29 January 2026

Five Years to Freedom: A Reflection

A Veteran's Response to James "Nick" Rowe's POW Memoir

I approach this book as both a combat veteran and a chaplain, aware that stories of war and captivity carry weight for many readers. What follows is a personal reflection, offered with respect for those who served, those who suffered, and those still seeking to understand the costs of war.

Let me start this book review with a WOW!!

Five Years to Freedom is a memoir written by James N. Rowe, recounting his five years as a prisoner of war in South Vietnam. Originally published in 1971 by Little, Brown and Company, it was later republished in 2005 by Presidio Press as part of their Presidio War Classic series. The paperback edition runs 465 pages.

This book was a gift to me, and I will admit I was somewhat dreading reading it. I have read many accounts from Vietnam-era POWs, and I wasn’t sure how much more I could absorb. Despite my hesitation, once I started reading, I quickly found myself drawn in. I spent hours immersed in Rowe’s story, often finding it difficult to put the book down.

Lieutenant Rowe arrived in South Vietnam in 1963 as a Special Forces advisor to the South Vietnamese Army—two years before the United States fully committed conventional forces to the conflict. By the time America officially escalated its involvement, Rowe had already spent two years in captivity.

The book opens with Rowe already in Vietnam, then backtracks to his journey into the Army through West Point and later into the Special Forces at Fort Bragg. Early in the book, he is captured by the Viet Cong, and the core of the narrative centers on his recollection of the five years he spent as a POW. His ability to recall details of captivity is remarkable. After three combat tours of my own, I know I do not retain memories with the precision Rowe demonstrates.

As I read his story, I experienced a flood of emotions. Having been in combat myself, I could relate to the fear and tension he felt on patrol with South Vietnamese forces. At times I felt anxious for him; at others, I was filled with anger. Even though I knew he survived, I found myself cheering him—and those with him—on.

The greatest impact on me as a chaplain was Rowe’s realization, while in captivity, of his need for faith. At a time when many ask, Where is God?, Rowe instead cried out to Him. Though he attended church growing up, his faith had been largely nominal. It was in captivity that turning to God sustained him.

I found myself quietly chuckling at how human his faith journey was. Like many of us, when things were going well he would forget God, only to cry out again in the midst of trial. His “good days” were often worse than what we might call our bad days, yet he would suddenly realize he had not prayed in some time. That honesty made his story all the more compelling.

The end of Chapter 9 and all of Chapter 10 left me both excited and in tears as Rowe came to the realization that he was finally going home.

I was, however, somewhat disappointed with the ending. It felt abrupt, almost as if it were setting up a second book that never came. The conclusion left the story feeling unfinished.

What struck me most deeply came near the end of the book, on pages 394–396, where Rowe discusses the basic doctrine of communism. As I read those pages, I could not help but reflect on current events in our own country. The emphasis on no family, no religion, and no nationality felt unsettlingly familiar. As someone who served during the Cold War and stood against communist aggression, it saddened me to see echoes today of what Rowe witnessed and endured more than sixty years ago.

I highly recommend this book. In my opinion, it deserves a place near the top of any serious reading list on war, captivity, and human endurance. It is absolutely worth the price of admission.

21 January 2026

Continued Service

Disclaimer:  This blog reflects my personal views, informed by over three decades of military service, and is written in a private capacity. It does not speak for the Department of Defense, the United States Army, or any serving military leaders or institutions.

I wrote this piece as a retired Army officer and chaplain who spent more than three decades serving alongside Soldiers of every rank and conviction. My purpose is not to defend or condemn any individual currently in the public eye, nor to weigh in on political positions or motives. Rather, I am seeking to explain how military retirement—particularly for commissioned officers—differs from civilian retirement, and why that distinction matters when retired officers speak publicly. My hope is to offer clarity for civilians, context for retirees, and a calmer understanding in a moment that has generated more heat than light.

My motivation in writing this blog is due to current events.  In the national spotlight are some former or retired military officers who made a video encouraging service members to disobey illegal orders.  

This article is not about whether any particular statement was right or wrong, but about why retired officers are treated differently under the law.  I am not here to debate their intent or implication in the video.  I am not here to vindicate or rebuke them.  What I am wanting to discuss is the scrutiny over this video.  There is much to unpack and my goal is to provide information for those who do not know anything about the military and protect those who are retiring or retired from the U.S. Armed Forces.

