Twelve Captains Speak Out
Getting a clear picture of the situation on the ground in the middle of an occupation or war is a hard thing to do. For various reasons, it's hard to trust the reports from the Pentagon, the embedded media, or politicians of either stripe, because their views are usually skewed in one direction or another.
Which is why I give much more weight to first-person accounts from soldiers who have been there. And you can call me anti-elitist, but the lower the rank of the soldier, the more weight I give to their accounts. I see it as: the closer you get to the bottom, the tougher jobs you likely will have performed. This may not be fair, but I wanted to lay out my own personal biases (since I'm criticizing everyone else's).
This is why I read with interest the earlier report from seven enlisted men (sergeant and lower ranks) written as an op-ed article in the New York Times a few months ago. Two of the seven authors are now dead -- killed in battle -- it should be noted, and one of the others has been wounded. It's hard to question the patriotism of such a group.
Today another op-ed was published in the Washington Post, this time by twelve Army captains. Now, captains are a bit further up the chain of command, as they are commissioned officers instead of enlisted men. But captains are still low enough rank that they actually see the combat situation up close and personal, instead of commanding a desk somewhere in HQ or the Pentagon. Because of military rules, such public advocacy is not allowed to soldiers while still in uniform, so all twelve are retired captains.
It's worth listening to what they have to say. Here is an extended excerpt, but I encourage you to read the full article itself.
[I did not want to dilute their words with my own commentary, because I think their piece stands on its own, so forgive me for using this column solely to shine the spotlight on someone else's work.]
Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.
As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.
. . .
The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.
Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.
. . .
This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.
There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.
America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.
-- Chris Weigant
The problem with getting the "accurate" picture from the lower ranks is that it is EASY to skew that "picture" to your own beliefs and embrace the MacBeths and the Beauchamps of the military...
And, while I am not calling into question your quotes in the least, I think that you will admit for that every quote from a grunt on the ground who says that Iraq is wrong, bad and evil, you will find several quotes from OTHER grunts on the ground that say that what we are doing in Iraq is important and necessary...
Like I have always said, it's easy to have a Rush Limbaugh extort the virtues of the GOP or a Cindy Sheehan shine on and on about how great the LEFT is... Those types of "endorsements" are easy to ignore, because you just can't help but feel that it is nothing but PR hype...
What *I* put stock in, is when you have a Democratic Senator who is on the record as ANTI-WAR, travel to Iraq and SEE what is going on and then change his position..
Now THAT is something I would sit up and take notice to.. And I think anyone who is TRULY fair and objective in their viewpoint should also sit up and take notice too..
And the reciprocal of that is ALSO true... If there was a dyed in the wool Republican who was through and through for the Iraq war, was to travel to Iraq and say what a mess it is and how we should leave immediatly, well... That is something I would definitely respect.... I may not agree with him or her unless they offered some pretty compelling evidence, but I could at least RESPECT their opinion...
Just as I respect the opinions of soldiers that have been there and say it's a mess and we should leave...
I respect the opinion, without necessarily agreeing with it..
THAT is something that most of ya'all simply cannot do.. You don't respect ANYONE's opinion but your own.. If someone doesn't march lock-step with you in your beliefs, they are all sorts of evil and disgusting....
It's really sad to see....
Michale......
I think that people will believe what they want to believe no matter what evidence there is to the contrary. Even the fact that the Iraqi's themselves are getting out if they can will not change the minds of those who believe in this war.
It is all such a waste.
...Stan
It would be nice if we could trust any voices we hear from the government, or the main stream media.
That's a difficult statement to have made, since I was raised in the America which was the land of the brave and the home of the free. We had cartoons which showed how good triumphed over evil, and we were always the good guys and the evil were always trying to commit atrocities for economic gain, or increased power.
Decades later we find that our own government and our own media have cast themselves into the roles of the evil ones, and where are the good guys?I don't trust politicians. Doesn't matter how they flip or flop, they brought us here, and their every move is more likely for their own self interest than it is due to some noble cause. Overly skeptical ... you bet, but any politician who wants to prove me wrong has their work cut out for them, and what are they doing about it?
