From a US Ranger in Irag

[cheygriz]

So it's better we surrender? And next year, the same soldiers fight them in the streets of Baltimore instead of Baghdad??

Pull your heads out of your armpits, pholks!:banghead:

 

[ozwyn]

heh, if I thought fighting them in baltimore would give Maryland gun owners some hope for real rights I'd say do it in a heartbeat

On a more serious note - the afganistan mission made sense. Not so sure I buy into Iraq. Frankly, the more I think about Iraq the more conflicted I get... and, historically unless you're the turks or the mongols (and willing to be that messy), I am not sure any kind of occupation will really be that successful.

We never had a real surrender on any kind of total Level in Iraq, mostly because I don't think we broke enough of the country and infrastructure for long enough before the military folded. Iraq surrendered, but the people were not "sick of the war" like they were in Japan on germany at the end of WWII.

Simply put, we failed to do ENOUGH damage to break the will of the non-complete fanatic. What we did do is make it easy for fence sitters to join the insurgency.

There is no humane way to bring peace and stablity in Iraq at this time without a lot more US casualities for a people who will just resent them for it. Neither can we allow ourselves to be the barbarians either by doing what is required to make the necessary breakthrough on countering the insurgency.

in short, we're screwed until we discover some real direction, which is something neither side domestically seems to be providing much of.

that's my .02, and i doubt its worth that much

 

[foob]

^^^ That's a pretty good post actually. Worth more than .02.

 

[Titan6]

ozwyn - that is surprisingly insightful for a BB. Normally these things start to devolve into people calling each other surrender monkeys, terrorists and fascists. That is why I do not normally comment on the war.

But you have to have a plan and the solution is either "kill them all" or find a political one. If we can have what passes for peace in the balkans after 11 years of contentitous civil war, ethnic, racial and religous infighting, genocide you name it... we can have it in Iraq also. But four years later no one has the plan....

 

[DragonFire]

After listening to my son who did a tour in Iraq, and to a bunch of soldiers who are still there or have been there, it seems strange that all there bright young people can not see how defeated we've been in Iraq.

Though none of them had been thrilled to have been sent there, they all thought their time there had been useful. Quite a few have been willing to go back again (and again).

If the only thing being accomplished is the deaths of their friends and fellow soldiers, you'd think they'd be more anti-war, anti-Bush, and anti-Iraq then they are.

Some of them were even foolish even to think the roads we've built, the schools, hospitals and other vital-services we've help set back up actually mean something. That the grateful looks of a majority of the people that think the Americans have made a postive change to their lives would have any value.

I'm sure the American media is reporting everything of any significance happening in Iraq, so since I haven't read of one postive happening, I'm sure it can't be happening. But I don't see how all how a soldier smart enough to operate all the modern sophisicated military equipment can't see that!

Why would a man who had the drive, dedication, intelligence and talent to become and survive as a Ranger believe that he could actually "finish" the job when "everybody" at home can see it's hopeless? Why does he think I'd even listen to the opinion of someone whose life may actually depend on what happens vs. a reporter trying to make a by-line, or a politician trying to make headlines! The nerve of some people!

And how dare anyone admire or even respect our young people actually enlisting into the military. Thinking they could make any difference in this world. Who taught them stuff like that?

Why, we shouldn't even have a military unless we're actually attacked (which we all "know" would never happen, unless of course we really deserved it in the first place). Then we could have a series of debates on TV, and then a national vote on whether we should defend ourselves or not, and if we should, maybe another national vote on the best way to defend ourselves (without any lives being lost of course). Maybe we could do it like American Idol, where we all vote weekly on what the military should or shouldn't do!


If only Gore had been elected. I'm sure nothing like Iraq would have happened. I mean, whatever happened while Clinton was president? I mean besides the pre 9/11 attacks on the towers, or the embassy bombings, and the attack on the Cole, and all those other attackes. Besides all that, what ever happened?

 

[Titan6]

Well, as I head back to the sandbox sometime this year I guess I will get another look. Call me crazy I volunteered to go back...

