally published November 30, 2006 in The Circle, Marist College.

The possibility that John McCain may have chosen his words poorly when he called for the deployment of more troops to Iraq is hardly a subject of dispute.

The Arizona Senator has likely reduced his prospects of becoming president by saying so. Last Wednesday, through subtle shifts of expression, McCain attempted to recover at least some of what he had lost with masterfully touched-up language. His new (though claiming to be unchanged) words identify the difference between sending more troops overseas to win the war, vice continuing normal troop numbers with no clear end in sight. He tells us victory is attainable, that he can ask a "Young Marine to go back to Iraq" if he's doing so to win, and even calls the act of doing otherwise "immoral".

An eye-opener, to put it mildly, these words surely are. The implicit confessions in McCain's words reveal far more than his newly overhauled language ever could. "Immoral" aptly defines the ethical substance of sending troops, with no proper motive, off to their deaths; we know this because McCain tells us so, but if this is wrong now, surely it was wrong in the beginning of the conflict. Why didn't McCain speak up then? He was doing what he does, doing what they all do: looking out for himself. That factor, the instinctual sense of political self-preservation, is the only thing that inspires our politicians to speak or act.

"Young Marines", using McCain's words, are free to die in far off foreign lands, distant from the thoughts and concerns of politicians, until their perishing directly affects politicians' careers. They suddenly care; and they do things like rephrase their positions and scramble to appear concerned because they must appeal to the people of this nation- those that authentically care. That is what must direct this conflict if ever it is to end. The families in small American communities who have a brother, a cousin, a paperboy out in Iraq are the only citizens that a soldier can depend on to stand up for his rights while he/she is abroad.

If what I say is untrue, then why has it taken so long (the U.S. has been in Iraq now longer than it had been involved in WWII) for a formerly war-supporting senator to say it's immoral to send troops to their deaths if not for a specific, worthy cause? These sorts of ostensibly radical positions correspond to things like electoral activity, pending shifts of party distribution in government, political climate and public opinion, and things of that nature. They've got nothing to do with moral right and wrong because those are not time-specific; they don't shift as does public approval of the war. Mind you, McCain never says what the cause actually is; he asserts that there must be a bipartisan definition of what, exactly, is our mission in Iraq.

It is enlightening, in many disheartening ways, that it has taken nearly four years of fighting a war for one of its most ardent original supporters to arrive at the belief that there should be a mission we are pursuing while fighting it -and to presume that arrival was the result of some 'moral epiphany' and not politically motivated is laughable and insulting.

The sorts of war-related issues that I feel are more pressing than party loyalty or ascending the ranks of our political system include servicemen's rights, for example: the right of Iraq War veteran Agustin Aguayo to an honorable discharge from the armed forces as a conscientious objector; rights of native citizens, for example: those Iraqis who consider the American military an occupying force and desire its departure so that they may live lives in accordance with their own values; and overarching social concerns as they are often ignored by our leaders, for example: that 16,000 single mothers are deployed in Iraq, an unprecedented reality that is literally unvoiced in mainstream media.

Is it that we do not care about these issues? Surely citizens occupy every inch of the spectrum between conscious involvement and apathetic dissociation with regard to the war, but that these issues are not even raised and addressed in the news programs we watch or debated and acted upon by the representatives we elect should inform us as to what sort of government/society we live in. Concerns like those I've listed would be highly prioritized in an authentic democracy; if indeed this nation was governed by its people (you know, democratically), than clearly those people who go off to war would at least be acknowledged as empowered citizens rather than prosecuted as criminals. Kyle Snyder's actions to aid Hurricane Katrina victims over this past Thanksgiving holiday might have been applauded, but he is condemned for his activism because it conflicts with the authoritarian ambitions of our cosmetic democracy. Snyder's going AWOL would not have been necessary if his rights as a citizen came before the motives of his government; he would have been discharged and able to provide help to those citizens that the Department of Homeland Security continues to disregard a full 15 months after the disaster. But unfortunately, as we are able to discern from misguidance of the current political dialogue, the rights of the individual citizens and soldiers are not even worthy of government attention, an odd reality for a "democratic society."

© Copyright 2006 The Circle
Reprinted with permission.

2006-11-16T11:19:00.000-05:00

Comments on our Post-election Update

Members of Families of the Fallen for Change come from a variety of viewpoints, illustrated most vividly by their reactions to our post-election update. Following is a sampling of comments. Some details have been edited to preserve privacy.

* * *

With my [one] son just returning home from Iraq and [another] on his way to Germany, I believe that NOW all troops should be removed. After living through Vietnam and the incompetencies within our government then and now, I believe 4 to 6 months is too late. Any delay will cause hundreds of American soldiers to die for unfortunately no reason. So to settle for any delay is not the answer, please use your influence to press for withdraw ASAP, for the sake of the young men and women who are going to have to fight one more day. – Diane

***
I am thrilled with the progress we have made. More accurately, I am amazed that we were able to cause change at all! I agree that time is so important and our diligence must continue.

