|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Two Of Soldiers Who Penned Times Op-Ed Criticizing War Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Two Of Soldiers Who Penned Times Op-Ed Criticizing War Die in a Truck Crash in Iraq
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| artechba |
Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday. They were not killed in combat, nor on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck in which they were riding overturned.
The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among the authors of “The War as We Saw It,” in which they expressed doubts about reports of progress.
“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,” the soldiers wrote.
Sergeant Gray’s mother, Karen Gray, said by telephone on Wednesday from Ismay, Mont., where Yance grew up, “My son was a soldier in his heart from the age of 5,” and she added, “He loved what he was doing.”
The sergeant’s father, Richard, said of his son, “But he wasn’t any mindless robot.”
Sergeant Gray leaves a wife, Jessica, and a daughter, Ava, born in April. He is also survived by a brother and a sister.
Sergeant Mora’s mother, Olga Capetillo of Texas City, Tex., told The Daily News in Galveston that her son had grown increasingly gloomy about Iraq. “I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home,” she said.
A native of Ecuador, Sergeant Mora had recently become an American citizen. “He was proud of this country, and he wanted to go over and help,” his stepfather, Robert Capetillo, told The Houston Chronicle. Sergeant Mora leaves a wife, Christa, and a daughter, Jordan, who is 5. Survivors also include a brother and a sister.
While the seven soldiers were composing their article, one of them, Staff Sgt. Jeremy A. Murphy, was shot in the head. He was flown to a military hospital in the United States and is expected to survive. The other authors were Buddhika Jayamaha, an Army specialist, and Sgts. Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck and Edward Sandmeier.
“We need not talk about our morale,” they wrote in closing. “As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/13/w...?ref=middleeast |
|
|
| JohnNapolitano |
Here's the piece they co-authored:
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
The New York Times
Sunday 19 August 2007
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.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
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.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made - de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government - places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict - as we do now - will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are - an army of occupation - and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is [was] a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is [was] a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| I saw that. That sucks balls. Those guys die in a truck crash in Iraq while that duped cuntflap VacateTheTurd is here guzzling gallons of Bushcum without changing his life one bit for the war he claims to "support". :bang: |
|
|
| Bist Meshugeh |
| Interesting they should die together, I bet the investigation is short and then filed away forever. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
I would trade you and all of your mults for either one of them in less than a second.
Please kill yourself Holy Elvis. |
|
|
| Mr. PC |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I would trade you and all of your mults for either one of them in less than a second.
Please kill yourself Holy Elvis. |
Obsession is a bitch :lol: |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
That comment applies to you also. I refuse to repeat myself to each of your mults in every thread.
pass it along to kmkomr and xenoman..... |
|
|
| Tomofnnh |
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. PC
Obsession is a bitch :lol: |
Pretty much explains your "Clinton did it too" thread huh ;) |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
 |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
I saw that. That sucks balls. Those guys die in a truck crash in Iraq while that duped cuntflap VacateTheTurd is here guzzling gallons of Bushcum without changing his life one bit for the war he claims to "support". :bang: |
It is terrible whenever anybody serving is injured or killed. However these guys could have just as easily died in a "truck crash" after rotating back to the states.
And you are not capable of saying that I have "not changed my life one bit" in supporting a strong national security for the US. No, I am not serving in the armed forces....but then again that is the default argument that you have - "If you support fighting Al Qaeda, then enlist. Otherwise, shut up." |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
It is terrible whenever anybody serving is injured or killed. However these guys could have just as easily died in a "truck crash" after rotating back to the states.
And you are not capable of saying that I have "not changed my life one bit" in supporting a strong national security for the US. No, I am not serving in the armed forces....but then again that is the default argument that you have - "If you support fighting Al Qaeda, then enlist. Otherwise, shut up." |
Dipshit, "al qaeda" represents 2% of the fighters in Iraq. We are fighting IRAQIS, you dumb motherfucker. IRAQIS who posed no threat to this country before we invaded.
