GETTING OUT OF A DEATHTRAP
"Who the hell is shooting at us?" shouted Sergeant 1st Class Marc Biletski, whose platoon was jammed into a small room off an alley that was being swept by a sniper's bullets. "Who's shooting at us? Do we know who they are?"
Just before the platoon tossed smoke bombs and sprinted through the alley to a more secure position, Biletski had a moment to reflect on this spot, which U.S. Army has now fought to regain from a mysterious enemy at least three times in the past two years. "This place is a failure," he said. "Every time we come here, we have to come back."
--"Baghdad Battle Cry: Who's Shooting at Us?" Damien Cave, International Herald Tribune, January 25, 2007
Together, alone, trapped in a dark room with the blood of their comrade on the floor, they tried to piece together what had happened. Maybe the sniper saw Sergeant Leija's silhouette in the window and fired. Or maybe the shot was accidental, they said, fired from below by Iraqi Army soldiers who had been moving between the buildings.
The Iraqis were not supposed to be there yet…after arriving late at the first building, the Iraqis jumped ahead, leaving the Americans and pushing north without searching dozens of apartments in the area…
But Sergeant Leija's squad had no communications links with their Iraqi counterparts, and because it was an Iraqi operation--as senior officers repeatedly emphasized--the Americans could not order the Iraqis to get back in line. There was nothing they could do.
--"'Man Down': When One Bullet Alters Everything, Damien Cave, New York Times, January 29, 2007
New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor's office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate American soldiers.
The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad's bloodiest neighborhoods, where soldiers will live and work with Iraqi forces. Military officials have said that one of their greatest concerns is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.
--"U.S. Toll in Iraq is 27 for Deadly Weekend," Damien Cave, New York Times, January 22, 2007
Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.
They said American ground troops--not just air support as reported Sunday--were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which…had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.
--"Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions," Marc Santora, New York Times, January 30, 2007
Most of you have probably never heard of an Army captain, a West Pointer, by the name of Brian Freeman, but Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) and John Kerry (D-Mass), certainly have.
On a fact-finding trip to Iraq just before Christmas, as they were waiting on a Green Zone landing zone for the helicopter that would fly them out of Baghdad, the young officer approached them, "almost out of the shadows."
Here is what followed:
Even though he felt nervous, he told his wife later, he delivered his message with urgency. Soldiers were being deployed to do missions that they were utterly untrained to do; Freeman, for example, an armor officer, had been sent to help foster democracy and rebuild an Iraqi civil society. State Department personnel who could do those jobs were restricted in their travel off military bases by regional security officers who said it was unsafe for them to venture out…
Once in Iraq, Freeman was dismayed to find that his training, "had no relation to what they were actually doing," Charlotte Freeman said. "He was appalled," enduring danger but seeing no clear mission, she said. Moreover, he believed that the Iraqis "didn't want us there."
…Freeman, 31, took a short holiday leave to see his 14-month old daughter and 2-year old son, returned to his base in Karbala, Iraq, and less than two weeks ago died in a hail of bullets and grenades. Insurgents, dressed in U.S. military uniforms, speaking English and driving black American SUVs, got through a checkpoint and attacked, kidnapped four soldiers and later shot them. Freeman died in the assault, the fifth casualty of the brazen attack.
--"Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve: Kerry, Dodd Demand Stronger Challenge to Bush," Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 30, 2007
According to NBC Nightly News tonight, further investigation has revealed that the attack on the soldiers at Karbala was a deliberate betrayal by the Iraqis who were working with the Americans. The news broadcast described how the attackers not only gained entry through numerous checkpoints, but that they were waved through by Iraqi security guards who pointed out where the Americans were. Presumably, it was also the Iraqis who conveniently provided the American uniforms. The claim is being made that the Iranians funded and trained the sophisticated attack, but after all the "proof" about weapons of mass destruction that duped us into war with Iraq in the first place, I am dubious that the Iranians are behind it. Maybe they are; but whether they are or aren't, Bush and his neocon buddies are obviously itching for something to provoke a fight with Iran, and I expect more such "evidence" will come to light in the future.
