• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'

GrGr

Diamond Member
'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'
Interviews with US veterans show for the first time the pattern of brutality in Iraq
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
The Independent


Published: 12 July 2007

It is an axiom of American political life that the actions of the US military are beyond criticism. Democrats and Republicans praise the men and women in uniform at every turn. Apart from the odd bad apple at Abu Ghraib, the US military in Iraq is deemed to be doing a heroic job under trying circumstances.

That perception will take a severe knock today with the publication in The Nation magazine of a series of in-depth interviews with 50 combat veterans of the Iraq war from across the US. In the interviews, veterans have described acts of violence in which US forces have abused or killed Iraqi men, women and children with impunity.

The report steers clear of widely reported atrocities, such as the massacre in Haditha in 2005, but instead unearths a pattern of human rights abuses. "It's not individual atrocity," Specialist Garett Reppenhagen, a sniper from the 263rd Armour Battalion, said. "It's the fact that the entire war is an atrocity."

A number of the troops have returned home bearing mental and physical scars from fighting a war in an environment in which the insurgents are supported by the population. Many of those interviewed have come to oppose the US military presence in Iraq, joining the groundswell of public opinion across the US that views the war as futile.

This view is echoed in Washington, where increasing numbers of Democrats and Republicans are openly calling for an early withdrawal from Iraq. And the Iraq quagmire has pushed President George Bush's poll ratings to an all-time low.

Journalists and human rights groups have published numerous reports drawing attention to the killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces. The Nation's investigation presents for the first time named military witnesses who back those assertions. Some participated themselves.

Through a combination of gung-ho recklessness and criminal behaviour born of panic, a narrative emerges of an army that frequently commits acts of cold-blooded violence. A number of interviewees revealed that the military will attempt to frame innocent bystanders as insurgents, often after panicked American troops have fired into groups of unarmed Iraqis. The veterans said the troops involved would round up any survivors and accuse them of being in the resistance while planting Kalashnikov AK47 rifles beside corpses to make it appear that they had died in combat.

"It would always be an AK because they have so many of these lying around," said Joe Hatcher, 26, a scout with the 4th Calvary Regiment. He revealed the army also planted 9mm handguns and shovels to make it look like the civilians were shot while digging a hole for a roadside bomb.

"Every good cop carries a throwaway," Hatcher said of weapons planted on innocent victims in incidents that occurred while he was stationed between Tikrit and Samarra, from February 2004 to March 2005. Any survivors were sent to jail for interrogation.

There were also deaths caused by the reckless behaviour of military convoys. Sgt Kelly Dougherty of the Colorado National Guard described a hit-and-run in which a military convoy ran over a 10-year-old boy and his three donkeys, killing them all. "Judging by the skid marks, they hardly even slowed down. But, I mean... your order is that you never stop."

The worst abuses seem to have been during raids on private homes when soldiers were hunting insurgents. Thousands of such raids have taken place, usually at dead of night. The veterans point out that most are futile and serve only to terrify the civilians, while generating sympathy for the resistance.

Sgt John Bruhns, 29, of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Armoured Division, described a typical raid. "You want to catch them off guard," he explained. "You want to catch them in their sleep ... You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall... Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds. You'll ask 'Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda?'

"Normally they'll say no, because that's normally the truth," Sgt Bruhns said. "So you'll take his sofa cushions and dump them. You'll open up his closet and you'll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it." And at the end, if the soldiers don't find anything, they depart with a "Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening".

Sgt Dougherty described her squad leader shooting an Iraqi civilian in the back in 2003. "The mentality of my squad leader was like, 'Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don't have to kill them back in Colorado'," she said. "He just seemed to view every Iraqi as a potential terrorist."

'It would always happen. We always got the wrong house...'

"People would make jokes about it, even before we'd go into a raid, like, 'Oh fuck, we're gonna get the wrong house'. Cause it would always happen. We always got the wrong house."

Sergeant Jesus Bocanegra, 25, of Weslaco, Texas 4th Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour that began in March 2003

"I had to go tell this woman that her husband was actually dead. We gave her money, we gave her, like, 10 crates of water, we gave the kids, I remember, maybe it was soccer balls and toys. We just didn't really know what else to do."

