It's natural for parents to be concerned about the safety and wellbeing of their sons and daughters in the military -- whether the offspring are in a war zone or not. With some frequency, moms or dads will contact the media, including Stars and Stripes, about some real or perceived injustice visited on their servicemember kin.

Some headlines and sound bites that made the worldwide rounds on Monday must have stopped Air Force people in their tracks. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was quoted as denouncing the Air Force for not doing enough to help the war effort. That’s the way I heard it on a national CBS Radio broadcast here in Washington. I don’t know how it sounded on other broadcasts and telecasts, but the written headline on the CBS Web site was this: “Gates: Air Force Lagging in War Effort.” The CNBC Web site’s item read: “Pentagon chief rips Air Force over war.” The CNN Web site headline was, “Defense secretary scolds Air Force over war effort.”

A blockbuster of a front-page article by The New York Times, published Sunday, is causing a dustup in military and media circles. It recounts a years-long effort by the Pentagon to enlist military analysts on television networks to act as "surrogates" to put forth the Pentagon's line on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The analysts are retired officers, some of whom, The Times said, work for companies that do business with the Pentagon. Hence an insinuation of conflict of interest.

Readers of this space will be aware of my fascination with the intersection of media and military interests. (And not just when Stars and Stripes represents the media interest.) In the issue I am looking at now, the military side is represented not by the Pentagon or one of the services, but by veterans of the battle of Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest and most significant of World War II. The media interest is represented by a biggie -- Time Magazine.

On March 13, Army Pvt. Jeremiah Carmack left his Schweinfurt post with a loaded M-4 carbine and, after breaking into his ex-girlfriend's home, was shot dead when he allegedly raised the weapon in front of German police.

Since then Stars and Stripes has printed more than a half-dozen stories on the search for answers with respect to the tragedy: Why did the soldier go looking for the woman with a gun? How did he get the weapon out of the military installation? What exactly were the circumstances of the fatal confrontation with the police?

I don't know how many minds, if any, were changed among senators and the public by the testimony of Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker Tuesday. Their immediate message, nicely trimmed  to three words by Stars and Stripes' headline: "No definite timeline," was probably welcome news to no one. But there were clearly differences in assessing the necessity of that conclusion: Many opponents of the U.S' continuing involvement thought it was more stalling by the administration in getting more troops out of Iraq. Others saw it as a necessary strategy now that some progress has been achieved, but Iraq still remains shaky.

The Administration has brought out its big guns to denounce a Senate bill that journalists very much want to have made into law. The protesters, all of whom sent letters last week to senators, were Attorney General Michael Mukasey, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Stars and Stripes’ letters page has been spiced by a couple of interlocking controversies lately. The umbrella theme: interservice pride — or rivalry, if you prefer. In the end, Stripes itself came in for criticism.