The media has no credibility because they are more likely to own the politicians than the American public, and it doesn't take a lot of research to see that they've played along with this assault on peace and freedom, if not actually engineered it.
I agree CW, that the voices at the bottom are more likely to give the straight scoop in Iraq. Perhaps you saw the report from the unembedded journalist yesterday. Wile the administration is reporting a cease fire, the US military is dropping cluster bombs in civilian neighborhoods while American snipers are picking off women and children with white phosphorous rounds. Is it the good guys that act that way?
I don't know that it's possible that the America of my youth will return, it's taken a lot of erosion to produce a crop of politicians and capitalists that identify themselves with the 'bad guys', but the majority of Americans want our country back, and the majority of the world would greet us as liberators, should we return. In the meantime, we've become the mirror image of those we call the enemy, and those we call enemies are just poor people whose only crime is that they happen to live in countries we intend to plunder.
@fstanley
>Even the fact that the Iraqi's
>themselves are getting out if
>they can will not change the
>minds of those who believe
>in this war.
Using this reasoning, Mexico and the Central American countries must be in the throes of massive war...
And, for the record, no one "believes in war".
Most believe in doing the right thing.. As opposed to doing the wrong thing..
And, on another note...
Rihannsu has begun killing Rihannsu"
-Star Trek, FINAL FRONTIER (Novel)
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-sours-on-senate-2007-10-17.html
And, as far as CDub's unembedded journalist, give me a fracking break..
What you are doing is passing off 3rd and 4th person hearsay as fact...
In effect, it's "I heard from a friend of my second cousin's sister's husband that his best friend's third cousin's wife had said that she was shot by American snipers.."
I'll say it again... GIVE ME A FRACKING BREAK!!
Tell me, CDub.. Do you know ANYTHING about the military or combat??
Snipers operate from great distances and from areas of concealment..
If your "women and children" were shot by snipers, HOW THE HELL DID THEY KNOW THAT THE SNIPERS WERE AMERICAN!!???
This is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit, know nothing hysteria that I am always talking about..
The hysterical and irrational Left takes these reports as gospel when it is obvious to the objective observer that they are nothing but lies and propaganda..
Like I have said before, CDub.. Keep at it.. You might be able to convince your fellow irrational and hysterical cohorts that Bush was the second gunman on the grassy knoll..
And you on the Left wonder why Joe Q Public looks at ya'all like yer whacked... Jesus H Christ!!
Michale.....
Michale wrote:
I'll say it again… GIVE ME A FRACKING BREAK!!
Snipers operate from great distances and from areas of concealment..
If your "women and children" were shot by snipers, HOW THE HELL DID THEY KNOW THAT THE SNIPERS WERE AMERICAN!!???
~~~~~
Please take that break, I can see you're tired from sniping at EYEWITNESSES from the comfort of your keyboard.
After all, it was the coalition that had Fallujah under siege, perhaps it was those three soldiers from pago pago that did the sniping, or maybe women and children were shooting each other since they saw a chance to get free health care.
This is probably all lies too:
"There were thirty-two. We have buried twenty-four, and I have no information about the other nine who are in US custody. We do not know anything about them. This is a catastrophe. A US general has inspected the area, and he said they are sorry, and he cried after seeing the beheaded children."
24 plus nine doesn't equal 32, how are we to trust this eyewitness that the children had heads at the start of the day?
“It's hard to question the patriotism of such a group.†Sorry Chris. The Reich-wing ChickenHawk hate merchants call them ‘phony soldiers.’ We can reasonably assume they are college-educated, actively involved in current events, and in contact with some of their friends they served with.
So we have 20+ Generals speaking out, anti-war vet groups speaking out, gold-star families speaking out, ground-ponders speaking out, and ‘mid-management’ speaking out.
These captains are true patriots. I would defy anyone to point out a single statement in the article that lacks credibility. Their comments simply reflect demonstrable facts, accurate historical references, and the subjective reality they saw. Of course they are at odds with the administration’s propaganda efforts and the sycophants’ illogical defense of the failed policies that has cost the country the loss of respect around the world, 100’s of BILLIONS of $$$, 4000+ lives, and 10,000’s of wounded.