What has been echoed in the news and social media is these people who made the video have First Amendment rights.  Or, ‘He or she is a retired officer—why does it matter what they say?’  Or the final one that I have heard a lot is how does the Department of Defense—sometimes referred to as the ‘Department of War’—have any say over a retired officer?

After serving over 38 years in the U.S. Army both as enlisted and as an officer I can fully understand why some military personnel may be confused let alone the civilian population.  We are going to narrow our focus to retirees—specifically retired officers.

Retirement Confusion:  I believe the confusion comes with the understanding of retirement.  In the civilian world, retirement means you leave the company, keep your pension, and owe nothing further.  That is not how military retirement works—particularly for commissioned officers.  A retired officer is not “used to be” an officer.  They are an officer—on the retired list.  A retired military officer is not the same as a retired civilian executive; retirement in the military is a change of status, not an exit from the profession.  Retired officers are considered to still hold office under the United States.  Officers take an Oath of Office not an Oath of Enlistment.

Let's compare the civilian retirement verses a military retirement.

Civilian Retirement

  • Ends employment

  • Ends authority

  • Ends accountability

  • Pension is deferred compensation for past work

Military Officer Retirement

  • Ends daily service

  • Does not end commission

  • Does not end legal status

  • Retired pay is compensation tied to continued status

Considering the fourth point of each one.  Civilian retirement is compensating for work done for a length of time, typically 20 or more years.  Military retirement pay is considered legally reduced compensation for continued service, not a pension as the civilian retiree receives.

Under Title 10, U.S. Code, retired officers are still part of the Armed Forces.  They are subject to recall to active duty (rare, but legally real).  There are documented cases of retired general officers being recalled to active duty for specific roles or responsibilities.  Officers may be assigned duties appropriate to their status.  This is why officers are often described as “never fully retired” in a legal sense.  It is the difference between being retired and being on the retired rolls.  Just as we are accounted for while actively serving we are still being accounted for, we remain accounted for by the government—carried on the retired rolls.

Some would say what about the retired enlisted personnel?  Do they have the same restraints as an officer?  The answer to this is yes and no.  The reality of the situation is retired enlisted have less restrictions then a retired officer.  This is because of a few differences between the retired officer and retired enlisted.  The Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) is retired enlisted personnel return fully to civilian life; retired officers remain tethered to the profession—by law, by expectation, and by conscience.

Enlisted service is contractual, while officer service is vocational and commissioned.  This commission carries continuing institutional responsibility.  The law treats officers differently because the nation entrusts them not just with task, but with the profession itself.  

Retirement and UCMJ:  An emotional and confusing topic is concerning the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  The UCMJ applies to certain categories of military personnel.  One of those categories includes retired officers.  The purpose of the UCMJ is to preserve good order and discipline, trust in the profession and accountability tied to holding a commission.

Being subject to the UCMJ for a retiree does not mean they are policed (accounted for) daily.  It does not mean they can't disagree with government policies.  It does mean the conduct that brings discredit, typically classified as grave discredit can still trigger accountability.  Think less former employee and more retired judge that still holds the title.

Both retired officers—and in limited and contested ways, retired enlisted members—fall under Article 2 of the UCMJ.  However, how that authority is viewed and applied differs sharply.  While both groups fall under military law in limited ways, their treatment differs in practice.  The following chart is an illustration of the differences. 

     Factor             Retired Officer                     Retired Enlisted
       UCMJ jurisdiction        Clear and well-established                     More contested
     Historical prosecutions                Yes (rare but real)                     Extremely rare
      Likelihood of recall for discipline            Low                     Very low
     Institutional interest            Higher                     Lower

Plain truth:  
A retired Sergeant can speak freely as a citizen.  A retired Colonel is still heard as “the Army speaking through experience.” (The list at the end of this blog will give you more understanding of the differences..)

Why the difference?  Because officers are seen as representatives of the profession, even in retirement.    

Conclusion:  Many retired officers believe that because they are no longer on active duty, they are no longer bound by anything but conscience and law like any other citizen.  This belief is understandable - but incomplete.  As a retired officer one must remember rank still communicates authority.  A retired officer's speech still carries institutional weight.  Finally retirement restores freedom, but not anonymity.

