The liberal media keeps pounding on our involvement in the war against radical Islam. There are four major fronts in this war: Africa, Gaza, Iraq and Afghanistan. America is directly involved in three of these fronts, NATO in one, and our ally Israel is fighting for its life in the fourth.

Liberals are so risk adverse and so afraid of doing something that can cause us to use our military power, treasure and blood that they want to prohibit the U.S. from getting involved in anything. This is called isolationism. Isolationism cut our military by one third during the 1990s and got us 9/11. So much for isolationism.

Liberals have used a series of arguments since the war against radical Islam began to get us to disengage from the war against radical Islam specifically and the world stage in general.

However, after 9/11 the liberals did a turn around. It was a huge bi-partisan majority in Congress that approved going first into Afghanistan and then Iraq.

When the war in Iraq began going badly we saw the liberals do another turn around, some say for political gain.

We saw a series of liberal arguments over time to disengage from the war on radical Islam: the death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq (even though the toll was the lowest of any previous war), the civil war in Iraq (it ended with the surge), the government in Iraq not reconciling (they now have passed a series of laws that reconcile the parties), and the cost of the war (even though Congress continues to fund the war on a bi-partisan basis).

Now we have a new liberal argument to disengage from the war against radical Islam - the health and welfare of our soldiers and their families. Finally, we get to something we can all agree to. Taking care of our troops.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune uses this argument in its editorial, "Shorter combat tours are a start" to get us to disengage from the war against radical Islam. This is the first time that we can remember that the editorial board has been interested in the health and welfare of our soldiers and their families. Someone correct us if we are wrong.

It would be nice if they really meant it, history tells us they don't. We have not seen the Herald-Tribune cover any of the Sarasota County Veterans Commission meetings. We have never had them ask what legislative initiatives veterans support to take care of our troops and their families. We have not seen them give front page, above the fold coverage to veterans issues, unless it is something a soldier did bad. We have not seen them care enough to send reporters to the annual Veterans Day and Memorial Day parades and give large scale front page coverage to these events. We have not seen the Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board take up the cause of any veterans issue until today.

My concern is they are using this as simply another ploy to convince American's we should take care of our troops by losing the war.

We fully support shorter combat tours for our soldiers. Certainly combat tours are stressful and lead to various psychological issues including PTSD. Every war has had the same issues. WWII saw millions of our citizens serve 3 or more years in combat in the Pacific and European theaters. They turned out to be the "Greatest Generation". If you want to know about multiple combat tours ask Florida Senator Mike Bennett. He volunteered for and served four combat tours in Vietnam. If you want to know about combat tours ask County Commissioner Paul Mercier, Colonel USMC (Ret.) John Saputo, Master Gunnery Sergeant (Ret.) Eugene (Top) Harrison, or any of the over 53,000 veterans living in Sarasota County.

According to Lee F. Kichen, VFW Veteran Service officer at the VA Medical Center, Bay Pines, FL, "Length of tours have little impact on severity of PTSD. Severity may or may not be predicated on the intensity of the combat stressor. WWII vets had in some cases 34-36 months of sustained combat showing the the same symptomology as someone who experienced one isolated mortar attack of two rounds. Apparently, the Herald-Tribune is falling prey to a lot of urban mythology without looking at what is still emerging science. Quite frankly we can't make any generalizations, like those in the editorial."

The real problem is the size of our forces. We currently have approximately 760,000 soldiers in the Army, which was the end strength of the Army after operation Desert Storm in 1992.

If the Herald-Tribune and its editorial board really want to help our soldiers, help fight the war against radical Islam and protect America they would campaign for a major increase in troop strength in our Army and a larger Marine Corps. They would also fight for an increase in the national defense budget to recruit, train, deploy and sustain a 1,000,000+ man Army.

You cannot have pre-9/11 troop levels and expect us to meet the global threats facing the United States.

We await tomorrow's editorial supporting our soldiers, veterans, their families and orphaned children.