I’ll sit up and take notice when a pro-war ChickenHawk propagandist goes to Baghdad and wanders down to the market without beng surrounded by a squad of heavily armed troops& mercenaries, no helicopter gunships overhead, no machinegun outfitted armored personnel carriers standing guard, and wearing no body armor. They won’t even have to make a report IF they get back. The only thing that would impress me more is if Dubya made an announced visit to the highly defended ‘green zone.’
CDub- Thanks for the heads-up on Dahr Jamail’s report. It simply adds more details to already documented reports. His comments about the Battle of Fallujah mirror my nephew’s description. Of course when the facts can’t be disputed, deny them and blame the messenger. Big Lie rule #1.
Editor & Publisher is reporting some significant statistical anomalies in the increase of ‘non-combat’ deaths. http://tinyurl.com/3cdvnv
“Using this reasoning, Mexico and the Central American countries must be in the throes of massive war…†BIG difference – they haven’t been occupied for OVER 4 ½ years by a foreign army and are not subject to ethic cleansing and civil war.
PlacitasRoy,
Maybe I'm just extending my mistrust of messages from 'voices of authority', but I wonder how much of the shift toward 'non-combat' deaths is a sober assessment, and how much of it is an attempt to keep the official body counts down. After all, the official story line is that the surge has brought violence down, but the truth is that this years official body count already exceeds last years, and we still have months of deaths yet to count.
I know that if a soldier is severely wounded and dies in a hospital in Germany, they are only counted as wounded, the subsequent death is not combat related, as I understand it.
@CDub
Oh, I see.. You are basing your condemnation on "probably"s and "had to be"s and the like..
Real solid info you got there.. :^/
Again, you wonder why Joe Q Public rolls their eyes and utters, "Morons" every time the hysterical Left opens up their mouth...
@PlacitasRoy
>I’ll sit up and take notice
>when a pro-war ChickenHawk
>propagandist goes to Baghdad
How about you sit up and take notice when an Anti War Democrat travels to Baghdad and then comes back and says the troop surge is working and we should give it time..
Oh noooooooo You can't even begin to believe THAT, now could you???
Michale.....
@CDub
Oh, I see.. You are basing your condemnation on "probably"s and "had to be"s and the like..
Real solid info you got there.. :^/
Again, you wonder why Joe Q Public rolls their eyes and utters, "Morons" every time the hysterical Left opens up their mouth…
~~~~~
So you make up a story, and then make up a person who finds you moronic based on your story ... Since you made up this John Q., I'd bet you'll win this argument, but at the moment, he seems to have you outclassed.
Michale seriously, this was an interesting article, form people with MORE PERSPECTIVE THAN YOU, laying out the problems they see. Why is that so bad, and so hard to believe? I know youwere a navy seal or army ranger or something with Chuck Norris, but seriously? Captains explaining what they saw. They aren't the only ones. And as far as unembedded journalist, they are by far the more trustworthy source. They are not influenced by any soldiers they hangout with, they are not censored by the commanding officers, they are not reporting from a posh hotel room in the green zone. You have to consider character as well. Do you really think someone who has chosen journalism as a career, who could make money many other ways, would risk there lives to get REAL close up reporting in a war zone? They don't have to go there if there going to lie and make up stories like you insinuate. They'd have to be either crazy and dillusional, or dedicated and honorable, and willing to risk their lives to get the truth out there. Simple logic. Unfortunately you have to search for these stories, as the mainstream does not publish them. Democracynow.org is a good source if your open minded. Here are some links to documentaries as well.
http://bravenewfilms.org/docs
http://www.bignoisefilms.com/
Big noise is interesting, scroll through there, they have a bunch of films. And again, before crying liberal lunatic, remember, these people have exuded much passion, compassion, endured danger to get these stories out there. Use logic and try to judge the character it takes to do this before assuming evil.
And as far as sitting up and taking notice, forget the politicians for now, take notice that there are MANY soldiers speaking out against the war. MANY. So sit up and take notice. You can't believe that they are all phony soldiers.
