A VERY INTERESTING STORY ABOUT A FATHER WITH TWO SONS IN IRAQ.

It's true that Syverson opposes the war. He has written his position, in its most succinct form, on the sign next to Bryce and Branden's photographs.

"Iraqi Oil," it says, "Isn't Worth My Sons' Blood."

"I think you can be against the war and still be a good American," Syverson says. "We're a proud family, and we support our troops."

Many of the Syversons, in fact, are the troops. All four of his sons enlisted; three chose military careers. Syverson himself was never in the military, though he says he came close to being drafted to serve in Vietnam. His late father, Ralph, was an Air Force navigator who earned a Distinguished Flying Cross in World War II.

The story raises a fundamental question - can you oppose our actions in Iraq and still support the troops?

I suppose that hinges upon one's definition of "support".

CPT Patti's father, Pastor Paul served in Viet Nam. He, like so many others, received the scorn of much of the nation, which seemed to blame the soldiers for the politicians decisions.

We seem to have moved well beyond that...most of us no longer blame soldiers for doing their duty.

Still, as an old soldier myself, I'm not sure that "support" is simply the absence of blame and a wish that you return home safely.

"I love you and hold you dear, but I don't believe in the mission that you bust your butt to do every day" seems to me to be the implication.

Of course, the disagreement may be much more fundamental than that. From the father's sign we can infer he believes the USA went to war in Iraq to obtain Iraqi oil.

I am disappointed in the cynicism of that position. Nowhere that we have gone in recent history have we plundered for our gain. No, we have a history of sending soldiers to help others. I am certain in my heart that this notion of war for oil will be completely dispelled over time when we pull out of Iraq and leave their oil reserves to them.

It isn't an issue in my mind. I've worn the uniform. I know the nobility of the calling. And that of the United States. But for folks like the father here, I suppose the only way to prove we aren't there for the oil is to ultimately leave without it.

Sad, what little confidence he has in the nation that out of sheer circumstance must lead the world. How wonderful to me that it is our nation to whom the job falls, for to what other nation would you entrust such a job?

And so I return to question of separating support for soldiers from support for their mission.

My definition of support includes doing everything I can for CPT Patti's morale.

Before she left, and again every time I speak or write to her, I tell her how proud I am of her. That she and her soldiers are making a little bit of history.

You see, she needs to believe that in order to lead and motivate her soldiers.

And her soldiers need to believe that they are doing good and making a difference to the current and future generations of Iraqis in order to endure the hardships and separations.

The soldiers heartfelt effort is inevitably tied to the soldiers conviction of the nobility of the mission.

So, upon what does a soldier ground his motivation and hope if that soldier's closest relatives ascribe the mission to mere interests of plunder? In some ways doesn't this make the soldier have to choose between believing in one's self versus believing in one's family support system?

How does the soldier approach the question of injury under these circumstances, knowing that "should I lose an arm, my father will always believe it was a waste"?

Everyday we read stories right here on CPT Patti's site where soldiers indicate the sacrifices they make are alright...citing statements such as "There was days when we wouldn't even eat, and we would just give all our food up. It's something that I would never want to experience again. But we felt that was what we needed to do" or that we are "A positive force for Iraq".

And so, in the end, I believe that CPT Patti, my soldier, our girl, needs something more from her family and close friends beyond a lack of blame for the war, and a wish that she come home safely.

CPT Patti needs to know that she is in harms way, enduring 115 degree heat and flies and mosquitoes because she is assisting a people in nothing less noble than their liberation and offering to them the gift of liberty.

You see, those principles were sufficient for us to go to war 227 years ago.

I'd say they still are.

If you haven't told your soldier how proud you are of them lately, then today is your chance to correct that oversight.