The only thing IRAQ has done for our security is DAMAGED our ability to respond to a real threat.
Please tell us how you have changed your life during wartime, Vacunt..... can't wait to read this :p |
|
|
| Halcyon |
| Why does :god: hate the troops? |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| I wonder how long it will be before we find out that George W Bush was driving the truck ? Silly,, you are right we all know that Dumbya has other people do his dirty work for him. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by Mr. PC
Obsession is a bitch :lol: |
So is logging on and off under various mults.
But you and your ilk think it's actually funny or cool.
You are laughed at repeatedly, daily. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
It is terrible whenever anybody serving is injured or killed. However these guys could have just as easily died in a "truck crash" after rotating back to the states.
And you are not capable of saying that I have "not changed my life one bit" in supporting a strong national security for the US. No, I am not serving in the armed forces....but then again that is the default argument that you have - "If you support fighting Al Qaeda, then enlist. Otherwise, shut up." |
what are you doing then, coward?
Strong national security. BWAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! And you are dumb enough to believe your bullshit propaganda. |
|
|
| Porcupine |
| McCain said the surge is working, so the surge must be working. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
| I know so many men through the years that lived through unbelievable fights, only to end up dead in some dumb-ass accident on the road or in training. |
|
|
| bcmiller |
These men were right, the surge is bullshit. Raising troops to answer the call to withdrawal and then lowering us back to the original troop levels that lost the congress for the republicans in 2006 is not progress.
We should honor these men by bringing the troops home. We should continue to honor all of our dead patriots by respecting liberty and shunning the idea of preventative war. Dicking around with surges, and bribes and troop levels and redeployments etc etc... All bullshit. Just get the troops home and protect our borders. Allow people to break their dependence on the government for welfare and protection. We do not need a law to tell us that drugs are bad, that seat belts are good or that we should save for retirement.
We should not pretend that we committed a good deed by freeing Iraq from a guy who "gassed his own people". We gave him the gas.
We armed Saddam then fought him, we armed Bin Laden, then fought him.
Who are we arming now? Saudis, Pakistanis, Sunnis in Anbar. Can you guess what will happen next? |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Ashame they died, but as they said, we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Ashame they died, but as they said, we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through. |
Don't you mean THEY? |
|
|
| bcmiller |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Ashame they died, but as they said, we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through |
I know you meant to say "It is a shame", but it's a funny irony that you actually said "Ashame". Looking at the definition for "ashamed" I wonder what definition would best fit a flip statement about the deaths of proud patriotic men who gave their lives in support of a policy they did not support. The fact that they disagreed but still served is a testament to their honor.
Quote: a·shamed (-shmd)
adj.
1. Feeling shame or guilt: Are you ashamed for having lied?
2. Feeling inferior, inadequate, or embarrassed: ashamed of my torn coat.
3. Reluctant through fear of humiliation or shame: ashamed to ask for help. |
My point has little to do with morale.
Quote: mo·rale (m-rl)
n.
The state of the spirits of a person or group as exhibited by confidence, cheerfulness, discipline, and willingness to perform assigned tasks. |
Of course our professional military will do their jobs regardless of their personal feelings. If I was still in the Marines I would be there doing the same, and I have made no secret of my opposition to this undeclared preemptive war.
The responsibility to speak out and end this war rests with us civilians who get to vote for the representatives of our servant government. To look for the military to revolt or become unprofessional before you decide a war is wrong, or to use their continued service as an endorsement of the policy is wrongheaded at best and dishonest at worst. |
|
|
| zimmie |
it was their words assholes..."we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Try honoring our soldiers for a change |
|
|
| bcmiller |
They did not say "Ashame they died". You either have no reading comprehension or you are deliberately ignoring what I wrote.
I do honor our Armed Forces, I was one of them in the US Marines. You say "try honoring our soldiers for a change". By that you mean to imply that I normally do NOT honor them.
