A FEW things... (Defining a Soldier x2)

Morning ladiessss! :) I had a rough night of sleep last night (didn't actually hit the hay until 2 AM), then tossing and turning and finally getting out of bed at 10 AM this morning... But the good news is that my neck is better... still sore but definitely better!!!! :) I knew it was just a muscle issue and I really had no desire to deal with the pharmacy and military bureaucracy, when I knew they would only throw medication at me! All is well. :)

Kevin called this am, right at 8 AM as usual! He had bad news about his squad leader position... I tried my best to be supportive and reassuring but I'm not sure that came through while working off only 6 hours of sleep. 6 hours may sound sufficient but I am not your average 23 (almost 24)-year-old. My body requires 8-9 hours to function properly the next day. Well I did the best I could... but I am hoping that Kevin gets the time to call me back so that I can explain this morning's call and offer more support and LOVE! :)

Okie dokie... My blogger-buddy from morethanan(army)Wife left a comment on my Definition of a Soldier post. I definitely respect your position and can see where you are coming from. However, I still beg to differ. You stated that the "National Guard is a segment of big Army and therefore, under your definition, all Guardsmen would be Soldiers." Well which National Guard? The Army National Guard or the Air National Guard? Jeeeze that was argumentative of me- I apologize. Not all Guard members are soldiers. Since the "War on Terror" started the National Guard (which are essentially State Militias whom take orders from their respective Governors) has been "Mobilized" in order to support and fill in the blanks that the Active Duty Army couldn't fill. Those mobilized and essentially now active duty Guard members have preformed amazingly. To deny the differences between enlisting in the National Guard and active duty Army is sort of naive. I'm confused, the Marine Corps originated from the Navy, would that make those enlisted in the Navy, Marines and by the same stretch all those enlisted in the Marines, Seamen or Sailors? No, right? So why does this rule of logic apply only to the Army National Guard? While mobilized your husband is just as much a soldier as mine. While he is not mobilized he is a Weekend Warrior (this is a direct quote from Military.com).

Now, I will admit to being single-minded and "black and white" to an extreme possibly. I don't TRY to be this way it's just the way my mind works. However, when enlisting in the Army National Guard you are not enlisting in the same way, shape or form as the Active Duty Army. One may be a component of the other (just the same as the Navy and Marine Corps) but plain and simply they aren't the same. I can concede that those mobilized are 'soldiers'.. even though I don't like it per say! I guess in my mind it comes down to when you enlist... Either sign up for the ARMY or for the National Guard. They are different... so therefore not SAME-SAME. When a recruit chooses one over the other they are essentially choosing to be a Soldier or a Guardsman/Guard member if we're being P.C. Really if you wanted to be in the Army and be a soldier, why not choose to enlist in the Army versus the Guard? I really tried in this rebuttal to not be as sassy-pants and argumentative as I was in my "US vs. THEM" rebuttal. I hope that shines through.

So, I deleted the original rebuttal but all of what I said is still included- I simply wanted to add more. I went back and re-read my blogger-buddy's comment and my response and I just felt there were some things that I didn't touch on that I really want to. While I understand that the Army Nat'l Guard is a component of the Army there is still differences. One being that the National Guard (as a whole, with both Army and Air) are represented to the Government and Commander in Chief separately from the Army and Air Force, respectively. Now, this is sort of useless because even though the Army Nat'l Guard may have its own and separate representation in Washington doesn't make them any less than the Army (or the Air Force for that matter). This is just simply one example of a difference. The main thing that I wanted to say to (army)wife, is that while a large majority of the Nat'l Guard has been activated/mobilized since the invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan this is the exception and not the rule for the Guard. So I am not speaking simply of today's time, at some point (God Willing) we won't be policing the world and the Guard will then revert back to what it once was. Pointing out the difference, and referring to those in the Guard as "guardsmen" does not diminish their service in anyway... especially when they joined the Guard. I understand your position on this issue and while you and your family has served every bit as that of any family in the Army... think more long term: When times change and members of the Guard go back to "Weekend Warriors" should they then still be entitled to the same title as those who signed up for active duty?

I want to emphasize referring to members of the Guard as Guardsmen does not diminish their service. That is not the purpose of my differentiation in my mind. But when does the Army receive its own and separate recognition without members and family members of other branches invading on it? Believe it or not I don't necessarily disagree with (army)wife... based on the way the Guard is currently being utilized. My position is a generalization of what the Guard vs. the Army once was and will eventually be again... I hope that these last few paragraphs will help to convey and clarify my position. :)

Tootles ladies.