Lieutenant Jonathan Morgenstein, 35, of Arlington, Virginia, Marine Corps civil affairs unit. In Ramadi from August 2004 to March 2005

"We were approaching this one house... and we're approaching, and they had a family dog. And it was barking ferociously, cause it's doing its job. And my squad leader, just out of nowhere, just shoots it... So I see this dog - I'm a huge animal lover... this dog has, like, these eyes on it and he's running around spraying blood all over the place. And like, you know, what the hell is going on? The family is sitting right there, with three little children and a mom and a dad, horrified. And I'm at a loss for words."

Specialist Philip Chrystal, 23, of Reno, 3rd Battalion, 116th Cavalry Brigade. In Kirkuk and Hawija on 11-month tour beginning November 2004

"I'll tell you the point where I really turned... [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little two-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs and she has a bullet through her leg... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me... like asking me why. You know, 'Why do I have a bullet in my leg?'... I was just like, 'This is, this is it. This is ridiculous'."

Specialist Michael Harmon, 24, of Brooklyn, 167th Armour Regiment, 4th Infantry Division. In Al-Rashidiya on 13-month tour beginning in April 2003

"I open a bag and I'm trying to get bandages out and the guys in the guard tower are yelling at me, 'Get that fuck beloved patriot out of here,'... our doctor rolls up in an ambulance and from 30 to 40 meters away looks out and says, shakes his head and says, 'You know, he looks fine, he's gonna be all right,' and walks back... kind of like, 'Get your ass over here and drive me back up to the clinic'. So I'm standing there, and the whole time both this doctor and the guards are yelling at me, you know, to get rid of this guy."

Specialist Patrick Resta, 29, from Philadelphia, 252nd Armour, 1st Infantry Division. In Jalula for nine months beginning March 2004

'Every person opened fire on this kid, using the biggest weapons we could find...'

"Here's some guy, some 14-year-old kid with an AK47, decides he's going to start shooting at this convoy. It was the most obscene thing you've ever seen. Every person got out and opened fire on this kid. Using the biggest weapons we could find, we ripped him to shreds..."

Sergeant Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, 256th Infantry Brigade. In Abu Gharth for 11 months beginning November 2004

"Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement. Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat."

Lieutenant Brady Van Engelen, 26, of Washington DC, 1st Armoured Division. Eight-month tour of Baghdad beginning Sept 2003

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, 'A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi... You know, so what?'... [Only when we got home] in... meeting other veterans, it seems like the guilt really takes place, takes root, then."

Specialist Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado, 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry. In Baquba for a year beginning February 2004

"[The photo] was very graphic... They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got a spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and smiling."

Specialist Aidan Delgado, 25, of Sarasota, Florida, 320th Military Police Company. Deployed to Talil air base for one year beginning April 2003

"The car was approaching what was in my opinion a very poorly marked checkpoint... and probably didn't even see the soldiers... The guys got spooked and decided it was a possible threat, so they shot up the car. And they [the bodies] literally sat in the car for the next three days while we drove by them.

Sergeant Dustin Flatt, 33, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. One-year from February 2004

"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population..."

Sergeant Camilo Mejía, 31, from Miami, National Guardsman, 1-124 Infantry Battalion, 53rd Infantry Brigade. Six-month tour beginning April 2003

"I just remember thinking, 'I just brought terror to someone under the American flag'."

Sergeant Timothy John Westphal, 31, of Denver, 18th Infantry Brigade, 1st Infantry Division. In Tikrit on year-long tour beginning February 2004

"A lot of guys really supported that whole concept that if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

Specialist Josh Middleton, 23, of New York City, 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division. Four-month tour in Baghdad and Mosul beginning December 2004

"I felt like there was this enormous reduction in my compassion for people. The only thing that wound up mattering is myself and the guys that I was with, and everybody else be damned."

Sergeant Ben Flanders, 28, National Guardsman from Concord, New Hampshire, 172nd Mountain Infantry. In Balad for 11 months beginning March 2004

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness, by Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian, appears in the 30 July issue of The Nation,

I wouldn't say this is the first time 'the pattern' has been shown. Everybody knows that this has been going on since the start of the invasion. As one soldier says "it is the war that is the atrocity". What is interesting is if the US public will no longer look between the fingers and say the old excuses - "bad apples" etc.
 
The title claims a pattern, and yet the article only contains personal anecdotes. Go figure.