Whether the Iranians funded the operation or not is beside the point as far as I am concerned. Putting the spotlight on the Iranians only makes us forget that it was the IRAQIS WHO BETRAYED THE AMERICAN SOLDIERS.
In the Haifa street battle described in the opening quotes, we have a situation where American soldiers are ordered to enter into a joint operation with the Iraqi Army. Instead, not only are they forced to do most of the fighting, but their Iraqi counterparts not only skip over searching entire sections of buildings--leaving them all desperately vulnerable--but also fire wildly up into the buildings without waiting to see where the Americans are--hence the tragic, useless, and unneccesary death of Sergeant Leija.
Then there are the risks involved in leaving small groups of U.S. advisers in the hands of underequipped Iraqi Army units of dubious skill and loyalty. Over in Iraq, Lt. Col. Rodrick Arrington, an adviser attached to the First Marine Expeditionary Forces in Ramadi, notes that Iraqi troops he works with answer their cellphones while on patrol. Because of absenteeism and lack of pay, the Iraqi units are usually 50 percent under strength, and Iraqi officers often prove unwilling to conduct risky raids. Some units are infiltrated by militias or insurgents…"We're setting ourselves up for a potential national disaster in which some Iraqi divisions could flip and take five thousand (U.S. troops embedded with Iraqi forces as advisors) hostage…or multiple advisory teams go missing in action," says retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey.
--"The Perils of Partnership," Michael Hirsh, Kevin Peraino, and Sarah Childress, Newsweek, December 18, 2006
The prospect of a more intense battle in the Iraqi capital could put U.S. military commanders in exactly the sort of tough urban fight that war planners strove to avoid during the sprint 2003 invasion of the country…military officials said sustaining it for more than a few months would place a major strain on U.S. forces that already are feeling burdened by an unexpectedly long and difficult war…
…Military experts…wondered, as one said, how a "thin green line" of 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad could affect the security situation in a city where many of the 5 million residents are hostile to U.S. presence. "Too little, too late--way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces.
--"Intensified Combat on Streets Likely," Thomas E. Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 11, 2007
I suppose it could be argued that I am biased, since I want this war to end--never wanted it in the first place, particularly when my own son could be sent back for a third deployment at any time in the next few years, even after he musters out of the Marine Corps. And you could even say that Senators Dodd and Kerry, who were so deeply distraught at the death of Capt. Freeman just weeks after he asked for their help were also biased because they have both opposed this war. You could even say that Gen. McCaffrey has always made his views known on this disastrous war--maybe he's biased, too.
So, fine. I'll let the soldiers who are doing the actual FIGHTING in Iraq speak for themselves. What do THEY think about the president's big plan to send in more troops into the deathtrap of Iraq?
Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker…Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi Army can't stand up on their own."…
…Apache Company's mission: to search a few houses for weapons caches based on intelligence reports. Caldwell and his soldiers worried about the intelligence they had been given. It had come from an Iraqi Army--or "IA" in U.S. soldier lingo--officer a week ago. They had wondered whether they were being set up for an ambush.
"It's a joke," said Pfc. Drew Merrill, 22, of Jefferson City, Mo, shaking his head and flashing a smile as the Stryker rolled through Baghdad.
--"U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy," Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, January 12, 2007
The Iraqis will accept mediocrity," said Staff Sgt. Luke Alphonso, a U.S. Army medic from Morgan City, La., who's been assigned to train members of Iraq's 5th Army Division for the past six months. "They will let us do everything for them."
--"Soldiers Doubt an Influx of American Troops Will Benefit the Iraqi Army," Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, January 10, 2007
The American military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory. For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to a 2006 Military Times Poll.
--"More Troops Unhappy with Bush's Course in Iraq, Poll Finds," Robert Hodlerne, Military Times, December 29, 2006
"It is time for U.S. troops to come home," said Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden…"Not one of my brothers should die for a lie. This is my generation's call to conscience."