Do you not even feel a little obliged to back up your attack on my patriotism with any evidence? or, are you implying the age old canard that since I do not blindly support President Bush, but instead support the constitution that I swore to uphold against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I am un-American?
It was YOUR words that disgusted me. You blow off their lives and then accuse me of dishonoring their deaths. It was not "ashame" they died it was a tragedy and their morale was never in question, nor was their patriotism, even though they questioned policy.
The coward chicken hawks who sit here at home and think they are John Wayne for talking tough on Iraq and "staying the course" or as our Decider said, "Bring it On", make me sick. They are willing to continue an undeclared war turned quagmire to the very last drop of someone else's blood.
Everyone with a conscience should look upon it as their patriotic duty, here at home, to call for an end to this needless war.
Also, if you make an assertion, back it up. Gratuitous, ad hominum attacks are worthless. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
it was their words assholes..."we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."
Try honoring our soldiers for a change |
Trying to say we are slamming the soldiers, dimmie? Not qite. Just YOU, someone who never served.
Pretty funny how you still cling to that "dems don't honor soldiers" LIE. Glad bush supports the troops by cutting funds to the vets and benies to the active duty soldiers and all. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
They did not say "Ashame they died". You either have no reading comprehension or you are deliberately ignoring what I wrote.
I do honor our Armed Forces, I was one of them in the US Marines. You say "try honoring our soldiers for a change". By that you mean to imply that I normally do NOT honor them.
Do you not even feel a little obliged to back up your attack on my patriotism with any evidence? or, are you implying the age old canard that since I do not blindly support President Bush, but instead support the constitution that I swore to uphold against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I am un-American?
It was YOUR words that disgusted me. You blow off their lives and then accuse me of dishonoring their deaths. It was not "ashame" they died it was a tragedy and their morale was never in question, nor was their patriotism, even though they questioned policy.
The coward chicken hawks who sit here at home and think they are John Wayne for talking tough on Iraq and "staying the course" or as our Decider said, "Bring it On", make me sick. They are willing to continue an undeclared war turned quagmire to the very last drop of someone else's blood.
Everyone with a conscience should look upon it as their patriotic duty, here at home, to call for an end to this needless war.
Also, if you make an assertion, back it up. Gratuitous, ad hominum attacks are worthless. |
:clap:
Great post. Sadly, the bush morons can't see past their blind loyalty to a lying, cowardly pussy.
You'll never get an apology from the shitbags. They'll defend their LACK of patriotism and support of the troops by claiming those who don't follow bush lock step, are anti-american, blah, blah, blah |
|
|
| zimmie |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
They did not say "Ashame they died". You either have no reading comprehension or you are deliberately ignoring what I wrote.
I do honor our Armed Forces, I was one of them in the US Marines. You say "try honoring our soldiers for a change". By that you mean to imply that I normally do NOT honor them.
Do you not even feel a little obliged to back up your attack on my patriotism with any evidence? or, are you implying the age old canard that since I do not blindly support President Bush, but instead support the constitution that I swore to uphold against all enemies foreign and domestic, that I am un-American?
It was YOUR words that disgusted me. You blow off their lives and then accuse me of dishonoring their deaths. It was not "ashame" they died it was a tragedy and their morale was never in question, nor was their patriotism, even though they questioned policy.
The coward chicken hawks who sit here at home and think they are John Wayne for talking tough on Iraq and "staying the course" or as our Decider said, "Bring it On", make me sick. They are willing to continue an undeclared war turned quagmire to the very last drop of someone else's blood.
Everyone with a conscience should look upon it as their patriotic duty, here at home, to call for an end to this needless war.
Also, if you make an assertion, back it up. Gratuitous, ad hominum attacks are worthless. |
A few things things bc...........