I'd like to thank Rosemary and Paul for leading this charge. You brought your talents, credibility and willing souls to this mission and I thank you so much.

It may be that it won't be in time to save my children, but I am confident that we are working to save the children of those our kids worked with and loved.

As they debate Murtha, I think we must get busy again letting them know we didn't want change for change sake. We want action. -- K

***
The "civil" war has been raging for some time with our troops as target practice. We have made a mess of this and I fear that no plan, no matter how humane or well-thought out, will leave the Iraqis in a better situation than they currently face. Our leaving, while still a goal, is now so badly compromised that I fear the worst of all situations -- that we will be mired there for an eternity. Sadly, I do not know whom to trust with the planning for extrication from this nightmare turned real. The elections, while minimally reassuring, does not change the political climate nor the ineptness of both the political and military "leadership" who seem not to know what to do. I see no best case scenario, do you? –Joseph

***
I was singing "A Million Miles..." [Bob Stewart Band, see side panel at www.fofchange.org] in my head today on the way to work, and when I got to verse three...

“Brothers and Sisters, kneel and pray
Wait on for the judgment day...”

I got the feeling that the midterm elections were, in fact, a kind of judgment day. But there will be more judgment days... decision days, really. And the big one -- "What to do to get out?" is still ahead.-- R

***
The memory of you and your wife coming to [Connecticut] is most vivid. I find the "2.2" statistic [American military deaths per day in Iraq] very disturbing. It is striking for all of us what grabs our attention and brings truth home with a jolt. This country needs more jolts for it to wake up from this nightmare. -- Richard

***
Yes, there's a long way to go, but a *hell* of a relief [the election and Rumsfeld’s departure] was, no? phew. – M

***
What is the problem with letting Iraqis have a civil war? Isn't that a form of democracy? Let them cut up their own country. It’s theirs. Who are we to say that their form of democracy has to be like ours? Democracy means free choice. Clearly the majority is not united but fragmented. If their way of working that out is to have a war, who are we to stand in the way? – Andrew

***
Thanks for the important reminder. I was interested to catch part of some televised hearings in the Senate today with General Adizaid. But his position, unbelievably, is that we can still secure the place and win what battles are needed. He uses the word political, but I cannot believe he understands how our presence itself now generates anti-American suspicion, anger, and terrorism. More pressure is right! – Barry

***
Just remember during your speech that Congress was put in place because American voters are against the war... maybe if you remind them of that... they are sitting there only because the majority of voters put them there and if they aren't going to do the job, then they'll be replaced also. -- Diane

***
Suppose we send the sons and daughters of all of those who think we should be there?? President Bush's daughters could be deployed to take the place of 2 soldiers who have been redeployed 3 or 4 times. Cheney has a couple of kids. Congress should be sending their own. – Betsy

***
I thoroughly support the F.O.F. mission and proposal to end this senseless slaughter. I appreciate your concern for the tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents who have lost their lives or suffered crippling injuries as well as for the deaths and injuries of our own men and women in uniform. – Ethan

Thank you to all who sent their comments. Please continue reading the news and pressuring your Congressmen for a real change, sooner rather than later. Also, your reactions on the Families of the Fallen blog, “Say What?” are welcomed. – Rosemary Palmer

2006-11-13T15:25:00.000-05:00

Keep the Pressure On

“With all the November political changes, you are going to have to change your goals, aren’t you?” a friend asked.

In a word, no! No winning team stops at the five- yard line.

Because of your efforts, the political environment is headed in the right direction. Voters have repudiated one-party government and the lack of progress in Iraq. President Bush has responded by removing Donald Rumsfeld – finally – as Secretary of Defense.

However, we still have no plan in place to withdraw troops from Iraq.

A full debate on how to settle American withdrawal is upon us. While we continue to pursue the proposal of Families of the Fallen for Change, we would welcome any plan that would take the troops out of harm’s way without leaving the Iraqis in a full-blown civil war.

The Nov. 7 Midterm election has shifted our foremost goal from calling for a debate on Iraq to keeping pressure on Congress and the Administration to come up with and implement a plan for withdrawal.

Debate alone is not sufficient: an average 2.32 American troops are killed each day. The price of delay is unacceptable.

Thanks to you, we’re on the way to withdrawal from military involvement in Iraq. We’re not there yet, and we can’t let up the pressure. -- Rosemary Palmer

2006-10-13T10:42:00.000-04:00

Long-Term Iraq Solutions May Delay Troop Withdrawal

New ideas for solving Iraq's political crisis threaten to delay badly needed Coalition troop withdrawal.