CDub: "After all, the official story line is that the surge has brought violence down...." and every since May 1, 2003 the official line is we're winning, we just need another 3 months. The sad part is that gullible Joe Q Public believed the lying propgandists, keyboard commandos, and ChickenHawk pundits, for far too long. at least the sycophant wing portion of Joe Q Public is now now to less than 30%.
"Anti War Democrat travels to Baghdad and then comes back and says the troop surge is working and we should give it time..Oh noooooooo You can't even begin to believe THAT, now could you???"
I'll use the same criteria with ANYONE who says it is going well: They go "to Baghdad and wanders down to the market without beng surrounded by a squad of heavily armed troops& mercenaries, no helicopter gunships overhead, no machinegun outfitted armored personnel carriers standing guard, and wearing no body armor."
It would add to their credibility if they were accompanied by a Fox-hole cameraman waring nothing but shorts and a t-shirt.
What I took away from Cdub's unembedded journalist account was not whether or not an Iraqi woman could positively confirm that a US sniper killed her child (isn't it enough that her child is dead?) but another testimonial to the horror of war. War is brutal, messy and causes human suffering for both soldiers and civilians alike. Ken Burn's "The War" PBS special serves to remind us even the most necessary of wars is no different. Our current conflict is no better, and sometimes messier since it has devolved into an urban pseudo-Viet Nam, where the enemy hides in the local populace. (By the way, it was confirmed by the US military, we used phosphorous rounds in the battle of Fallujah).
It is actually a shame that we recieve such a sanitized version of events over there. Ken Burns in an interview said he felt like a "internet pornographer" when trying to get photos of the Iraq
war, because he couldn't get that information from our major media sources. We should see the horror, to understand the costs and not enter into war lightly. We should see the picture of the 10 year old Iraqi child with 30% body surface area burns and all four amputated limbs as a result of a US bombing that was posted only on the BBC website. We should see the John Gandolfini HBO special on the young soldiers with their multiple amputations. This is not to say war is not necessary, because it sometimes is. Its just to say if you support the war you should be comfortable with the terrible costs.
Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent
- Issac Asimov
@PlacitasRoy
Using your reasoning, authorities should "pull out" of Miami, Harlem and the seedy sides of Chicago as well..
But hell, why stop there.. San Ysidro is a REAL rough area (at least it was 25 years ago. I doubt much has changed.. Might as well 'cede San Ysidro and IB to Mexico, eh???
If your criteria for withdrawing from an area is SOLELY based on how safe or dangerous it is, then authorities MUST 'cede many areas of the US to the scumbags..
Ridiculous, ain't it??
Thought so...
Michale.....
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bushs-schip-veto-holds-2007-10-18.html
It is that kind of hysterical, irrational and uncalled for bashing that makes it impossible to take the Left seriously....
Michale.....
@GMO
>Its just to say if you support the war
>you should be comfortable with the terrible
>costs.
I have been in combat on almost every continent that this world has to offer. I have seen body parts of friend and foe strewn about like confetti.. I have smelled 3-day old rotting corpses...
I fully support the idea that sometimes war is necessary.. I can state unequivocally and for the record that I have not been nor will ever, EVER, be "comfortable" with the terrible costs of war..
With the utmost in deference and respect to you, yours is the opinion of one who has never been in combat..
To say that, if one supports a war then he or she MUST be comfortable with all the terrible, perverted and horrible costs is the epitome of ignorance and, frankly, an insult to every man and woman who has worn the uniform in service of this country..
I hope to god that I never, EVER meet anyone who is "comfortable" with war....
Michale.....
I beleive what GMO is saying is that if we (Our Country) are going to wage war, we should not be hiding from the public the true nature of war, to appease them in our decision making. The administration knows that many people will not be in support of something when they see the true human costs of it. Rather than face the desires of the people, they try to control it. Mask the truth, to maintain support.
Michale
To your dismay, I have been in combat and returned from Iraq about a year ago. I just don't feel the same way you do about this conflict. Nor would I try to discount another's opinion based upon my past military experience.