"We're not anti-war," said Navy Mass Communications Specialist 3rd class Jonathan Hutto, 29…"We're not pacifists. We're anti-Iraq war."
…"I want Congress tomorrow to realize that they are accountable to their citizens," Madden said. "And their service members are on the front line."
…A 2003 Naval Academy graduate now in the individual Ready Reserves used tougher words. "This administration has betrayed our armed forces," said Lt. j.g. Fabian Bouthilette, 26. "I actually believe that the conduct of this administration is more detrimental to the Constitution than anything else. This was begun on an immoral, illegal basis. We were lied to."
--Service Members to Rally Against the War in Iraq," William H. McMichael, Navy Times, January 15, 2007. All the soldiers, sailors, and Marines quoted in the Navy Times article had had at least one deployment to Iraq and several were due to return. They submitted a petition of over a thousand names to Congress on January 15, 2007. Although the event was covered in military publications, with respect, pointing out that their action was legal and that they had suffered no deleterious consequences because of their actions, the presentation of the petition and the accompanying press conference was not covered by any of the three network news broadcasts. I know because I watched all three.
"The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this is taking place every single day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.
"Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were aobut to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.
"…This is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore."
--e-mail sent out by CBS war correspondent Lara Logan, asking for friends in the media to campaign her network to get her two-minute segment aired. Lara Logan has placed herself in the deadliest of assignments with Marines and soldiers alike--Once, while on foot patrol in Ramadi with Marines, it was too dangerous for her to take a camera crew, so she carried a handheld video camera and ran down Ramadi streets with the Marine squad, who could not move slowly due to the danger from snipers. I have seen many of her intense and amazing reports--she speaks for the troops, not for CBS news.
While Bush races to step up the deployments of American forces to Iraq--my own nephew will be headed to Baghdad with an army Stryker brigade two months ahead of schedule--and plays Chinese fire drill with American troops he's pulling out of Afghanistan in order to extend their deployments an extra FOUR MONTHS and send them to IRAQ, and thumbs his nose at the Congress, his own joint chiefs, and the American people, saying that, "We've already got the money for the surge," or, as the Puppet Master himself, Dick Cheney, put it, "They can't stop us"--it seems that they are, indeed, stoppable.
"For almost four years, this administration has been saying, 'Just give us another six months. Give us more time. The Iraqis need more help. We need more troops. We need more money.' I am not willing to sacrifice more young men and women for a policy that isn't working…
"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives."
--"The Angry One," Wil S. Hylton, GQ Magazine interview of Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb.), appearing in the January, '07 issue. Sen. Hagel is a combat veteran of Vietnam, having fought bravely during the Tet offensive of 1968, once saving the life of his own brother.
"We've abdicated our responsibilities. That has to do with the fact that the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. When that happens, you get no probing, no questioning, no oversight. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq and after two years he was having the same problems, do you think the Republican Congress would have put up with that? I don't think so.
--ibid
The thing is, there has been much hoopla about these congressional resolutions opposing Bush's so-called "surge" of more than 21,000 troops into Iraq. It has been said that the resolutions are toothless and that, unless Congress is willing to cut off funding of the troops, the president can do whatever he wants. Dick Cheney has flat-out said that. In fact, the president and vice-president seem to be throwing down a challenge to Congress, forcing them to either cut off funds to the troops--which virtually none of them wants to do--or wave their yellow ribbons and get on board the president's train wreck.
They should take a moment, sometime, and read the Constitution.
The Constitution's provision that the president is commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.
But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to "declare war," "raise and support armies," and "make rules concerning captures on land and water." By "declare war," the Constitution's framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun…In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about the war's scope and duration.
The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called "the father of the Constitution," fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it," Madison cautioned. "It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature."
In the early days of the republic, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress could limit the president's war powers…The court has repeatedly reinforced this principle…
…Past Congresses have enacted just the sort of restrictions the Bush administration is trying to foreclose today…There is little question that Congress…can…pass laws that set the terms of military engagement.