The military's expectation of officers does not change at retirement.  This framework exists not to silence retired officers, but to remind them that their words still matter—sometimes more than they realize.  With freedom comes influence. With influence comes responsibility.  This helps explain why statements like those currently in the news receive heightened scrutiny.  The higher the rank you retire at the more responsibilities you still hold.  This framework exists not to silence retired officers, but to remind them that their words still matter—sometimes more than they realize.

Additional Information:  The following is provided for greater depth of the differences between retired officers and retired enlisted.

Retired Officers

  • Remain commissioned officers (commission persists)

  • Are placed on the Retired List

  • Are considered to hold office under the United States

  • Retired pay is legally viewed as reduced compensation for continued availability
  • Regain First Amendment rights
  • Must avoid:

    • Implying official military endorsement

    • Using rank to suggest authority

    • Speech that brings discredit on the Armed Forces

  • Public commentary is scrutinized more closely

  • Uphold institutional dignity
  • Speak carefully in public forums
  • Represent the profession honorably
  • Accept ongoing moral accountability

    Retired Enlisted Personnel

    • Their continued service status is limited
    • Are also placed on a Retired List

    • Do not hold a commission (No concept of holding an “office” after retirement)

    • Retired pay is treated more like a statutory retirement benefit

    • Regain full civilian political rights
    • Fewer institutional expectations
    • Rarely expected to issue disclaimers
    • Use of former rank carries little risk unless fraudulent
    • Live as private citizens

    • Be honored for service

    • Carry no institutional voice obligation

    19 January 2026

    Book Review

    "Generals in Bronze"

    “Generals in Bronze” is a history book presented in a unique and compelling form. I don’t recall how I first came across it, but my lifelong interest in the Civil War—second only to Biblical history—immediately drew me in. What truly piqued my interest was the subtitle: “Interviewing the Commanders of the Civil War.” This was not simply a historian’s account; it promised personal recollections from those who commanded on the ground.

    Edited by William B. Styple, the book compiles the interview notes of artist James Kelly, who sketched and later created bronze castings of Civil War generals. While the generals sat for their portraits, Kelly asked them about the war, specific events, and—most revealing—their opinions of one another. What emerges is unfiltered history: candid, personal, and at times uncomfortable.

    Kelly, who was a child during the Civil War, was especially fascinated by Union generals. His conversations capture perspectives rarely found in traditional histories, which often tell us what happened, when it happened, and sometimes why—but not how those who lived it truly felt.

    General James Harrison Wilson once said, “One can't put down history as it really happened—people don't want it—it would shock them.” In compiling Kelly’s notes, Styple gives us that very history: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Rather than dismembering my understanding of the Civil War, this book brought clarity—especially regarding figures like General Custer in the postwar years.

    I highly recommend this book. It provides insight into some of the most prominent men of the Civil War—many whose names later became associated with military posts or equipment. You’ll see how they viewed one another, and how history has sometimes redeemed men their peers did not. The 309 pages consist largely of organized conversational notes, with minimal editorial interruption for clarity. I purchased my copy used on Amazon and found it well worth the read.

    This book reminded me that history is best understood through the voices of those who lived it, not just those who later interpreted it.

    10 January 2026

     

    Faith, Life and Citizenship

    “Once apolitical by duty, now engaged by faith and conscience.”

    Transition from Soldier to Civilian
    I spent 38 years and 3 days in the Army. I had an amazing career, both as an enlisted Soldier and as an officer. Thirty of those years were spent serving as a Chaplain.

    Army regulations require military personnel to remain apolitical. That does not mean we lose our personal views; it means we are not allowed to publicly express them. A Soldier is a Soldier 24/7. What you do is not separate from who you are in public.

    There are some regulations a military officer remains accountable to even in retirement, as officers are retired but not fully separated from service. That said, there are many regulations we are no longer bound by. Retirement brings significant freedom, though it must still be exercised wisely and responsibly.

    For me, it has taken three years to become comfortable enough to express my opinions—especially political ones. My beliefs have not changed. Let me be clear: I am politically conservative and conservative in my understanding of Scripture. I am not fully satisfied with either political party, but the Republican agenda aligns more closely with my convictions.

    Nothing has changed regarding what I believe—only my ability to speak openly from a biblical worldview.

