One of the great joys of covering defense issues is that I am all but spared from the presidential campaign. No long rides on the campaign bus only to hear the candidate give the exact same speech five times in one day. No, I leave that to my fine colleagues, and quietly laugh from an austere military outpost somewhere in Iraq. There, I am hopefully seeing and learning from the troops on the ground, which I would always rather be doing.

But alas today, the campaign bus drove right through my beat. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain sent a fundraising letter that evoked Gen. David Petraeus’ name. In the letter, McCain chastises Obama for visiting Iraq only once. If Obama is willing to sit down with Iranian President (and top U.S. foe) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why doesn’t Obama “take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand.” Agree? Send your check to the McCain campaign.

A political maelstrom quickly erupted. A coterie of Democrats leaders gathered in Wisconsin Friday morning to lambast McCain for “politicizing the military.” Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, an Obama backer, hurled a counter charge, saying McCain appeared at an event the previous day and said the U.S. had already drawdown troops to pre-surge levels. “Everybody knows it’s not true. I assume Sen. McCain doesn’t know the facts here.” Indeed, there are about 155,000 troops in Iraq; before the Bush administration’s “surge” strategy began last spring, there were 132,000 troops.

A few hours later, McCain dismissed that criticism but promised he would not use Gen. Petraeus’ name in fundraising material. 

The controversy comes at an interesting time because the military is grappling with the role of politics in the new kind of war it fights. Indeed, some charge that Gen. Petraeus has become too political. They say that the general became the face for the surge strategy because the administration lacked creditability with the public. That is, he was representative for the administration, not an objective military commander. He rejects that charge outright. In fact, I spoke briefly to Gen. Petraeus after he testified on Capitol Hill last month, and he said he tried very carefully to avoid the array of political landmines before him.

Before the Iraq War began, a soldier’s job was clear -- follow orders and give your best advice to civilian leaders. But as the military adopted counterinsurgency, which demands a soldier make split-second, on-the-ground adjustments to the situation in his community, that relationship has become complicated. A captain in charge of stabilizing a small Iraqi community can’t wait for a general to tell him how to settle a local dispute. It is up to him. And the general, in this case, Petraeus, must now think far more broadly – about regional politics and sometimes domestic pressures - not just about the best military plan.

Just last week, Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, published a letter in the latest issue of Joint Force Quarterly about this issue. In it, he said that “the U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways.” Clearly, the issue is on the minds of top military leaders.

So is the military becoming more political? Or are politicians using military decisions for political gain? Unfortunately for me, I will have to keep checking in throughout the election to figure it out.  But frankly, I’d rather be out in the field with the soldiers that ultimately must carry out orders from politicians.

I like to think of myself as a hardened war correspondent, yet I have no shame in telling you I was truly touched by the words below written by a soldier’s family. And it seemed only fitting to share them with you as the nation celebrates Memorial Day.

First, a little background: On Friday, the White House announced that Army Pfc. Ross McGinnis of Knox, Pa. will be awarded the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest decoration.

As I began researching McGinnis story, I found both him and his family interesting. McGinnis, 19, was once a troublemaker in school, at one point expelled. Eventually, he found his way to the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, in Schweinfurt, Germany.

He was in the gunner’s hatch of a Humvee Dec. 4, 2006 when a grenade flew by and landed on the vehicle near four soldiers. At that moment, McGinnis made a choice. He jumped on top of the grenade so his body could shield the blast from the others. He died so that four of his comrades could live. Almost immediately, he was recommended as a Medal of Honor recipient.

With Friday’s announcement, McGinnis will be only the fourth Iraq War service member to receive the Medal of Honor posthumously. His family will accept the award on his behalf during a June 2 ceremony.

I came across a letter his father wrote shortly after his son’s death, which I have included below. I thought it was beautifully written.  It made me think of soldiers like McGinnis that the world will never meet. And the anonymous families that sacrifice along side them.

Statement from parents of SPC Ross A. McGinnis, December 23, 2006
When the doorbell rang Monday evening December 4th, about 9:30, I wondered who would be visiting at this hour of the evening. But when I walked up to the door and saw two US Army officers standing on the patio at the bottom of the steps, I knew instantly what was happening. This is the only way the Army tells the next of kin that a soldier has died.

At that moment, I felt as if I had slipped off the edge of a cliff and there was nothing to grab onto; just a second beyond safety, falling into hell. If only my life could have ended just a moment before this so that I would not have to hear the words they were about to say. If only I could blink myself awake from this horrible dream. But it wasn't a dream.