--"Congress, the Constitution, and War: The Limits on Presidential Power," Adam Cohen, New York Times, January 29, 2007
Here's the thing, boys and girls. The men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States military are our FAMILY. They are our children and our siblings and our parents and our friends. They go where they are ordered to go and do what they are ordered to do because they are unbelievably brave and valiant. They have no choice but to trust that the civilian leadership who shapes those orders will not do so recklessly, throwing their lives away on a lost cause.
They have to believe that in order to do their jobs.
And yet, they no longer believe it. By a very large majority, quoted in their own Military Times, the troops who are fighting this war no longer trust the word of the people in this administration who keep demanding more and more blood sacrifices from them.
There is not a whole lot they can do to fight that--not legally.
But we can.
Although he may think of himself as Ruler of the Free World, this president is, actually, a plain old civil servant. He works for US.
Our elected representatives in Congress work for US.
And it is up to US to make our voices heard--loud and clear--to every senator and congressperson, that we want this madness stopped.
THEY have the power to stop it.
WE have the power to MAKE THEM.
The brave young men like the soldier who died on Haifa street in Baghdad and the soldier who died at the hands of traitors in the Iraqi Army, and the Marines who can't trust their Iraqi counterparts on even a simple patrol--they are depending upon US to restore accountability to those who would order them to die.
Keep up the pressure. Let the timid in Congress, the angry in Congress, even the misguided in Congress, KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT BE SILENT.
Our own troops in the field have let us know that this whole "strategy" is a deathtrap. The Iraqi Army who betrays those who have tried so patiently to train and arm and support them, has let us know the same thing.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. BRING THEM HOME.
One more thing--just in case someone thinks that any Democratic suggestions for peace would only bring down the wrath of hell on the Iraqis themselves…Maybe we ought to listen to what THEY have to say…for a change:
Representatives of Iraq's government are hedging their bets on America's political future…by building ties with the Democratic Party…
…They concluded early that even the most staunchly antiwar Democrats would not abandon Iraq…
…Almost all agree on Democratic Party initiatives, squashed when Republicans controlled Congress, to prevent the building of permanent U.S. bases here. They note news reports of Democrats acknowledging the suffering of the Iraqi population.
"I see that the Democratic ideas are more related to reality," said Ammar Tuma, a lawmaker who serves in Maliki's ruling Shiite coalition. "They talk about the real problems that the Iraqis are facing every day."
To date, government officials said, they've also found Democratic visitors such as Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois less parochial, more culturally sensitive and more willing to listen to Iraqi concerns than the Republicans.
…"Now it's different because the Democrats have some decision-making power," said Farooq Abdullah, a Maliki advisor. "Before, we were meeting mostly with Republicans because they were the ones in power. Now we're meeting with both of them."
--"Iraq Cultivates Ties to Democrats," Borzou Dargahi, Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2007
Do I mean to imply that the Democrats have all the answers? Of course not. Clearly, nobody does. And in point of fact, the loudest and angriest voices coming out of Congress today are coming from moderate Republicans, some conservative Republicans, and conservative Democrats as well as liberals.
The point is that George W. Bush does not have all the answers and neither does he any longer have all the power.
There are steps that can be taken by Congress to defy him and to rein in his megalomania. All they need is a push from their constituents.
Call your representative and senators. Sign petitions to his or her office. Write letters and e-mails. MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD.
Together, we can find a way to end this madness and get the hell out of an American deathtrap in Iraq.
Later, I'll write more on HOW.
Just before the platoon tossed smoke bombs and sprinted through the alley to a more secure position, Biletski had a moment to reflect on this spot, which U.S. Army has now fought to regain from a mysterious enemy at least three times in the past two years. "This place is a failure," he said. "Every time we come here, we have to come back."
--"Baghdad Battle Cry: Who's Shooting at Us?" Damien Cave, International Herald Tribune, January 25, 2007
Together, alone, trapped in a dark room with the blood of their comrade on the floor, they tried to piece together what had happened. Maybe the sniper saw Sergeant Leija's silhouette in the window and fired. Or maybe the shot was accidental, they said, fired from below by Iraqi Army soldiers who had been moving between the buildings.