    Some have expressed surprise at my conservative views, or that I would express them at all. Others have voiced concern that I might isolate people I’ve known for years, subtly suggesting I should remain apolitical out of fear of division or because of my role as a minister. My hope is that the relationships I’ve built over decades—inside and outside the Army, across political and religious lines—are strong enough to allow honest conversation and, at times, agreement to disagree.

    I am not likely to convince someone who believes differently to see things exactly as I do. Yet as a Christian—and especially as a minister, chaplain, or whatever title one chooses to give me—I have a responsibility to speak truth. I believe I will be held accountable before God not only for what I say, but also for what I fail to say when I should.

    Outside of God’s mandate to share the Gospel, I also believe that after serving nearly four decades in uniform, I have earned the right to express my views.

    Early in my career, a senior chaplain required us to read Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. Like many of you, I initially assumed it would be a deeply spiritual book. This chaplain had it underlined and tabbed more than most people mark their Bibles—and yes, we had to take a test afterward.

    I actually found the book compelling and enjoyable. One quote became a guiding principle for much of my career:
    “Soldier, shut up and soldier!”

    There are Soldiers today who could benefit from that lesson. It might even save their lives.

    Heinlein also wrote something that struck me deeply:

    “Only those who have served in the military become full citizens.”

    Even in a novel, that statement raises an important question: why would someone write that? To me, it speaks to the willingness of some to place their lives on the line for something greater than themselves. Perhaps as a nation we should listen more to those who have served than to millionaire musicians or Hollywood elites—many of whom would cave under the slightest pressure.

    What has defined my life longer and more deeply than the military is my relationship with Jesus. I was born to a pastor and his wife. At five years old, I surrendered my life to Christ. I have been in church for 58 years, a Christian for 53 years, and a minister for 35 of those years—30 as an Army Chaplain.

    Because of this, my faith defines my life. My life does not define my faith. I do not compartmentalize belief. I view every aspect of life—including politics—through a scriptural lens.

    Having served nearly four decades in uniform, my duty required political silence, and I honored that duty. Retirement did not change my faith; it changed my role. I do not believe the state should enforce Christianity, nor do I confuse the Kingdom of God with any nation or political party.

    The First Amendment states:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    While our nation was undeniably influenced by Christian principles, government-mandated faith would ultimately destroy religious freedom. History proves that enforced belief—whether atheistic or religious—leads to oppression.

    Thomas Jefferson’s reference to a “wall of separation” was intended to protect the church from the state, not to remove personal conviction from public service. A politician’s faith should shape their conscience, and their conscience should inform their decisions. When convictions are abandoned for popularity, integrity is lost.

    My engagement as a citizen is guided by conscience shaped by Scripture—not by a desire for power or control. Speaking as a Christian in the public square is not Christian nationalism; it is faith-informed citizenship in a free society. I seek persuasion, not coercion; witness, not dominance; and fidelity to Christ above allegiance to any earthly system.

    I have been accused of Christian nationalism simply because my faith informs my politics. If loving my country and allowing my faith to shape every area of my life earns that label, then the misunderstanding lies with the label—not with me. I am not a patriot who happens to be a Christian; I am a Christian who is a patriot.

    What Christian Nationalism Is—and Is Not

    Christian nationalism typically includes beliefs such as:

    • The nation was founded exclusively as a Christian nation

    • Government should favor or enforce Christianity

    • National laws should enforce a specific religious framework

    • Citizenship is tied to religious identity

    • Church and state should function as a unified authority

    At its core, Christian nationalism is about power and identity, not faith.

    The theological concern is this:
    Christian nationalism shifts trust from the Kingdom of God to the power of the state.

    Christian faith teaches:

    • God’s Kingdom is not tied to any nation (John 18:36)

    • The Gospel advances through witness, not coercion

    • Faith requires freedom of conscience

    Christian nationalism is not:

    • Voting according to faith-informed convictions

    • Advocating moral values publicly

    • Acknowledging Christianity’s role in Western history

    • Praying for the nation

    • Speaking openly about faith after service

    • Exercising citizenship guided by Scripture

    A Christian engaging politics ≠ Christian nationalism.

    My hope is that this helps other believers navigate their own civic engagement. And when I engage those who disagree with me, my prayer is not simply that minds are changed—but that hearts are touched by the message of Jesus.


