The scope of Sergeants Rice’s impact / interests does not limit themselves to the local level. Indeed the scope of Staff Sergeant Rice’s activities runs the gamut from local to the regional and national level.  Sergeant Rice’s role in the planning and execution elements of an organization whose mission role centers around veterans issues and whose operational scope included communication with members of Congress demonstrate insightful knowledge of United States political process as well as a comfort to operate in such highly professional settings.  Such self-incentivized activities demonstrate Sergeant Rice’s organizational abilities and prowess. 

Perhaps one of the most humbling aspects that define Sergeant George Rice’s as an individual is the fact that after all he has experienced in war, he maintains a level of warmth and humanity that would be uncommon for those who have only known peace.  As I have often said to “Dis’ while he is a man of powerful physical stature his biggest muscle is his heart. Indeed such strength by its own right illustrates the qualitative difference between United States soldiers and our adversaries.  Indeed the strength, nobility and sensitivity consistently illustrated by Staff Sargent George A. Rice “Dis” exemplifies the selfless nobility that defines United States military veterans in general and is a personal testament to American exceptionalism.  Tragically the selfless nobility that defines Dis as well as United States military veterans in general is too often met with animosity enacted by activist professors engaged in advocacy education and emboldened by what has consistently observed to be an institutionalized anti American bias.  Let me take some time to elaborate some of the more pertinent aspects that define the abuse suffered by Staff Sargent George A Rice as recounted to me in numerous discussions.

After returning from multiple tour overseas Staff Sergeant George A Rice “Dis” like many soldiers look to further his academic pursuits. Almost from the very beginning Staff Sergeant George A Rice “Dis” would call me to express that fact that he felt extremely disheartened by his constant observations of seditious behavior / advocacy education resultant of institutionalized anti American bias that sadly exists within a significant amount of United States institutions of higher learning.  I have often talked to Dis at length while he expressed his frustration surrounding the revisionist history / outright propaganda passed off by activist professors as education.  Even more disheartening was the observation that said propaganda was motivated to undermine the perceptions of legitimacy surrounding United States interventionist foreign policy and subsequently the missions that our fellow soldiers carried out with distinction and honor even while being hamstrung by numerous factors both in theater and abroad.  While Dis is both a hard charger and extremely intelligent, he become increasingly disappointed at the continual need to correct outrageous and factually bankrupt comments made by activist professors in class.  Moreover due to Staff Sergeants Rice’s deep love for his fellow soldiers the slanderous statements made by university professors surrounding our fellow soldiers and their honorable service overseas caused Dis not a trivial amount of emotional pain.    
 

Unfortunately Staff Sergeant Rice’s experience is tragically not singular in nature.  As you, the reader may or may not know such bias is not limited to a few universities.  Rather such challenges are systemic (1).  The systemic nature that defined political bias within United States universities is substantiated by both recent studies as well as contemporary events.  One such event that comes to mind is the horrendous treatment of wounded Iraq veteran Anthony Maschek at columbia university during a town hall discussion surrounding the motion to let R.O.T.C. (Reserve officer Training Corps) back on columbia university campus.  During the round table discussion Anthony Maschek, a wheelchair-bound Purple Heart recipient who was shot 11 times during his time in Iraq, was hissed and booed and called a racist when he spoke in support of ROTC during the Feb. 15, 2011 town hall meeting. 

The continued mental and emotional abuse United States military veterans have to suffer in United States universities is having a detrimental effect upon our fellow soldier’s ability to realize their edcuational pursuits.  This is not to say that our fellow soldiers cannot perform.  Indeed most research shows that veterans due to their higher level of self-discipline regularly outperform their civilian counterparts.  That said while veterans continually on average perform significantly higher than their civilian counterparts in their academic pursuits there exists a higher rate of attrition amongst vets in universities.  Put anohter way while veterans perform higher than their civilians counterparts our fellow soldiers do not complete their academic pursuits to degree conferral.  Indeed such trends were actually cited in the Harkin Oversight Investigation of Federal Dollars Going to For-Profit Schools (2). I would submit one of the reasons behind the fact that while veterans continually outperform their civilian counterparts in their academic pursuits the higher rate of attrition amongst veterans in universities is in part caused by the fact that our fellow soldiers are constantly barraged by anti-United States propaganda.

On top of the more personal ramifications there exist broader geopolitical considerations which arise from anti American bais within United States universities.  The geopolitical considerations to which I am referring are the soft power / battle of the narratives element that in part significantly defines the proximate extra state security concern colloquially known as the global war on terrorism.  It is the battle of the narrative element and subsequently United States national security which advocacy education / institutionalized anti-American bias within United States universities has direct ramifications.  Exemplifying this fact is the statement by bin laden quoted on page 56 “Battle of the Narratives” section in the Joint Operational Environment October 2010, published by United States Joint Forces Command (3).  On page 56 of the Joint Operational Environment October 2010, bin laden is quoted as saying the following: “today’s world is the world of public opinion, obtain the tools of public opinion and anything you ask for can be yours”.  The nuances which underwrite the soft power / battle of the narratives element that increasingly defines the outcomes of proximate security concern are not lost United States military veterans as they observe the effect that advocacy education has on national will upon which the efficacy of United States interventionist foreign policy and subsequently their fellow soldiers safety rests.

Indeed empirical evidence derived from historical precedence serves to support United States military veteran’s claims.  I am of course speaking to the fact that is one of the major reasons which underwrites why the United States failed to realize its regional goals in the vietnam conflict (4). While the United States won on both the tactical level – read battles within vietnam because our fellow soldiers are the best as well as won the overall strategic goal as the soviets bloodletting strategy backfired (5) the United States failed to realize its regional goals in the vietnam conflict.  The lack of the realization of the United States regional goals in the vietnam conflict in no insignificat part due to the fact that the national will to support United States interventionist foreign policy in the vietnam war was eroded by combined efforts of general giop in northern veitnam and the antiwar elements here within the United States (6).  Such historical context adds credence to the concerns I often hear United States military veterans express that victories purchased overseas with their suffering will again be stolen by internal political dissidents / agents of influence here at home.  the very same internal political dissidents / agents of influence within which United States universities are inundated (7).  Moreover when our fellow soldiers see national will again being eroded by internal political dissidents whose political goals are quite often openly hostile to the United States (8) such observations lead United States military veterans, who sacrificed so much to have grave concerns surrounding the security of the society that they sacrificed to protect.  I want to reiterate that while I support United States interventionist foreign policy, the above analysis is not meant to discuss the legitimacy of United States interventionist foreign policy either during the vietnam war or contemporary regions of conflict.  Rather my goal is to illustrate some of the broader geopoliticla nuances within which the challenges that our fellow soldiers and nation face. Indeed both challenges are very much intertwined.

At the risk of preaching to the choir, the above serves to outline some of the more pertinent elements that define the issues / anxieties that United States military veterans like Staff Sergeant George A Rice “Dis”, Anthony Maschek at Columbia and many others face.  Indeed my own personal observations of continual psychological abuse United States veterans suffer at the hands of activist professors as well as the neglect experienced from career politicians who view United States veterans as little more than assets in a tactical political strategy served to underwrite numerous conversations where fellow veterans expressed the unnecessary pain felt from such abuse / neglect.  It is in defense of gentle heros like Staff Sargent George A Rice, Anthony Maschek and numerous others United States military veterans that I created the Soldiers to Statesmen Foundation.