And by the way.. you didn't quite understand my comment (see Benskull).
@Benskull
>>>Its just to say if you support the war
>>>you should be comfortable with the terrible >>>costs.
That it was GMO said and it's pretty plain english.
Tell me, do you support WWII??? I assume the answer is yes.. Then that must mean (according to GMO) that you are "comfortable" with all the death and destruction that accompanied WWII..
You see the point?? One can support the necessity of certain actions without being "comfortable" with what occurs during said actions...
@GMO
My apologies for the assumption.. What branch and unit were you with???
But I do not believe I misunderstood you. As I explained to Benskull above, your words are very clear.
Now, I will grant you that you might have stated it poorly and it didn't reflect what you actually meant. But the words themselves are very clear...
>Nor would I try to discount another's
>opinion based upon my past military experience.
This is where we differ.. Personally, I don't hold much stock in people's opinions on things that they have no experience in..
Tell me, would you listen intently to a lecture on auto maintenance from a 7yr old??
Of course you wouldn't.. Because the 7yr old (likely) has had ZERO experience in auto maintenance and therefore has no real information to impart..
Now, of course, there is always the exception. Like when Jack (2 Ls) O'Neill was reverted to a 15-yr old, but was still able to give a lecture on the combat capabilities of an F-302 against G'oauld Death Gliders.... But the point is still valid, as even the 15 yr old Col. O'Neill had the experience to draw on...
So, I rarely trust the opinions on military matters, especially combat, from those who never wore the uniform... Having served in several actions, two different branches of service and dozens of different postings, I have always viewed with disdain the "arm chair" warrior types who would promptly shat themselves if they ever actually faced combat...
I guess you are different and hay, that's great.. To each their own, different strokes and all that other stuff... :D
Michale.....
Missing the point again. How can the populace be comfortable with the war and all it encompasses, when they are not seeing it? We don't see what is happening over there. Its not on mainstream media, and frankly, the independant media, which does not mask the truth, shows a very different story. The point, again, is not whether the administration is comfortable with the sacrifices "necessary". Obviously they are. Are WE? as a people, are WE comfortable? That would imply a mojority. And are we given all the information? Again, the reason why unembedded journalists are more reliable. and why the admin and mainstream media are providing MISinformation. To make it easier for us to swallow. WWII in my opinion was a very different cause, with a true axis that was carrying out its intentions in action. Iraq was a very dfferent story. With a FRACTION of the resources to cause any damage. Not a threat. As far as the 7yr olds etc, these are Captains. They have been there and have experience.
@benskull
You are splitting hairs..
GMO stated "war" in general.. Not "this" war or "that" war...
GMO stated that if someone supports a war then they MUST be comfortable with all the death and destruction that goes along with it.
I simply pointed out the fallacy of that remark, as evidenced by your own response to my WWII question.
Now, GMO may have MEANT something different.. According to him, he did..
But that doesn't change the fact of what he said is a gross fallacy..
>As far as the 7yr olds etc,
>these are Captains. They have been
>there and have experience.
But here again, we have to look at GMO's words..
"Nor would I try to discount another's opinion based upon my past military experience."
He wasn't meaning the Captains in the commentary. I am sure he was referring to my "habit" of discounting people's military opinions when they have absolutely ZERO experience with or in the military...
Regardless of all that, you bring up an interesting point..
Your entire post above can be summed up in one sentence..
"We know nothing about the Iraq war or what is going on in the Iraq war."
This being the case, how is it possible that you feel qualified to condemn it and the men and women who prosecute it???
Michale.....
You are good at twisting language around to suit you. I seek my information from sources other than FOx, or mainstream media. Sources that don't have such a stake in what they report. So i would say that i may be more informed than a portion of the population that does not look elsewhere. Those that do the same are just as outraged as I. As far as other wars, coverage was much better. Viet Nam was covered, the violence was very evident in the news. Thank God for the radical lefties that made it impossible to continue such a war. Go Liberals! Wish the outrage, dedication and organization were present now. And less repressed.
>You are good at twisting language
>around to suit you.