    08 January 2026

    Let's Get This Party Started

    There I Was…

    Often the best war stories start with, “There I was,” or “What happened was…”
    So—there I was.

    As a Chaplain, my war stories do not include exciting accounts of engaging the enemy. That said, I often placed myself in locations where the enemy did engage me—I just couldn’t shoot back. Technically, the Army issued me a weapon system, so if the enemy got close enough, they could engage.

    My weapon system consisted of a single Chaplain Assistant (now called a Religious Affairs Specialist) who carried an M4 to protect both me and himself. That’s right—one weapon between the two of us.

    I did not make my assistant’s job easy.

    Many chaplains do not run toward the sound of booms and gunfire. I did.

    Army regulations prohibit chaplains from carrying firearms. The only “weapon” I was authorized to carry was what I jokingly called my religious tool—a very large knife strapped to my side that extended nearly halfway down my thigh. Some Soldiers had a running bet that I carried a sidearm. Since they could only see the end of the scabbard beneath my blouse, they assumed it was a pistol. When I learned of the bet, I had to disappoint one Soldier by informing him he’d lost $20.

    I called it my religious tool because I told my Soldiers, “You shoot them—I’ll circumcise them.”
    It was a joke. I’m sure some will be offended, but after enough years in uniform, dark humor becomes a survival skill. I hit my 20-year mark while deployed to Iraq in 2004. By the time I retired in 2022, I had served 38 years and 3 days. Let’s just say I developed a bit of dark humor.

    And for the record—I never circumcised anyone with my religious tool.

    The vehicle in the picture above was mine in Iraq. For the first seven months of deployment, it had no up-armor. I patrolled outside the wire in a soft-sided Humvee—canvas doors, canvas roof, no ballistic glass. We had sandbags on the floorboard to “protect” us from IEDs. I was the driver, since I carried no weapon. If I needed a weapon, the vehicle was my weapon.

    Before we even rolled into Iraq, I removed the sandbags from the driver’s side. They interfered with my ability to use the accelerator and brake smoothly. That was more dangerous than helpful. If anyone outside the vehicle was going to be at risk, it would be because I intentionally used the vehicle as a weapon.

    I finally received up-armor and ballistic glass shortly before Fallujah. I had resisted it earlier because the added weight broke suspensions on the older 998 Humvees. I trusted God and believed a running soft sided vehicle was better than no vehicle at all.

    Seven months in, higher headquarters decided no soft-sided Humvees were allowed outside the wire. For seven months I’d driven all over Iraq, and now—after the worst seemed behind us—they said I couldn’t. Insert facepalm. 

    I sent the vehicle in for armor. By then, they’d figured out how to reinforce the suspension.

    In November 2004, my battalion—2nd Battalion, 2nd Infantry Regiment, the RAMRODS—was tasked to assist the Marines in Fallujah. Yes, I will forever remind Marines the Army had to come rescue them. In truth, it was a coalition effort—Army, Marines, British, and Iraqi forces.

    Operation Phantom Fury, the Second Battle of Fallujah, was the most intense urban battle since Vietnam and the bloodiest of the Iraq War. Over 700 coalition casualties—110 killed, around 600 wounded. An estimated 3,000 insurgents were killed or captured. The OPORD predicted an 80% casualty rate.

    2-2 Infantry suffered 34 casualties—four killed, most others returned to duty. Credit goes to God and extraordinary leadership from LTC Peter Newell down to squad level.

    Because of the anticipated casualty rate, Soldiers who hadn’t yet taken R&R were sent home and excluded from the assault. My assistant qualified, so I ordered him to go. I requested a replacement from brigade rather than pulling combat power from my battalion.

    I knew I had a reputation among chaplain assistants. I also knew they probably thought I was one brick shy of a full load—maybe even missing most of the Happy Meal.

    I lived by a Stonewall Jackson quote:

    "My religious belief teaches me to feel as safe in battle as in bed.  God has fixed the time for my death.  I do not concern myself about that, but to be always ready, no matter when it may over take me."

    I shortened it to:  “My faith allows me to feel as safe in battle as in my own bed.”

    My wife hates that quote.

    But I believed I could not ask Soldiers to trust my God if I did not trust Him myself—especially in battle.

    I ran toward the booms because that’s where my Soldiers were. They didn’t need me safe in a bunker. They needed me present.