 

[foob]

If only Gore had been elected. I'm sure nothing like Iraq would have happened. I mean, whatever happened while Clinton was president? I mean besides the pre 9/11 attacks on the towers, or the embassy bombings, and the attack on the Cole, and all those other attackes. Besides all that, what ever happened?

Could you explain what you mean here more clearly.

 

[DragonFire]

Could you explain what you mean here more clearly

Sarcasm aside, what I mean is that I would rather have this country seen as a bully and feared than thought of as weak and disrepected. If Clinton had responded in force to some of the earlier attacks, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Bush is blamed for "all" the deaths in Iraq, but no one talks about the deaths this country suffered under Clinton while appologizing to the rest of the world for being so evil that we deserved to be atacked. I think Gore (and probably any Democrat) would have continued the policy to bowed down to every third rate power and we would have continued to see American lives lost in terror attacks.

I feel about Bush's presidency somewhat as I did about Reagan's. While I don't agree with everything he's doing, and wish things could be different I definitely think he's doing better than his predecessor As a whole, this country will always be better off if we appear always ready to fight, rather than always ready to negotiate. I think Reagan's image as a "cowboy", served us well in the 80's. And unless we suddenly reverse course now, I think what we've done in Afganistan and Iraq will serve the same purpose.

Mess with the US and the next sound you hear will be a B52! Maybe a policy like that will see some American lives being lost, but I think in the big picture of the world, it will save American lives (and those of people in other countries) as well.

 

[cheygriz]

Dragonfire,

Thank you for your well thought out and insightful post. It's food to see that common sense hasn't totally vanished form this country.

 

[atek3]

I've never been to Iraq, but after speaking to a Navy SEAL friend of mine who has, I'm pretty doubtful on the war. He basically said the war started off well, but america let it devolve into a civil war. There's no way to end or salvage the situation, so America should get out before we lose more Americans. This guy isn't a pinko coward either, he's the toughest SOB I've met, and if he thinks the Iraq war is a bad idea...

atek3

 

[marksman13]

Coylh, the sad fact is that you and I will never see this war in the same light. Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you seen the things we are doing for that country? I suppose you think that we should have just sat this one out. I suppose you think that we should tend to American business and let the rest of the world deal with their business. We are not losing this war! We won the war when Baghdad toppled and Sadam hit the road. We are struggling through the peace. The fact is that nothing comes easy. The Iraqis are fighting hard for their country. How can we jump ship now and leave the Iraqis to fend for themselves. As Titan6 said, we finally forged peace for the Balkan region. We will win this peace too, if people like you will find a back bone, find some compassions, and find some will to see the job through. If we choose to sit on the side line through every global conflict we will soon find ourselves living like the rest of the world. We can help mold the world into the shape we believe it needs to be in or we can conform to it. We simply can not sit on our arses and watch the world destroy itself. We can not allow tyrants to rule. We can not allow the world to see us as weak. We have the greatest military the Earth has ever known. Men like me and Titan6 are still putting on our uniform every day, strapping on our armor, and loading our rifles so that someday our children will be able to enjoy a better life than we do. You can save the nonsense about jay walking. Jaywalking is a foolish misdemeaner that is easily avoided. Fighting this war is here whether you like it or not and it can not be avoided. We can either win it or lose it. The choice is ours and it is yours. You can run from it if you want, and hopefully men like me will be able to pull enough of your slack to move this thing in the right direction.

 

[Fulcrum of Evil]

> If Clinton had responded in force to some of the earlier attacks, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

I remember Clinton: he shot a cruise missile at one of binLaden's camps and the guys in the Senate were screaming about the end of the world. Then, when Bush showed up, he discontinued Clinton's al Queda plans (because it was Clinton's I suppose), but then reinstated them shortly after 9/11. Argue all you want about whether we should stay in the sandbox, but remember that Bush is the one that screwed this pooch.

 

[nemoaz]

he discontinued Clinton's al Queda plans (because it was Clinton's I suppose), but then reinstated them shortly after 9/11.