The Iraqis were not supposed to be there yet…after arriving late at the first building, the Iraqis jumped ahead, leaving the Americans and pushing north without searching dozens of apartments in the area…
But Sergeant Leija's squad had no communications links with their Iraqi counterparts, and because it was an Iraqi operation--as senior officers repeatedly emphasized--the Americans could not order the Iraqis to get back in line. There was nothing they could do.
--"'Man Down': When One Bullet Alters Everything, Damien Cave, New York Times, January 29, 2007
New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor's office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate American soldiers.
The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad's bloodiest neighborhoods, where soldiers will live and work with Iraqi forces. Military officials have said that one of their greatest concerns is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.
--"U.S. Toll in Iraq is 27 for Deadly Weekend," Damien Cave, New York Times, January 22, 2007
Iraqi forces were surprised and nearly overwhelmed by the ferocity of an obscure renegade militia in a weekend battle near the holy city of Najaf and needed far more help from American forces than previously disclosed, American and Iraqi officials said Monday.
They said American ground troops--not just air support as reported Sunday--were mobilized to help the Iraqi soldiers, who appeared to have dangerously underestimated the strength of the militia, which…had amassed hundreds of heavily armed fighters.
--"Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions," Marc Santora, New York Times, January 30, 2007
Most of you have probably never heard of an Army captain, a West Pointer, by the name of Brian Freeman, but Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) and John Kerry (D-Mass), certainly have.
On a fact-finding trip to Iraq just before Christmas, as they were waiting on a Green Zone landing zone for the helicopter that would fly them out of Baghdad, the young officer approached them, "almost out of the shadows."
Here is what followed:
Even though he felt nervous, he told his wife later, he delivered his message with urgency. Soldiers were being deployed to do missions that they were utterly untrained to do; Freeman, for example, an armor officer, had been sent to help foster democracy and rebuild an Iraqi civil society. State Department personnel who could do those jobs were restricted in their travel off military bases by regional security officers who said it was unsafe for them to venture out…
Once in Iraq, Freeman was dismayed to find that his training, "had no relation to what they were actually doing," Charlotte Freeman said. "He was appalled," enduring danger but seeing no clear mission, she said. Moreover, he believed that the Iraqis "didn't want us there."
…Freeman, 31, took a short holiday leave to see his 14-month old daughter and 2-year old son, returned to his base in Karbala, Iraq, and less than two weeks ago died in a hail of bullets and grenades. Insurgents, dressed in U.S. military uniforms, speaking English and driving black American SUVs, got through a checkpoint and attacked, kidnapped four soldiers and later shot them. Freeman died in the assault, the fifth casualty of the brazen attack.
--"Soldier's Death Strengthens Senators' Antiwar Resolve: Kerry, Dodd Demand Stronger Challenge to Bush," Jonathan Weisman and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 30, 2007
According to NBC Nightly News tonight, further investigation has revealed that the attack on the soldiers at Karbala was a deliberate betrayal by the Iraqis who were working with the Americans. The news broadcast described how the attackers not only gained entry through numerous checkpoints, but that they were waved through by Iraqi security guards who pointed out where the Americans were. Presumably, it was also the Iraqis who conveniently provided the American uniforms. The claim is being made that the Iranians funded and trained the sophisticated attack, but after all the "proof" about weapons of mass destruction that duped us into war with Iraq in the first place, I am dubious that the Iranians are behind it. Maybe they are; but whether they are or aren't, Bush and his neocon buddies are obviously itching for something to provoke a fight with Iran, and I expect more such "evidence" will come to light in the future.
Whether the Iranians funded the operation or not is beside the point as far as I am concerned. Putting the spotlight on the Iranians only makes us forget that it was the IRAQIS WHO BETRAYED THE AMERICAN SOLDIERS.
In the Haifa street battle described in the opening quotes, we have a situation where American soldiers are ordered to enter into a joint operation with the Iraqi Army. Instead, not only are they forced to do most of the fighting, but their Iraqi counterparts not only skip over searching entire sections of buildings--leaving them all desperately vulnerable--but also fire wildly up into the buildings without waiting to see where the Americans are--hence the tragic, useless, and unneccesary death of Sergeant Leija.