By "everybody", you mean only the anti-military zealots, like the wackjobs at the misnamed Independent viewspaper.
 
I'm not justifying it - but human rights violations always happen in insurgency situations no matter which country / military.
 
The easy way out is to assume that there's no problem, and to turn a blind eye to any evidence to the contrary. It's easy to sleep at night with our John Waynes over there.

It's easy, and it's wrong, and it's based on ignorance about human nature. If people were less ignorant, they'd realize how human nature is going to lead to behaviors like this, and have a better idea what's needed to reduce the problem. They'd realize it's not about the two sides being "support the wonderful troops who do no wrong" versus "we hate the Nazi US troops who are terribly evil", but rather, that it's more complicated about how people handle these things, what they do, what helps restrain the problems.

You see the ideologues leap into the fray to sing the hate of anyone who points out anything that hurts their delicate ideology - "you hate America! foam foam".

What a sad state of affairs, when everyone really wants the same thing on an issue like this, for there not to be the abuses. But the politicized debate prevents much discussion.

The Nation is to be commended for reporting the facts; it's up to the citizens to use the information constructively.

I recently watched "Winter Soldier" and recommend every American see it, as well as other info about this issue with other countries, how it affects them all.

Then better policies can be made, instead of the usual political cycle of coverup/expose.

The right, IMO, needs to take more responsibility for its own nation's actions, and care about such abuses, just as it would like others to do, whether they do or not.
 
The easy way out is to assume that there's no problem, and to turn a blind eye to any evidence to the contrary.

You're right.

"There is no link between Islam and terrorists"

The Nation is to be commended for reporting the facts; it's up to the citizens to use the information constructively.

Facts? A notably left-wing source posts a bunch of personal anecdotes of supposed soldiers committing supposed atrocities and we're supposed to commend them for reporting "facts"?

Just like the "facts" of the Haditha massacre, which has been proven to be a lie concocted by the enemy and perpetuated by the anti-war left? Those "facts"?

Honestly, Craig, your hyper-partisan nature is shining through much more brightly in recent days.
 
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq at all, but this article doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that fighting insurgents who dress like the population that shelters them gets ugly.

Innocents get killed when there is no way to tell combatants from noncombatants until they shoot at you, and when the insurgents intentionally attack from within crowds, houses, and shrines. After it happens enough, the soldiers trying to stay alive stop caring as much.

The citizens of Iraq bear some responsibility for this since they do shelter the insurgents. Even the police look the other way, or even work with us by day then against us by night.

All of which argues for us getting out of the meat grinder, since even the soldiers who aren't maimed or killed come home damaged.
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
The easy way out is to assume that there's no problem, and to turn a blind eye to any evidence to the contrary.

You're right.

It's nice to agree on this.

"There is no link between Islam and terrorists"

What in the world are you quoting?

We can debate the issue of us, Islam and terrorism all day, but who are you quoting?

The Nation is to be commended for reporting the facts; it's up to the citizens to use the information constructively.

"Honestly, Craig, your hyper-partisan nature is shining through much more brightly in recent days."

"Facts? A notably left-wing source..."

You say something is wrong because it's printed in a leading liberal publication that's earned a good reputation over many decades - that's "hyper-partisan".

The truth looks partisan to the person with a false ideology. Do you really think the soldiers are lying? That The Nation invented the quotes? Can you offer any argument why?

Show me The Nation has a history of false reporting, and I'll listen. Show me that you attack them because they print truth you don't like, and I'll not be surprised.

Just like the "facts" of the Haditha massacre, which has been proven to be a lie concocted by the enemy and perpetuated by the anti-war left? Those "facts"?

And more 'hyper-partisan' commentary from you. The massacre has not been proven any such thing, from what I've seen.

There's been some exculpatory evidence at the trial, far from negating the crimes and coverup. We'll see what the trial result shows.

Where do you get that misinformation? Michael Savage? Right-wing blogs? Back up your claims.

 
I imagine that I, like many, if I had to go to war would eventually start seeing the enemy as just an object to shoot, feeling satisfaction and maybe happiness as my bullets find their home in a person's body. After a few, I'd be able to have a perfectly restful night sleep after, too. Afterall, if I see them as humans with families and hopes and dreams it would tear me apart, so this is why soldiers always have and will dehumanize their enemy.
 