What twisting have I done??? It is you who is trying to twist my posts to fit your answers. Your own words stated that "WWII in my opinion was a very different cause, with a true axis that was carrying out its intentions in action." which simply illustrated my point that it IS possible to support a war, yet not be comfortable with all the death and destruction that goes with war..
>I seek my information from sources other
>than FOx, or mainstream media.
As do I... I rarely watch news on TV because it has become more entertainment and ratings oriented than anything else..
But I read voraciously..
Breitbart, Yahoo News, FNC, CNN, Drudge, AlJazeera, Several Israeli News Feeds, Reuters & API feeds and a host of others..
I honestly doubt that your news reads are as well rounded...
>So i would say that i may be more
>informed than a portion of the
>population that does not look elsewhere.
Which completely contradicts what you stated above..
Regardless of that, the simple fact is you don't know a TENTH of what is going on in Iraq.. Yet you feel qualified to go on record as vehemently condemning the war and those who prosecute the war..
To be fair, I am not much better off.. I probably know a bit more about things, having been in military and federal service most of my adult life. GMO probably knows a bit more than I, having actually served in Iraq...
My point is, should people be making unequivocal statements out of ignorance??
Or, should people on BOTH sides of the issue ALLOW for the possibility that, because they do not know the whole story, that they COULD be wrong??
Michale.....
I would also dispute your contention that there are news sources that "don't have such a stake in what they report."
You can't name one...
EVERYONE goes to Iraq with an agenda and/or to prove a point.
Even that Democratic Senator I spoke of went to Iraq to find evidence to support the Dems position on the war. The fact that he found evidence to the contrary and acted on it is a testament to his character and integrity..
But there is NO ONE reporting on Iraq who doesn't have a stake in what's being reported. If you believe otherwise, you are fooling yourself..
>Wish the outrage, dedication and
>organization were present now.
It's not and why do you think that is??
Is it POSSIBLE that it's because the majority of Americans don't want to lose in Iraq and doesn't want to put up with the AntiAmerica types who are pushing for complete and utter defeat??
Isn't that possible???
Michale.....
Michale wrote: "Using your reasoning, authorities should "pull out" of Miami, Harlem and the seedy sides of Chicago as well." That makes no sense and it damn sure any warped reasoning I’d advance. You distorted the remarks and changed the argument and moved the goal posts. A CongressCritter wandering down the streets of any of the seediest area of any major urban area would not be so unusual that it would cause me to 'sit up and take notice....especially if they were in shorts & a tee shirt.
"If your criteria for withdrawing from an area is SOLELY based on how safe or dangerous it is..." What an illogical conclusion based on absolute pure speculation. I’d never use such flawed criteria. Changing the argument and moving the goal posts My criteria for withdrawing from Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with the how safe or dangerous it is
“Yet you feel qualified to go on record as vehemently condemning the war and those who prosecute the war...†While the comment was directed at, anyone of any intelligence and common sense would know that the lies, distortions, and bullshit that lead to the illegal and immoral invasion means the war must be condemned. Simply by the lack of results, the massive corruption, the tactical and strategic mistakes, the misrepresentations to the American public, and the absolute failure to meet their goals in any timely manner, demonstrate the administrations sheer incompetence.
“My point is, should people be making unequivocal statements out of ignorance??†NO! And I wish you’d stop it.
“But there is NO ONE reporting on Iraq who doesn't have a stake in what's being reported….†While the major corporations had a rating boon in the run up to the war, the all-war, all the time†reporting during the initial stages of the invasion and the dramatic jingoistic troops on the ground and the feel good ‘let’s build a school-house,’ I have no doubt the reporters as a group are doing their damnest to present the situations as they see them. The reporters, photographers, and other new personnel have a stake in what’s being reported…..their lives, their credibility, and their reputation.
While the media corporations’ stake includes currying favor with the administration, appearing ‘patriotic,’ and protecting their viewers sensibilities, their primary mission is to attract eyeballs so they can sell soap. Blown up American bob=dies, maimed and mutilated Iraqi children, and flagged draped caskets interfere with that principle mission.
