From past, to present, the job of the soldier is made more difficult/dangerous in the
absence of effective measures to counteract underlying cause. .The soldier then
becomes a factor disproportionately employed relative to the efforts directed to
non-violence.  In the absence of relative balance, violence proliferates violence.
primitive instinct and the weight of history  tragically cater to the perception that the
inevitably of war is 'confirmed', rather  then 'challenged'..
The citizen rightfully respects the soldier of violent wars...That same citizen is less likely to recognize the
alternative soldier- the one who does not carry a weapon.  With contributions of equal importance- the
person tempered by adversity who distributes faith, hope, and courage throughout a life lived in full
course- achieves a status no less noble.
Regardless to scale, personal sacrifice for another is generally considered an act
beyond reproach.  

Perhaps, these conditions apply in purest form upon a life lost in service to country...
The lost life of a soldier is no less tragic then any other premature death. The
now-deceased soldier once belonged to family and dreams.  This same soldier also once
belonged to principles/values much
higher then to those for which he/she died...  

Somewhere along the chain-of-events leading to this violent death somebody failed to
somebody who knew better...
Support the Troops?

Would we not-most honor the sacrifice of the soldier lost to violence- through
recognizing the cause to, which he/she was lost, could now be avoided?   This
would be the ultimate tribute to all who have served- both, past and present.  

There is no better way to...       
war dead
Support the Troops!

Soldiers and Troops

Support the cause


In the absence of relative balance, violence proliferates violence as primitive instinct and the weight of history tragically cater to the perception that the inevitably of war is 'confirmed', as opposed to a notion to be 'challenged'.

A cause for which he will never be required to fully explain.  And the person who would take the
greatest interest?  The individual to whom the knowledge would most benefit?  It would be that  soldier
but, 'that soldier is now dead.  

A dead soldier has never explicitly stated whether personal gain was enhanced by representing  the
ultimate sacrifice
It could be argued that death and/or grave injury are known 'Occupational Hazards'
affiliated with the job of the soldier.

the perception may be the relative tragedy of a life lost in conflict is somehow made
'less so' if viewed as a sacrifice to country.  

If to add 'courage', 'honor' and 'loyalty' to the equation  the soldier represents these
attributes second to no other class.
Does high virtue eclipse the facts?  Consider the following (stated as if fact)...
In war, there are no
unwounded soldiers.  
~José Narosky
That somebody failed to explore alternative strategies... And the main reason for this?
Of he/she (usually he) it was not required...
That same somebody demanded complete loyalty in service to the cause...