I have been keeping up with the comments here in this thread. I remember during my tour in 1967/68, we used the hear statements of the Rear Echelon troops(self censored) were a bunch of pansies. In fact there is one time when I was accused of being one of these REP's. A month later I met this individual at one of the forward fire bases that we supported. This was just after the TET Offense of 1968. WE had been hit in an Ambush and lost several of our drivers. We still arrived at the fire base and delivered his beer and other supplies. His attitude had changed drastically after this. By the way he was an 11 Bravo (Infantry) that had not seen any action at all. So there is no truth to the statement made. Remember some of our brave Men and Women have served during the peace time. Think about it. Remember also that there is no glory in war, only broken bodies and shattered lives.

Guys, take it easy. no one is call ing anyone a REMF or whatever. Tom, please don't make unfounded accusations or presumptions about people you don't know anything about. Just to set the record straight, I did wear a uniform, and I wore it in combat.

My comments were made in reply to the silly statement made by that pfc, and my views of what a soldier is still stand.

Everyone's a 'real' soldier if he's in the army obviously, but if you WANT to make a distinction (and I never said you should, go back and read my posts), combat is the distinction. No matter if you were a clerk or driver who was ambushed, or an infantryman who never fired a shot in anger.

As for the question on defining combat, if you were there you don't need a definition of it.

In conclusion I never at any point ridiculed, disparaged or said anything negative about people who haven't seen combat (again, READ my posts). There are some very brave civilians and servicemen around. What I said (and am saying) is if you want a definition of what makes a soldier distinct from a fireman or a policeman or a miner, it's combat.

Hope there are no more misunderstandings.