“AntiAmerica types†Gotta resort to insulting patriots who desire the best for their country. this patriot wants order to go out to get the troops out an a safe and expidited manner. None of this 2- 10 year carp.
@Roy
>this patriot wants order to go out
>to get the troops out an a safe and
>expidited manner.
Tell me... What information do you have that qualifies you to give such an order???
Michale....
PlacitasRoy wrote:
This patriot wants order to go out...
Michale wrote:
What information do you have that qualifies you to give such an order?
~~~~~
You mean there's a higher authority who decides what PlacitasRoy wants?
"What information do you have that qualifies you to give such an order?" Unfortunately i don't have the authority to give the order. In that the war & occupation was and is illegal there is a moral imperative to call for the pull out. Any rational, logical, and well-informed thinking person who has watched the fisco, been mislead, and seen the incompetence for 4 1/2 years can make the logical determination that a pullout is well advised.
No one has to be a jingoistic warmonger to be a patriot.
Michale
"To say that, if one supports a war then he or she MUST be comfortable with all the terrible, perverted and horrible costs is the epitome of ignorance"
I actually think it is the "epitome of ignorance" supporting or entering a war without knowing the costs. This a point at which I agree with you; people in the military (especially in combat) have a unique perspective on policy matters. I personally feel those who have seen war first hand are less likely to enter into it lightly. Frankly, I feel that part of the reason we are in the mess we are in, is that our current group of leaders do not have this experience. This is also why I feel it important for the US public (non-military) to be exposed to the realities of war to understand this point.
Just as a brief counterpoint. You seem to focus on one word out of my previous post "comfortable". I of course was not advocating being "personally" comfortable with the carnage, but being able to understand the costs and make a judgement that our involvement in a particular conflict is "worth it". You can substitute "comfortable" with any other choice of words, acceptable losses, collateral damage etc..
From a military and political perspective we (usually) routinely factor in collateral costs to our actions. When my FOB (forward operating base) was mortared daily, we had anti-mortar teams who could triangulate and fire back however we did not. Because the fire was coming from civilian areas we deemed the collateral
costs too high ("winning the hearts and minds").
I am "comfortable" with the costs of WW2 as well as other wars. War is sometimes necessary, and as long as we are human beings we will have them. And there are good (necessary) ones and bad ones... The current one we are in is though is frankly a mess.
I do not support a complete withdrawl from Iraq, like some people propose. However, I have heard little to the contrary that the overall political situation has improved which is disheartening. The problem lies in the fact that many of the politicians there reside in the Green Zone, protected by 15 foot concrete T-walls and our security forces. Corruption is rampant. When I was there Muktada al Sadr was in control of the ministry of Health and he used some of the 1 billion dollars we provided to buy weaponry for the Mehdi army. Politicians fight amongst themselves to preserve their little pieces of power. There were multiple black market oil scandals (with US members military implicated) etc...
People advocate a surge to improve security to facilitate political resolution. I advocate "tearing down the T-wall", unless these politicians have some sense of urgency to create progress there will be little done. After all they have the most comfortable lives in Iraq (money, security, power, etc..).
In terms of the surge, if you put more cops on the beat you will get a decrease in crime. But thats not a long term solution.
I keep hoping a leader of Karzai's caliber will rise to the occasion, but for now it seems are stuck baby sitting an often corrupt short-timer government who has absolutely no motivation to change as long as we are there.
Is this a war that I feel "comfortable" with. On every level the answer is no. I tend to agree with the opinions of those captains...
"In terms of the surge, if you put more cops on the beat you will get a [TEMPORARY] decrease in crime. " Because the bad guys move to other neighborhoods or go to the mattresses until the heat blows over.
And General Betrayus has announced: “Redeployments of U.S. brigades — even of the surge forces — are dependent on the security situation on the ground in Iraq. If General Petraeus early next year sees the security situation deteriorating, he will have the courage to go back to the president and say he needs to keep forces that he had planned to send home,†said Col. John R. Martin, senior adviser to Petraeus.
Betrayus's congressional testimony was just another "everything is going great" piece of bullshit thrown to the sycophants and purposefully ignorant. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/22/petraeus-security-withdraw/