    As we prepared to convoy to Fallujah, SGT James Matteson sought me out and asked if I was going. When I told him yes, it comforted him. He wasn’t afraid—he was one of our best Scouts—but faith mattered to him.

    That photo below of me praying with him was taken before we left. He was later killed by an RPG. Years later, meeting his family helped me understand why he sought me out. I represented his faith going into battle. He may also have known he wouldn’t return.

    Brigade sent SPC Figueroa—“SPC Fig”—to replace my assistant. He’d spent most of his deployment inside a FOB or a tank. Working for me was going to be…educational.

    This young Soldier's combat experience to this point has been in or around tanks.  He was less than confident in our equipment.  When he asked about our vehicle, the up armor, the roof, the floor—I reassured him. Well kind of reassured him.  I pointed out we had up armor.  He then questioned the roof and I reassured him the enemy would not be shooting down on us (this is important to remember later).  I assured him that IEDs came more at a 45 degree angle so the up armor would protect us.  Those who have been in combat know there is no way of knowing how an IED is going to impact a vehicle.  They have been known to be powerful enough to flip tanks.  Some details mattered less than confidence. I am not sure I fully achieved that mission.  Maybe he would have more confidence had he been with me when we only had the soft side. My wife always says this is the moment she feels sorry for Fig.  Her words are, "Poor Fig".

    When we rolled out, I strapped a boom box to the roof rail and played TobyMac’s “Get This Party Started ("Get This Party Started").”

    SPC Fig was unimpressed with my choice of music. I thought the choice was perfect.

    We arrived at Camp Fallujah and spent about a week in training and preparation for the assault on the city of Fallujah.  What I saw of the Marines training it gave me understanding how they got into the situation that required the Army to come out them out of it.  It also did not give me much confidence in their ability to survive the assault.  I went and visited a Navy Chaplain buddy that was at Fallujah.  As I walked past a large group of Marines that suddenly went screaming and running down the road.  I asked my buddy what were they doing?  He said training for Fallujah.  I shrugged and said okay then.  It thrilled me to be part of an Infantry unit who were skilled in their craft.  I am not saying the Marines were not skilled just the skills they showed was not ones I had confidence in like my infantrymen.

    On 8 Nov 2004 we rolled out of Camp Fallujah to our staging area outside the city of Fallujah.  As we rolled in the staging area rockets and mortars came raining down on our area.  Once the perimeter was set I exited my vehicle along with SPC Fig and I started heading out to the vehicles along the perimeter to see how the Soldiers were doing and to check to ensure all were okay. 

    As we headed to one side of the perimeter rockets and mortars came raining down in that direction.  SPC Fig was begrudgingly walking behind me not sure about moving about with incoming coming in.  Remember he had not been outside the wire of his unit much and I am certain he stayed in a bunker or a reinforced area when there was incoming.  Now I had him wandering in the open to check on the Soldiers.

    As we headed to the perimeter SPC Fig called out, "Chaplain."  I said, "What."  He said, "Rockets and Mortars."  I responded, "You have been in Iraq long enough to know the enemy cannot hit in the same place twice so the safest place is to be where they already shot."  He sighed and continued to the perimeter with me.

    We completed our rounds on that side of the perimeter ensuring all were safe and ready for the assault on Fallujah we proceeded across the staging area to the other side of the perimeter.  As we were making our way to the other side more rockets and mortars began to rain down.  It was almost as if they were bracketing off of us.  I passed CPT Cobb's vehicle on our way to the other side and saw that a mortar dud had landed just outside of his vehicle and he had the door partially open observing it.  CPT Cobb was our Fire Support Officer (FSO) for the battalion.  He and his team call in fire on the enemy to help silence the enemies rockets and mortars.  So I found it ironic and slightly humorous that a mortar dud landed near our FSO.  Once again my dark sense of humor.  Knowing he was okay and more qualified than I ever would be to handle the situation I proceeded with checking on my Soldiers.

    The rest of Fallujah followed—rockets, mortars, doctrine bent but not broken, Soldiers served, casualties borne, heroes honored.

    We lost four Soldiers. Many were wounded. I was honored to serve among legends.

    This is only part of the story.

    Fallujah changed us all.

    I am grateful God placed me exactly where He did.

    Five Years to Freedom: A Reflection A Veteran's Response to James "Nick" Rowe's POW Memoir I approach this book as both a ...