Then there are the risks involved in leaving small groups of U.S. advisers in the hands of underequipped Iraqi Army units of dubious skill and loyalty. Over in Iraq, Lt. Col. Rodrick Arrington, an adviser attached to the First Marine Expeditionary Forces in Ramadi, notes that Iraqi troops he works with answer their cellphones while on patrol. Because of absenteeism and lack of pay, the Iraqi units are usually 50 percent under strength, and Iraqi officers often prove unwilling to conduct risky raids. Some units are infiltrated by militias or insurgents…"We're setting ourselves up for a potential national disaster in which some Iraqi divisions could flip and take five thousand (U.S. troops embedded with Iraqi forces as advisors) hostage…or multiple advisory teams go missing in action," says retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey.
--"The Perils of Partnership," Michael Hirsh, Kevin Peraino, and Sarah Childress, Newsweek, December 18, 2006
The prospect of a more intense battle in the Iraqi capital could put U.S. military commanders in exactly the sort of tough urban fight that war planners strove to avoid during the sprint 2003 invasion of the country…military officials said sustaining it for more than a few months would place a major strain on U.S. forces that already are feeling burdened by an unexpectedly long and difficult war…
…Military experts…wondered, as one said, how a "thin green line" of 17,500 additional soldiers in Baghdad could affect the security situation in a city where many of the 5 million residents are hostile to U.S. presence. "Too little, too late--way too late," said retired Col. Jerry Durrant, who has worked as a trainer of Iraqi forces.
--"Intensified Combat on Streets Likely," Thomas E. Ricks and Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, January 11, 2007
I suppose it could be argued that I am biased, since I want this war to end--never wanted it in the first place, particularly when my own son could be sent back for a third deployment at any time in the next few years, even after he musters out of the Marine Corps. And you could even say that Senators Dodd and Kerry, who were so deeply distraught at the death of Capt. Freeman just weeks after he asked for their help were also biased because they have both opposed this war. You could even say that Gen. McCaffrey has always made his views known on this disastrous war--maybe he's biased, too.
So, fine. I'll let the soldiers who are doing the actual FIGHTING in Iraq speak for themselves. What do THEY think about the president's big plan to send in more troops into the deathtrap of Iraq?
Moments before he stepped into his squad's Stryker…Spec. Daniel Caldwell, 20, echoed a sentiment shared by many in his squad: "They're kicking a dead horse here. The Iraqi Army can't stand up on their own."…
…Apache Company's mission: to search a few houses for weapons caches based on intelligence reports. Caldwell and his soldiers worried about the intelligence they had been given. It had come from an Iraqi Army--or "IA" in U.S. soldier lingo--officer a week ago. They had wondered whether they were being set up for an ambush.
"It's a joke," said Pfc. Drew Merrill, 22, of Jefferson City, Mo, shaking his head and flashing a smile as the Stryker rolled through Baghdad.
--"U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy," Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, January 12, 2007
The Iraqis will accept mediocrity," said Staff Sgt. Luke Alphonso, a U.S. Army medic from Morgan City, La., who's been assigned to train members of Iraq's 5th Army Division for the past six months. "They will let us do everything for them."
--"Soldiers Doubt an Influx of American Troops Will Benefit the Iraqi Army," Nancy A. Youssef, McClatchy Newspapers, January 10, 2007
The American military, once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war, has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory. For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of it, according to a 2006 Military Times Poll.
--"More Troops Unhappy with Bush's Course in Iraq, Poll Finds," Robert Hodlerne, Military Times, December 29, 2006
"It is time for U.S. troops to come home," said Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden…"Not one of my brothers should die for a lie. This is my generation's call to conscience."
"We're not anti-war," said Navy Mass Communications Specialist 3rd class Jonathan Hutto, 29…"We're not pacifists. We're anti-Iraq war."