As the officers made their way into our living room, I rushed back into our bedroom and told my wife Romayne to get up; we had company. And they were going to tell us that Ross is dead. I knew of no other way to say it.

We rushed back out to meet the officers, and then the appointed spokesperson recited the standard message that Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis had been killed in action in Baghdad, Iraq, that day. They could tell us nothing more except that Army regulations required that the family be notified within 4 hours of the event. They offered their sympathy and support, and the Chaplain prayed for our strength in the days to come, and then they left us alone in shock, grief and disbelief.

In the days that followed, we were informed of the details of his death. The entire world probably knows those details now, since there was so much excitement about his heroic deed. Hundreds of family, friends and acquaintances offered us their words of prayer and comfort. But only time will take the edge off the knives that have wedged into our hearts.

Ross did not become OUR hero by dying to save his fellow soldiers from a grenade. He was a hero to us long before he died, because he was willing to risk his life to protect the ideals of freedom and justice that America represents. He has been recommended for the Medal of Honor, and many think that he deserves to get it without the typical 2 years that Congress has required of late. We, his parents, are in no hurry to have our son bestowed with this medal. That is not why he gave his life. The lives of four men who were his Army brothers outweighed the value of his one life. It was just a matter of simple kindergarten arithmetic. Four means more than one.

It didn't matter to Ross that he could have escaped the situation without a scratch. Nobody would have questioned such a reflex reaction. What mattered to him were the four men placed in his care on a moment's notice. One moment he was responsible for defending the rear of the convoy from enemy fire; the next moment he held the lives of four of his friends in his hands.

The choice for Ross was simple, but simple does not mean easy. His straightforward answer to a simple but difficult choice should stand as a shining example for the rest of us. We all face simple choices, but how often do we choose to make a sacrifice to get the right answer? The right choice sometimes requires honor.

Our Bible tells us that God gave up his only son to die for us so that we may live. But Romayne and I are not gods. We can't see the future, and we didn't give our son to die, knowing that he will live again. We gave him to fight and win and come home to us and marry and grow old and have children and grandchildren. But die he did, and his mother, dad and sisters must face that fact and go on without him, believing that someday we will meet again. Heaven is beyond our imagination and so we must wait to see what it's like.

God bless everybody that has comforted us in our time of grief. But we must not forget the men and women who are still putting their lives on the line; we must keep them in our prayers and keep reminding them with gifts and letters that they are loved and that we want them to return safely to their families.

Tish Wells, our masterful researcher came upon this study that tackled blogging and the military. Written by James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning for a U.S. Special Operations Command class, it proposes the military consider “clandestinely” hire bloggers to present the military view on the war on terrorism.  It points out the military is in the middle of an information operation, or IO, campaign.  And in Iraq, some insurgent groups, Iraqi politicians, academics and everyday citizens have blogs that share observations interspersed with agendas. So far, the military does not have a go-to blog that is both popular and sly enough to get the military message out.

The authors argue that this war demands an Internet campaign. And so far, the military is losing.

“Just as during World War II, the military recruited the top Hollywood directors and studios to produce films about the war (in effect conducting domestic influ¬ence campaigns in the name of maintaining the national morale and support for the war effort), waging the war against terrorism and its underlying causes, as spelled out in the National Security Strategy, may require recruiting the prominent among the digirati (probably those native to the target region) to help in any Web-based cam¬paign.”

The idea already has come up at least once during this war. Earlier this year this article revealed that the Pentagon had handed out talking points to retired military commanders sitting in the talking pundits’ chair.  The Pentagon was called propagandist.

To be sure, this paper doesn’t purport to represent the Defense Department. Indeed, it was written in an academic setting. But still, it is an interesting and controversial proposition. And it gets at the festering frustration amongst soldiers: The military doesn’t aggressively defend itself against attacks from critics or bloggers. Out on a military base in Iraq, I found it usually came up when someone asked me: “Why don’t you write about all the good things we are doing here?”

The military is quite strict about who can blog out of Iraq, and frankly the Internet service at most bases is so lacking, it would be difficult to keep a blog going. Some argue that letting any soldier share his views, however complementary to the military, could eventually lead to a slip up. A soldier may inadvertently alert his/her enemy to secret security plans. Still others say a military engaged in a complex counterinsurgency battle needs to think in more sophisticated ways. Where firepower is not enough, the military must do more, they argue.

But will hiring people to pose as objective bloggers solve the problem? Probably not. But silence doesn’t seem to be working either.

UPDATE: A very astute reader, J, points out that the Defense Department regularly invites bloggers to roundtables about current defense issues. Here is a link to some of their recent forums. Is there more the military can do? Thoughts?