This morning [January 6], the Bureau of Labor Statistics released some encouraging jobs numbers—the private sector added 212,000 jobs in December, and the unemployment rate fell to 8.5 percent. These numbers are seasonally adjusted to control for extra holiday hiring, and the drop in the unemployment level was not caused primarily by people dropping out of the labor force. So this acceleration is a promising sign, though of course a strong jobs recovery remains elusive.

But one group has been left out of this slight rise—and in fact, has seen its employment numbers decelerate at a scary pace. What the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “Gulf War–era II veterans”—those who served from September 2001 to the present—had an unemployment rate of 13.1 percent in December. In December 2010, that number was 11.7.

That means there are 248,000 unemployed veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—and much worse, there’s an additional 442,000 recent veterans who are no longer in the labor force. The New York Times estimated last month that about 30 percent of veterans aged 20 to 24 are unemployed, a steep rise from the rate of 21 percent in mid-2010.

These numbers are also bound to increase in the coming years, since 1 million veterans are expected to join the workforce by 2016 as the wars wind down and soldiers finish their enlistments.

Fortunately, Washington has actually taken some action in recent months to address the unemployment crisis for veterans. In fact, the first part of Obama’s jobs bill to pass (and really the only part, unless you count the recent two-month payroll tax extension) is a provision to give employers tax credits for hiring veterans who have been out of work for more than six months, and to provide additional education and jobs retraining programs. (Though unfortunately, the program was paid for by higher mortgage rates guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs.)

That’s a good start—but additional measures may be needed to address the metastasizing unemployment crisis among those who sacrificed quite a bit for the government already in the past decade.

U.S. commanders want civilian contractors to provide military security at the Marine Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan as a planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn country expands.

The contracted security personnel will guard Camp Leatherneck, the sprawling, 1,500-acre-plus installation that serves as the Corps’ main hub of operations in Helmand province and home to II Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward), commanded by Maj. Gen. John Toolan. To date, coalition forces have handled security at Leatherneck, but commanders have discussed using contractors for months in anticipation of a smaller Marine footprint, said Lt. Col. Riccoh Player, a Marine spokesman at Leatherneck.

“As we prepare for fewer Marine boots on the ground, the requirement to maintain a certain level of security aboard Camp Leatherneck must be maintained,” Player said. “That’s where contractor support will provide Camp Leatherneck security where Marines have in the past.”

U.S. Army Contracting Command announced a competition for the job in November. At least 166 civilian guards will be needed at all times, meaning the company that wins the contract will almost certainly need more to account for vacations and other leave time. Companies who seek the job must hire guards who are citizens of the U.S. or some of its closest allies: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Base security at Leatherneck has been performed primarily by a reserve infantry battalion, currently 1st Battalion, 25th Marines, out of Fort Devens, Mass. However, as part of the drawdown, the Corps already has canceled the deployment of a replacement unit, 1st Battalion, 24th Marines, out of Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich. Marines with 1/24 would have replaced 1/25 in theater next year.

The civilian guards posting security must have a secret security clearance issued by either the U.S. or the International Security Assistance Force headed by Marine Gen. John Allen, according to documents released in the competition.

Personnel will be expected to wear body armor, man security towers and be familiar with the M16A4 rifle, M4 carbine and M9 pistol, plus crew-served weapons such as the M240B heavy machine gun and M2 .50-caliber machine gun. A typical workweek will last up to 72 hours, military documents said.

Our troops are many things to many people. Heroes, parents, diplomats, victims, villains, victors. But as the GOP Primary races roll through New Hampshire this week, there is one thing that all of America must understand they're not: political props.

And that's not just my opinion, it's the law.

This is why so many of us in the military and veterans community were so shocked and outraged last Tuesday night when we saw Corporal Jesse Thorsen step up to the microphone in uniform and endorse Ron Paul for President. We know the law—the military law under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). We know Article 88 of UCMJ prohibits contemptuous speech by commissioned officers against the President and certain elected officials at penalty of court-martial. We also know that service members are only allowed to attend political rallies as spectators, according to Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, which states, “In keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity, and that members not on active duty should avoid inferences that their political activities imply or appear to imply official sponsorship, approval, or endorsement…” And we troops and veterans understand why this directive exists.

It exists, like most laws, to protect the common good. It exists to protect our troops, our politics, and our democracy. It is what makes America different. It is what protects our political system from being hijacked by our military—and it's what keeps us from becoming a junta.

Since I first commented on this issue on Twitter on the night of the Iowa Caucus, the conversation has been intense. And healthy. Primarily because it underscores how little much of the civilian public understands about our military, and it reveals a dangerous, unprecedented civilian-military divide in which less than one half of 1% of our nation has served in combat. Many well-intentioned people have fired back at me saying things like, "He's a soldier! He risked his life! He's entitled to free speech! He’s entitled to his views as much, if not maybe more, than anyone else!"

Actually, he's not. (continued...)