The Truth About Iraq

[jillian]

The truth about Bush's "surge".... from people who were really there and not from people who got the administration "tour"...

And before y'all whine that it's from the times, it's an op-ed by some very brave soldiers.

The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
Published: August 19, 2007
Baghdad

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image

Paul Hoppe
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

MORE

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

 

[dilloduck]

The truth about Bush's "surge".... from people who were really there and not from people who got the administration "tour"...

And before y'all whine that it's from the times, it's an op-ed by some very brave soldiers.



MORE

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/opinion/19jayamaha.html

7 people ? oh man--gotta be true, then !!

 

[maineman]

7 people ? oh man--gotta be true, then !!

of couse not! American fighting men are all liars, unless they parrot the republican party line! Everyone knows that!

 

[jillian]

of couse not! American fighting men are all liars, unless they parrot the republican party line! Everyone knows that!

I'd say that what they described is pretty much in line with what common sense would dictate and what our own state department SAID it would be like there were we to destabilize the country by ousting Saddam.

 

[manu1959]

of couse not! American fighting men are all liars, unless they parrot the republican party line! Everyone knows that!

exactly, and those that parrot the dem party line are all honest men.....everyone knows that...

 

[jillian]

exactly, and those that parrot the dem party line are all honest men.....everyone knows that...

Ahem... excuse me... this isn't anything bout anyone "parrot[ing] the dem party line". These guys fought. One of them was actually shot in battle after and is here recovering from head wounds. Whether one agrees with them or not, they deserve the respect of being heard. They have no agenda. And what they wrote has been supported by other miitary men, current and former, who have said they are absolutely correct about what we're facing there.

 

[dilloduck]

Ahem... excuse me... this isn't anything bout anyone "parrot[ing] the dem party line". These guys fought. One of them was actually shot in battle after and is here recovering from head wounds. Whether one agrees with them or not, they deserve the respect of being heard. They have no agenda. And what they wrote has been supported by other miitary men, current and former, who have said they are absolutely correct about what we're facing there.

no agenda---how naive are you ???

 

[jillian]

More from the link...

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force

 

[manu1959]

Ahem... excuse me... this isn't anything bout anyone "parrot[ing] the dem party line". These guys fought. One of them was actually shot in battle after and is here recovering from head wounds. Whether one agrees with them or not, they deserve the respect of being heard. They have no agenda. And what they wrote has been supported by other miitary men, current and former, who have said they are absolutely correct about what we're facing there.

funny.....those that you agree with you prasie those that you disagree with you condemn....why can not both views of the same event be true...

 

[jillian]

funny.....those that you agree with you prasie those that you disagree with you condemn....why can not both views of the same event be true...

I don't believe anyone who comes with an administration seal of good housekeeping. Wouldn't even if their tongues were notarized.

I'm actually more interested, though, in discussing the reality that these men are discussing. What parts of what they said do you disbelieve?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

general patreus is the only man i give a rats about about, i.e. everyone elses opinions means jack squat.

7 people ? oh man--gotta be true, then !!

 

[dilloduck]

I don't believe anyone who comes with an administration seal of good housekeeping. Wouldn't even if their tongues were notarized.

I'm actually more interested, though, in discussing the reality that these men are discussing. What parts of what they said do you disbelieve?

If they didnt have an agenda, they wouldnt have told their story----if you didnt have an agenda, you wouldnt have posted it. I can go to Iraq and find any story you like and all of it would be true.

 

[jillian]

general patreus is the only man i give a rats about about, i.e. everyone elses opinions means jack squat.

I was looking forward to his report, too... until it became clear that it's being filtered by Bush's minions.

 

[manu1959]

I don't believe anyone who comes with an administration seal of good housekeeping. Wouldn't even if their tongues were notarized.

I'm actually more interested, though, in discussing the reality that these men are discussing. What parts of what they said do you disbelieve?

so those with the democrate seal are believable and those without are not....

i belive these men belive what the believe....i believe others, that i have met and seen interviewed believe different....i believe both are true

 

[manu1959]

I was looking forward to his report, too... until it became clear that it's being filtered by Bush's minions.

how are you with the cia report out about whos fault 911 was and why?.....that is probably all crap in your eyes as well as it doesn't say what you want.....

 

[jillian]

so those with the democrate seal are believable and those without are not....

i belive these men belive what the believe....i believe others, that i have met and seen interviewed believe different....i believe both are true

Nope... I think anyone who shills for Bush is incredible based on the fact that they've proven themselves to be incredible over the last six years.

That is separate from "republican". Bush neither represents all republicans or speaks for them (as evidenced by his approval ratings). There are republicans I respect... and democrats I don't. It isn't all or nothing with me. You?

 

[jillian]

how are you with the cia report out about whos fault 911 was and why?.....that is probably all crap in your eyes as well as it doesn't say what you want.....

You mean the report about how Tennet should have been punished (instead of being given a medal)?

 

[manu1959]

Nope... I think anyone who shills for Bush is incredible based on the fact that they've proven themselves to be incredible over the last six years.

That is separate from "republican". Bush neither represents all republicans or speaks for them (as evidenced by his approval ratings). There are republicans I respect... and democrats I don't. It isn't all or nothing with me. You?

so since the dem congress rating is at an all time low do i get to discount them and anything that someone agrees with them says....

i already said i respect all opinions ....

 

[jillian]

so since the dem congress rating is at an all time low do i get to discount them and anything that someone agrees with them says....

i already said i respect all opinions ....

I respect all opinions from people I trust, regardless of whether I agree with them. That doesn't make all opinions equal, though. As for the "dem congress", I'd say that's a broad brush and there are individuals who should be trusted and some who shouldn't.

That said, I'm more interested in addressing the substance of the op-ed.

I'm not certain how you reconcile the opposing "views" on what's going on there.

 

[maineman]

so since the dem congress rating is at an all time low do i get to discount them and anything that someone agrees with them says....

i already said i respect all opinions ....

and it's an interesting little constuct the right uses now... This concept of a "democratic congress".

Oddly enough, when republicans were in the majority in congress - when it was a "republican congress", and the democratic minority was stopping some issues in the senate in particular by using the threat of filibuster, no one on the right was complaining about the ineffectiveness of the "republican congress". Instead, they were bitching about the democrats IN congress.

I say you can't have it both ways..... public opinion of congress is low, and that is every bit as much the fault of republicans IN congress as it is the fault of democrats IN congress, if not moreso. As a matter of fact, when asked to compare their opinions of the republicans in congress versus the democrats in congress, the public has consistently given the democrats higher approval than republicans - higher, in fact than the ratings they give congress overall, which clearly shows that if anyone is dragging the public's opinion of congress down, it is the republicans.