The focus in Congress has shifted recently to some form of federalism that will create three fairly autonomous regions for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq. Senator Joseph Biden, D-DE, has proposed such a move (http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=12006) and there is speculation that the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, may come up with something similar. Even President Bush has indicated a willingness to look at alternatives to his "stay the course" policy.

Iraq's parliament this week approved legislation that lays out a mechanism for forming autonomous federal regions. The regions envisioned are a Shi'a south, a Sunni center, and a Kurdish north.

Sunnis object because as yet no mechanism exists to share oil revenue for their central portion, which has no real oil production.

At this point, however, the move toward some kind of federalism seems the only way to solve the growing sectarian violence.

With a shift in focus to long-term solutions, troop withdrawal may get lost in the shuffle. This would be tragic given a daily death rate of three Coalition troops per day since the war started. The longer troop withdrawal is delayed, the more Marines and soldiers join the KIA ranks.

The FOF troop withdrawal proposal, discussed here on September 30, can easily be adapted to any long-term political solution. See www.fofchange.org and click on FOF Proposal for Troop Withdrawal from Iraq to see how this would work.

Troop withdrawal should be considered as part of any long-term solution to Iraq's woes.

In our view, even an announced intent to withdraw troops would spur Iraqis toward greater cooperation in solving their long-term structural problems. The continued presence of Coalition forces, we believe, is "enabling" Iraqis to avoid tough decisions and continue killing each other.

Any real initiative to solve the Iraq "problem" will come after the election Nov. 7. Depending on that outcome, a solution will most likely be delayed until a new Congress convenes or at least until the Iraq Study Group releases its recommendations.

We applaud renewed efforts to find a solution to the Iraq War. It needs to be found quickly to alleviate the ongoing loss of American troops and Iraqi civilians in pursuit of a “stay the course” policy.

The partisan behavior in Congress is obvious to all Americans. Protestations of Republicans and Democrats to the contrary mean little to thinking people.

Congress should put aside these partisan differences and immediately begin working together for the good of this nation and the protection of American troops and their families. This should be an urgent issue because, while they delay, that 2.3 per day KIA rate continues. -- Paul Schroeder

2006-09-30T15:53:00.000-04:00

FOF Proposal to Exit Iraq in the Middle of Two Extremes Offered by Congress.

Last December, Families of the Fallen for Change put forward a four-part plan that lies right in the middle of staying the course or exiting at a specific date.

The proposal has specific standards – benchmarks if you will -- that can be quantified, measured, and assessed, something other plans lack.

First, after announcing its intent to withdraw and disavowing permanent bases in Iraq, the U.S., through either the UN or the League of Arab States, would negotiate with all Iraqi parties, including insurgents, except Al Qaeda.

Second, parties would negotiate a floating timetable for withdrawal by percentages.

Negotiations would include the starting dates for the first and subsequent withdrawals as well as the percentage to be withdrawn in each stage.

Third, in exchange for this, the Iraqis would agree to an equal percentage reduction in violence that leads to injury or death of Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians.

Once the first withdrawal is begun, Iraqis have 30 days in which to reduce the violence by the agreed-upon percentage.

If they comply, the second stage of withdrawal and violence reduction would begin.

If they do not comply, the next withdrawal would not begin until they do so.

Once violence drops to 15 percent of the agreed upon starting level, all coalition troops would leave Iraq. The remaining 15% is allowed for violence sponsored by Al Qaeda.

Fourth, American financial aid would be available only if the Iraqi government demonstrates the sharing of (1) power in the government, (2) control of the Ministry of Security, and (3) proceeds of oil revenue.

The plan does two things:

First, it gives Iraq time to restore essential services and create new jobs. This gives Iraqis a stake in the future and reduces the conditions that lead the desperate to jihad.

Second, it sets in motion Coalition withdrawal from Iraq and gets us way beyond the vague “staying the course” we now have.

Many members of the House and Senate have seen the proposal. You can find it at our website at www.fofchange.org.

All members of the House Armed Services, House International Relations, and Senate Foreign Relations committees, plus leadership of both parties in both chambers, as well as those with special interest in Iraq, have seen the proposal.

Many have praised it. Congress ignored it.

Seven (7) days after Congressional decisions to stay the course this past June, 11 Iraqi insurgent groups agreed to cease all attacks immediately if the U.S. would set a two-year timetable for leaving. Not six months, not 12 months, but two years.

The Bush Administration rejected this.

Yet this offer is evidence that the opportunity remains: conditions for some kind of negotiated withdrawal are there.

Leadership. Leadership is required to set it in motion. -- Paul E. Schroeder

2006-09-30T15:43:00.000-04:00

US Ambassador says Funding Could Be Cut for Iraq's Police
By VOA News 30 September 2006

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, says the United States may cut funding for Iraq's police because of their failure to punish those responsible for torture.