.thank you for your service.....
read the last sentence of the article they wrote
learn what quotation marks represent in a post
http://www.beautifulhorizons.net/we...mar-mora-s.html
September 12, 2007
Sgt. Omar Mora & Sgt. Yance T. Gray
Two of the seven U.S. soldiers who wrote the 8/19/07 New York Times Op-Ed questioning the Iraq war - RIP.
"Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the 'surge.'
Mora, 28, hailed from Texas City, Texas, and was a native of Ecuador, who had just become a U.S. citizen. He was due to leave Iraq in November and leaves behind a wife and daughter. Gray, 26, had lived in Ismay, Montana, and is also survived by a wife and infant daughter...
The Daily News in Galveston interviewed Mora's mother, who confirmed his death and that he was one of the co-authors of the Times piece. The article today relates: 'Olga Capetillo said that by the time Mora submitted the editorial, he had grown increasingly depressed. 'I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home,' she said. 'But yesterday is the darkest day for me.'
One of the other five authors of the Times piece, Staff Sergeant Jeremy Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head while the article was being written. He was expected to survive after being flown to a military hospital in the United States."
"The War as We Saw It" is reprinted in full below.
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
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.
Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.
However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.
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.
Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.
Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.
The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.
Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made -- de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government -- places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict -- as we do now -- will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.
At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. ''Lucky'' Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.
In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ''We need security, not free food.''
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.
Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.
We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through . |
|
|
| bcmiller |
You read that entire article and the only thing that resonates is the last sentence? Even that sentence does not reinforce anything except the patriotism and loyalty of our military.
You did not use quotation marks but I did understand that they were implied. I did not attribute their remarks to you or vice versa, as I pointed out in my last post.
They describe a quagmire that can only be rectified by getting our military out of the country. I agree with them. Saying this is not un-American.
You seem to embrace the neocon political philosophy, I did at one time as well. I voted for Bush in 2004. Take the time to look at these issues without the rose colored glasses. Read or listen to some of Ron Paul's speeches. http://www.ronpaulaudio.com and http://www.ronpaullibrary.org and realize that the neocons are not the true conservatives.
Even in this post you do not make an argument at all. I did quote you correctly and I have read this article. If your intent was an apology for attacking my patriotism, you did not say so, but I accept.
I do not think that my modest service to our country makes my opinion on this issue any more valid than yours. However, I only point it out to let you know that I did serve my country, as I believe I still am doing. I also can appreciate what it is like to wear the uniform, luckily never during wartime. I know these servicemen and women are regular people like you and me and they deserve better than what they are getting. They are not numbers to be flippantly counted like a score in a game, or compared to the losses suffered in worthwhile battles in our history. |
|
|
| zimmie |
Ashame they died, but as they said , we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
Oh well, your a patriot with poor comprehension skills....... |
|
|
| sternowitz |
| Conspiracy Alert, the airman that was responsible for the missing nukes (or misdirected nukes) also died in a vehicle accident over the weekend. I don't know that much info about this, but there are a few posts on Digg and REddit that it is possible one nuclear weapon has been lost. |
|
|
| bcmiller |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Ashame they died, but as they said , we need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.
Oh well, your a patriot with poor comprehension skills....... |
Wow you really have lost me...
I know you were quoting them. My point was and IS that you are using their words to write off their deaths. Just because they are seeing a mission through does not mean that the agreed with the mission. Why not pay attention to the other things they said? "In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal."
We invaded this country and we need to leave. Read up on this and abandon the neocon preemptive war foreign policy. Stop focusing on what ever silver lining you think you can pull from the worst news, like a group of men who spoke out against a war in which they gave their lives. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Leave and do what?........Somehow I never hear a sensible strategy for Iraq and the region from those who wish to leave immediately. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by zimmie
Leave and do what?........Somehow I never hear a sensible strategy for Iraq and the region from those who wish to leave immediately. |
Care to tell us the "sensible" strategy for Iraq and the region from those who have NO PLAN to leave? |
|
|
|
|
|