Clinton's plan was to do nothing, except on the one night he needed a continuance of his impeachment for perjury (and subsequent disbarment). Clinton did nothing for the other 9 terrorist attacks, even though he knew who the enemy was as Bin Ladin and Khalid Sheik Mohammed were listed by his Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC attack.

You have to be quite the revisionist historian to conclude that Clinton did anything in his eight years to stop terrorism. And he instituted many of the policies which directly lead to 911, such as denying the FBI and CIA access to each others files and intelligence.

Clinton's policy was Carter's policy. DO NOTHING!!!!

 

[rangerruck]

Lemme jus go ahead and say, what a bunch of other's are thinking right now.
A bunch of you people, whether you ever served or not, whether you have folks over there or not, whether you are conservs or libs or not, are a huge bunch of a@#es!!!! Here is a typical soldier on the ground saying, stop playing all your stupid word game arguements, and politics, and let us do our job, we can win, and we can make the Iraquis proud of their own country. But you just can't keep your opinions to yourself sometimes , can you? I suggest you go back , and listen to the video again, and get inspired, and proud.

 

[foob]

I should learn from past lessons. Any attempts at opening anybody's minds to any differing viewpoint is just shot down.

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

Its nice to see a soft heart for troops but those same troops turn into veterans. Multiple Deployments mean broken marriages and broken marriages mean split retirement checks. Half to the guy who get shot at and half to the wife. Veteran still makes child support payments. Wife gets paid for the entire life of the servicemember. The USFSPA law sucks and needs revamping.
Desert Storm One: I have seen many Servicemenbers (in Uniform) with horrible skin rashes. Some of their kids born deformed. I have known Desert Storm Veterans who have died from cancer.
This country as an institution knows how to conveniently forget and sweep under the carpet the veterans who sacrifice for life. Sure there's headlines concerning vets, ie (Walter reed) but there are many with severely underated disabilities after going through the VA from this war, especially the Army. My former commander witnessed quite a few mutulations after IEDs only to find out those kids got 25% disability, 35% disability.
You take this for what its worth. There is no glory.

 

[wooderson]

After listening to my son who did a tour in Iraq, and to a bunch of soldiers who are still there or have been there, it seems strange that all there bright young people can not see how defeated we've been in Iraq.

Though none of them had been thrilled to have been sent there, they all thought their time there had been useful. Quite a few have been willing to go back again (and again).

It's funny how personal anecdotes never quite match the available evidence, isn't it? You'd think that if so many soldiers found their time 'useful' and necessary and were willing to go again... widespread support for the war among soldiers in Iraq might show up in a poll. Any poll.

 

[LaEscopeta]

...we can make the Iraquis proud of their own country.

Why do you think Iraqis are not proud of their country?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Have you ever been to Iraq? Have you seen the things we are doing for that country?

When I hear this the real argument is "we're doing good, humanitarian things for these folks." There are some here who don't think that's a suitable task for infantry and armor. Humanitarian aid is fine. Providing it at the point of a gun, after using "secret evidence" to justify the invasion that later turned out to be 100% false, is another issue.

Nothing against what you're doing, but look at the big picture.

I suppose you think that we should have just sat this one out. I suppose you think that we should tend to American business and let the rest of the world deal with their business.

Yes. I don't believe we have a duty to use force of arms to bring democracy and freedom to the world. Certainly when we're not invited.

We are not losing this war!

So, like, peace is on the horizon? We've 'won' and can come home? Or just another "mission accomlished - we won the invasion" post?

Look, I see where this is going: "Saddam was a bad man and we're doing good things -- peace corps things -- for these poor, previously downtrodden people." My point is that it appears that the Iraqi people are worse off now than they were under Saddam, our clout internationally is seriously decreased, our ability to deal with a real security threat anywhere else in the world is degraded, and it seems we're worse off security-wise than before Iraq.

We can help mold the world into the shape we believe it needs to be in or we can conform to it. We simply can not sit on our arses and watch the world destroy itself. We can not allow tyrants to rule. We can not allow the world to see us as weak. We have the greatest military the Earth has ever known.

Dude, I want to live in freedom.