…"I want Congress tomorrow to realize that they are accountable to their citizens," Madden said. "And their service members are on the front line."
…A 2003 Naval Academy graduate now in the individual Ready Reserves used tougher words. "This administration has betrayed our armed forces," said Lt. j.g. Fabian Bouthilette, 26. "I actually believe that the conduct of this administration is more detrimental to the Constitution than anything else. This was begun on an immoral, illegal basis. We were lied to."
--Service Members to Rally Against the War in Iraq," William H. McMichael, Navy Times, January 15, 2007. All the soldiers, sailors, and Marines quoted in the Navy Times article had had at least one deployment to Iraq and several were due to return. They submitted a petition of over a thousand names to Congress on January 15, 2007. Although the event was covered in military publications, with respect, pointing out that their action was legal and that they had suffered no deleterious consequences because of their actions, the presentation of the petition and the accompanying press conference was not covered by any of the three network news broadcasts. I know because I watched all three.
"The story below only appeared on our CBS website and was not aired on CBS. It is a story that is largely being ignored, even though this is taking place every single day in central Baghdad, two blocks from where our office is located.
"Our crew had to be pulled out because we got a call saying they were aobut to be killed, and on their way out, a civilian man was shot dead in front of them as they ran.
"…This is not too gruesome to air, but rather too important to ignore."
--e-mail sent out by CBS war correspondent Lara Logan, asking for friends in the media to campaign her network to get her two-minute segment aired. Lara Logan has placed herself in the deadliest of assignments with Marines and soldiers alike--Once, while on foot patrol in Ramadi with Marines, it was too dangerous for her to take a camera crew, so she carried a handheld video camera and ran down Ramadi streets with the Marine squad, who could not move slowly due to the danger from snipers. I have seen many of her intense and amazing reports--she speaks for the troops, not for CBS news.
While Bush races to step up the deployments of American forces to Iraq--my own nephew will be headed to Baghdad with an army Stryker brigade two months ahead of schedule--and plays Chinese fire drill with American troops he's pulling out of Afghanistan in order to extend their deployments an extra FOUR MONTHS and send them to IRAQ, and thumbs his nose at the Congress, his own joint chiefs, and the American people, saying that, "We've already got the money for the surge," or, as the Puppet Master himself, Dick Cheney, put it, "They can't stop us"--it seems that they are, indeed, stoppable.
"For almost four years, this administration has been saying, 'Just give us another six months. Give us more time. The Iraqis need more help. We need more troops. We need more money.' I am not willing to sacrifice more young men and women for a policy that isn't working…
"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives."
--"The Angry One," Wil S. Hylton, GQ Magazine interview of Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb.), appearing in the January, '07 issue. Sen. Hagel is a combat veteran of Vietnam, having fought bravely during the Tet offensive of 1968, once saving the life of his own brother.
"We've abdicated our responsibilities. That has to do with the fact that the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. When that happens, you get no probing, no questioning, no oversight. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq and after two years he was having the same problems, do you think the Republican Congress would have put up with that? I don't think so.
--ibid
The thing is, there has been much hoopla about these congressional resolutions opposing Bush's so-called "surge" of more than 21,000 troops into Iraq. It has been said that the resolutions are toothless and that, unless Congress is willing to cut off funding of the troops, the president can do whatever he wants. Dick Cheney has flat-out said that. In fact, the president and vice-president seem to be throwing down a challenge to Congress, forcing them to either cut off funds to the troops--which virtually none of them wants to do--or wave their yellow ribbons and get on board the president's train wreck.
They should take a moment, sometime, and read the Constitution.
The Constitution's provision that the president is commander in chief clearly puts him at the top of the military chain of command. Congress would be overstepping if, for example, it passed a law requiring generals in the field to report directly to the speaker of the House.
But the Constitution also gives Congress an array of war powers, including the power to "declare war," "raise and support armies," and "make rules concerning captures on land and water." By "declare war," the Constitution's framers did not mean merely firing off a starting gun…In giving Congress the power to declare war, the Constitution gives it authority to make decisions about the war's scope and duration.
