Morale has plunged among military personnel in Afghanistan as a result of record violence in the war, according to the U.S. Army. A battlefield survey found that the situation is particularly problematic for soldiers on their third and fourth combat tours, and junior enlisted soldiers are most likely to experience marital problems because of deployment. Though it's not a complete solution, the study did find that limited doses of technology – either through video games or internet access – can help.

The study, obtained by NBC News, revealed that more than 20% of soldiers are experiencing combat stress, and half of them are having difficulties getting professional help. Combat Stress units in Afghanistan, the report says, are "undermanned," and this type of unit has no presence in the southern part of Afghanistan, where most of the combat is taking place.

When you're serving your country, there's a good chance you'll move around a few times . . . which can conflict with the traditional American dream of homeownership. Soldiers who bought homes several years ago could be stuck selling now at depressed prices -- and on fairly short notice.

Needless to say, the financial pressure can be profound. A Staff Sergeant with a decade of service behind him, for example, is paid just under $37,000 a year. Even when you add in the health care and other benefits provided by the Department of Defense, it's still hard to handle a serious loss on a home.

The February stimulus plan included provisions to help military personnel in this situation, but little has happened. Soldiers complain that information is hard to find and guidelines aren't available. So far, none of the funds have been disbursed, and the federal government is keeping its collective mouth shut.

The comments on a recent blog post by Sarah Gilbert, about Starbucks retraining efforts took an interesting turn towards discussion about whether or not that company supports our troops. This seems to be a subject which elicits strong passion among many blog readers, which prompts me to ask this question of you: Does a company's position, openly declared or not, regarding support for our troops, affect your perception of that company and whether or not you'll intentionally do business with them?

This issue can be difficult to assess, because often times a company's position on the matter is cloaked, unavailable or skewed by misinformation. The comments on Sarah's blog post give clear evidence of that. Some folks seem convinced that Starbucks doesn't care about our troops, yet packages bearing its logo are reported to arrive at military addresses every day. What's more is the fact that often companies elect not to state a position regarding our restructuring efforts in Iraq. To some people, silence on the matter is interpreted as contempt rather than consent.

I must admit that my own opinions about individual companies regarding their stance on our military involvements are sometimes colored by unconfirmed email commentary and careless internet banter. That is why I generally refrain from discussing the issue. What about you? Do you base your opinions on random emails which purport to reveal a company's stance regarding our military, or do you research the topic before coming to your conclusions?