I don't want to be part of a frigging empire.

 

[DragonFire]

It's funny how personal anecdotes never quite match the available evidence

No what's funny is how what the media reports doesn't always match what I know from personal experience.

You'd think that if so many soldiers found their time 'useful' and necessary and were willing to go again... widespread support for the war among soldiers in Iraq might show up in a poll. Any poll.

Do you mean 'any poll' or any poll that the media would be willing to print.

 

[foob]

Do you mean 'any poll' or any poll that the media would be willing to print.

So somehow Fox News, fair and balanced, is purposely not mentioning any polls about the widespread support for the war among soldiers?

Or somehow the government, who desperately wants more support for the war, has not conducted such polls, or are hiding the results of such positive polls?

Just think for a moment what you are saying.

Of course there are positives going on in Iraq. There is a new government, elected by the people. There are infrastructure improvements, some oil is flowing. These are slow improvements. You can't expect the mass media to publish these results everyday. Does a school get built everyday? "Breaking news report: School construction now at 59% completion", next day "Breaking news report: School construction now at 59.5% completion". This isn't how news works. The reporter will get fired for covering it everyday.

Everyday there are bombs blowing up and civilians dying. That gets reported because it's happening and because people dying is news. Just like missing white females are news.

The media consist of businesses. They are out to make money. The make money by reporting news that generate high ratings. They aren't some evil empire hell bent on the destruction of freedom and all that is good.

 

[DragonFire]

My point is that it appears that the Iraqi people are worse off now than they were under Saddam

While I think apears is a key point, I'd like to ask why.

For the majority of the Iraqi people, how was life better before?

More hospitals have been opened.
More school have been opened, and now females are allowed to attend as well.
Clean water has been made available to more people.
Vital services like sewer and electrical power are available to more people.


And were not providing aid "at the point of a gun", we're using the "point of a gun" to ensure that the aid gets to the people who need it and not to a corrupt war lord.

I want to live in freedom

And you think ignoring the rest of the world is going to let you do that?

 

[foob]

More school have been opened, and now females are allowed to attend as well.

Just pointing out:

Saddam was a secular dictator. Iraq was the least sex discriminative arab country.
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/iraq-women.htm

Before the invasion of Kuwait, they were the most advanced arab country, in terms of western values such as non-discrimination against women. They were kind of like China now - authoritarian nation with capitalist economy.

Now they have one of the lowest literacy rate for females.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_lit_fem-education-literacy-female

 

[Derek Zeanah]

While I think apears is a key point, I'd like to ask why. For the majority of the Iraqi people, how was life better before?

Because six hundred thousand more of them were alive before the invasion? Because they had regular power and running water?

Clean water has been made available to more people.
Vital services like sewer and electrical power are available to more people.

Look at your timeline. IIRC, we're still not up to pre-invasion levels.

And were not providing aid "at the point of a gun", we're using the "point of a gun" to ensure that the aid gets to the people who need it and not to a corrupt war lord.

Riiiiiiight. Because that's worked so well every other time we've tried it.

And you think ignoring the rest of the world is going to let you [live in freedom]?

I think it's got a better chance the constant meddling we've done over the past 60 years, yes. I also think that's the duty of the government. Taxing me and running off on yet another intervention where it's not clear that we've even welcome seems a bit pointless, if not immoral. You can talk about the good you're doing and how well you're accepted. Let's see how long that holds after we pull out, whether that's next year or next decade.

Remember, more than half a million dead Iraqis since our invasion. Why isn't that in your calculus? Yeah, we're not killing them, but removing Saddam and kicking the Baathists/Sunnis out of power seems to have been the trigger, and that wouldn't have happened if we hadn't gotten involved.

 

[bogie]

Well, when one looks at other third-world pestholes, and the concept of humanitarian aid, one realizes that one needs lots of folks on the ground with lots and lots of guns.

Otherwise, the leadership gets richer, the folks the leaders don't like still get dead, and we end up having to go in eventually.

IMHO, there would have been a civil war in Iraq eventually. Or there would have been even more killing than what happened with the kurdish minority.