The Founders, including James Madison, who is often called "the father of the Constitution," fully expected Congress to use these powers to rein in the commander in chief. "The constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it," Madison cautioned. "It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature."
In the early days of the republic, the Supreme Court made clear that Congress could limit the president's war powers…The court has repeatedly reinforced this principle…
…Past Congresses have enacted just the sort of restrictions the Bush administration is trying to foreclose today…There is little question that Congress…can…pass laws that set the terms of military engagement.
--"Congress, the Constitution, and War: The Limits on Presidential Power," Adam Cohen, New York Times, January 29, 2007
Here's the thing, boys and girls. The men and women who proudly wear the uniform of the United States military are our FAMILY. They are our children and our siblings and our parents and our friends. They go where they are ordered to go and do what they are ordered to do because they are unbelievably brave and valiant. They have no choice but to trust that the civilian leadership who shapes those orders will not do so recklessly, throwing their lives away on a lost cause.
They have to believe that in order to do their jobs.
And yet, they no longer believe it. By a very large majority, quoted in their own Military Times, the troops who are fighting this war no longer trust the word of the people in this administration who keep demanding more and more blood sacrifices from them.
There is not a whole lot they can do to fight that--not legally.
But we can.
Although he may think of himself as Ruler of the Free World, this president is, actually, a plain old civil servant. He works for US.
Our elected representatives in Congress work for US.
And it is up to US to make our voices heard--loud and clear--to every senator and congressperson, that we want this madness stopped.
THEY have the power to stop it.
WE have the power to MAKE THEM.
The brave young men like the soldier who died on Haifa street in Baghdad and the soldier who died at the hands of traitors in the Iraqi Army, and the Marines who can't trust their Iraqi counterparts on even a simple patrol--they are depending upon US to restore accountability to those who would order them to die.
Keep up the pressure. Let the timid in Congress, the angry in Congress, even the misguided in Congress, KNOW THAT WE WILL NOT BE SILENT.
Our own troops in the field have let us know that this whole "strategy" is a deathtrap. The Iraqi Army who betrays those who have tried so patiently to train and arm and support them, has let us know the same thing.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS. BRING THEM HOME.
One more thing--just in case someone thinks that any Democratic suggestions for peace would only bring down the wrath of hell on the Iraqis themselves…Maybe we ought to listen to what THEY have to say…for a change:
Representatives of Iraq's government are hedging their bets on America's political future…by building ties with the Democratic Party…
…They concluded early that even the most staunchly antiwar Democrats would not abandon Iraq…
…Almost all agree on Democratic Party initiatives, squashed when Republicans controlled Congress, to prevent the building of permanent U.S. bases here. They note news reports of Democrats acknowledging the suffering of the Iraqi population.
"I see that the Democratic ideas are more related to reality," said Ammar Tuma, a lawmaker who serves in Maliki's ruling Shiite coalition. "They talk about the real problems that the Iraqis are facing every day."
To date, government officials said, they've also found Democratic visitors such as Pelosi, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois less parochial, more culturally sensitive and more willing to listen to Iraqi concerns than the Republicans.
…"Now it's different because the Democrats have some decision-making power," said Farooq Abdullah, a Maliki advisor. "Before, we were meeting mostly with Republicans because they were the ones in power. Now we're meeting with both of them."
--"Iraq Cultivates Ties to Democrats," Borzou Dargahi, Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2007
Do I mean to imply that the Democrats have all the answers? Of course not. Clearly, nobody does. And in point of fact, the loudest and angriest voices coming out of Congress today are coming from moderate Republicans, some conservative Republicans, and conservative Democrats as well as liberals.
The point is that George W. Bush does not have all the answers and neither does he any longer have all the power.
There are steps that can be taken by Congress to defy him and to rein in his megalomania. All they need is a push from their constituents.
Call your representative and senators. Sign petitions to his or her office. Write letters and e-mails. MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD.
Together, we can find a way to end this madness and get the hell out of an American deathtrap in Iraq.
Later, I'll write more on HOW.
posted by Deanie Mills at 6:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home