Khalilzad said in an interview with The New York Times that U.S. officials are reviewing some programs because of a U.S. law that bans funding security forces that violate human rights.

*********************

Two comments on this.

First, isn't it US policy to stand down when Iraqis stand up? Clearly they aren't.

Second, if the Administration engages in torture under the law passed by Congress Friday, could this be the basis of a lawsuit to block funding for our presence in Iraq?

In other words, the U. S. government appears to be engaged in double standards. -- Paul E. Schroeder

2006-09-30T14:57:00.000-04:00

A Life, Wasted (Revisited)

The Washington Post ran the following article of mine last January 3. It received wide attention from other newspapers, blogs, and commentators at the time.

I'm rerunning it now because nothing that has happened since January has changed my mind about what I had to say. Indeed, everything that has happened since January makes the sentiments expressed here all the more important. As best as we can count, our son was the 1,824th American military death in Iraq. Today that toll is 2,712. Since the United States started this war, the American death toll has gone up an average of 2.28 Marines or soldiers per day. With next to nothing to show for it on the ground, these deaths are all wasted. This is unconscionable: ending the war should be Job One.

There will be a judgement on this one day. -- Paul E. Schroeder

************************

A Life, Wasted

Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed

By Paul E. Schroeder Tuesday, January 3, 2006; A17

Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

Since then, two reactions to Augie's death have compounded the sadness.

At times like this, people say, "He died a hero." I know this is meant with great sincerity. We appreciate the many condolences we have received and how helpful they have been. But when heard repeatedly, the phrases "he died a hero" or "he died a patriot" or "he died for his country" rub raw.

"People think that if they say that, somehow it makes it okay that he died," our daughter, Amanda, has said. "He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either."

The words "hero" and "patriot" focus on the death, not the life. They are a flag-draped mask covering the truth that few want to acknowledge openly: Death in battle is tragic no matter what the reasons for the war. The tragedy is the life that was lost, not the manner of death. Families of dead soldiers on both sides of the battle line know this. Those without family in the war don't appreciate the difference.

This leads to the second reaction. Since August we have witnessed growing opposition to the Iraq war, but it is often whispered, hands covering mouths, as if it is dangerous to speak too loudly. Others discuss the never-ending cycle of death in places such as Haditha in academic and sometimes clinical fashion, as in "the increasing lethality of improvised explosive devices."

Listen to the kinds of things that most Americans don't have to experience: The day Augie's unit returned from Iraq to Camp Lejeune, we received a box with his notebooks, DVDs and clothes from his locker in Iraq.

The day his unit returned home to waiting families, we received the second urn of ashes. This lad of promise, of easy charm and readiness to help, whose highest high was saving someone using CPR as a first aid squad volunteer, came home in one coffin and two urns. We buried him in three places that he loved, a fitting irony, I suppose, but just as rough each time.

I am outraged at what I see as the cause of his death. For nearly three years, the Bush administration has pursued a policy that makes our troops sitting ducks. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that our policy is to "clear, hold and build" Iraqi towns, there aren't enough troops to do that.

In our last conversation, Augie complained that the cost in lives to clear insurgents was "less and less worth it," because Marines have to keep coming back to clear the same places. Marine commanders in the field say the same thing. Without sufficient troops, they can't hold the towns. Augie was killed on his fifth mission to clear Haditha.

At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor.

Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste.

They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

The writer is managing director of a trade development firm in Cleveland.

2006-09-29T20:27:00.000-04:00

Say What? Debuts

We are pleased to introduce Say What?, the new commentary section for Families of the Fallen for Change, a non-profit organization devoted to finding a responsible end to the Iraq War. FOF was founded by Rosemary Palmer and Paul Schroeder following the death of their son, Marine Lance Corporal Edward “Augie” Schroeder August 3, 2005. At this writing the organization has more than 1,300 members nationwide.

Membership in Families of the Fallen for Change is free, carries no obligation, and is kept confidential. Membership is in four categories: general supporters, military families, friends of the fallen, and families of fallen Marines and soldiers.

Say What? is a serious effort at discussion and debate because ending this war is a serious matter. Since the United States started the war on March 19, 2003, a daily average of 2.28 American Marines and soldiers have died. As of September 7, 2006, 19,910 American Marines and soldiers have been wounded, according to the Defense Department.

Say What? is devoted to commentary and discussion on several issues pertaining to the Iraq War, including Bush Administration policies, Congress, the war on the ground, and the 2006 election, which will morf into the 2008 election after November 7. Other issues may be disucssed as events warrant.

We welcome comments from readers, reserving the right to edit for length or to delete if comments are inappropriate for a serious discussion.

Paul E. Schroeder