LOL... I love it when you guys post such blatant trollbait.

I sincerely doubt the authenticity of the article and its sources.

I know you hate the troops and all, but come on, can't you just go out to the airports and spit on them "like a real man"?!
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL... I love it when you guys post such blatant trollbait.

I sincerely doubt the authenticity of the article and its sources.

I know you hate the troops and all, but come on, can't you just go out to the airports and spit on them "like a real man"?!

I don't think the article is really against anybody. Just a reality of being in a really difficult situation for so long. I don't think anyone has to be told this kind of thing goes on. It's human nature.
 
Originally posted by: Kntx
Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL... I love it when you guys post such blatant trollbait.

I sincerely doubt the authenticity of the article and its sources.

I know you hate the troops and all, but come on, can't you just go out to the airports and spit on them "like a real man"?!

I don't think the article is really against anybody. Just a reality of being in a really difficult situation for so long. I don't think anyone has to be told this kind of thing goes on. It's human nature.
Trusts me, if the OP's history is any indication, the entire intent of this thread was to accuse all US soldiers of war crimes. Trust me, GrGr is completely transparent.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Kntx
Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL... I love it when you guys post such blatant trollbait.

I sincerely doubt the authenticity of the article and its sources.

I know you hate the troops and all, but come on, can't you just go out to the airports and spit on them "like a real man"?!

I don't think the article is really against anybody. Just a reality of being in a really difficult situation for so long. I don't think anyone has to be told this kind of thing goes on. It's human nature.
Trusts me, if the OP's history is any indication, the entire intent of this thread was to accuse all US soldiers of war crimes. Trust me...

Your own history precludes trusting you in your judgement on posters.

On the topic, the new Harper's reports US marines show 16 percent believe that "all non-combatants should be treated as insurgents", and 39 percent "neither agree nor disagree".

I also suspect that some marines may have not said what they 'really think', knowing how it would look, so maybe even these very high numbers are too low.

For some reason, it seems these issues are discovered with great surprise each war. Maybe one reason is the coverup each war, and educating people will help.
 
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Kntx
Originally posted by: palehorse74
LOL... I love it when you guys post such blatant trollbait.

I sincerely doubt the authenticity of the article and its sources.

I know you hate the troops and all, but come on, can't you just go out to the airports and spit on them "like a real man"?!

I don't think the article is really against anybody. Just a reality of being in a really difficult situation for so long. I don't think anyone has to be told this kind of thing goes on. It's human nature.
Trusts me, if the OP's history is any indication, the entire intent of this thread was to accuse all US soldiers of war crimes. Trust me, GrGr is completely transparent.


Here is the original article the Independent above talks about. It is much more detailed.

The Nation

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness

Chris Hedges & Laila Al-Arian


This article will form the basis of Collateral Damage, forthcoming from Nation Books. Research support for this article was provided by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute. Research assistance was provided by Nicholas Jahr.

In Their Own Words: Carlos Mejía (above) of Miami, and three others share their impressions of the interactions between US military forces and Iraqi noncombatants in an audio slide show. They were among the fifty combat veterans interviewed for this article.

---

Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

Their stories, recorded and typed into thousands of pages of transcripts, reveal disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops in Iraq. Dozens of those interviewed witnessed Iraqi civilians, including children, dying from American firepower. Some participated in such killings; others treated or investigated civilian casualties after the fact. Many also heard such stories, in detail, from members of their unit. The soldiers, sailors and marines emphasized that not all troops took part in indiscriminate killings. Many said that these acts were perpetrated by a minority. But they nevertheless described such acts as common and said they often go unreported--and almost always go unpunished.

Court cases, such as the ones surrounding the massacre in Haditha and the rape and murder of a 14-year-old in Mah­mudiya, and news stories in the Washington Post, Time, the London Independent and elsewhere based on Iraqi accounts have begun to hint at the wide extent of the attacks on civilians. Human rights groups have issued reports, such as Human Rights Watch's Hearts and Minds: Post-war Civilian Deaths in Baghdad Caused by U.S. Forces, packed with detailed incidents that suggest that the killing of Iraqi civilians by occupation forces is more common than has been acknowledged by military authorities.

etc.

 
The funniest thing I've read in days is from Craig:

You say something is wrong because it's printed in a leading liberal publication that's earned a good reputation over many decades - that's "hyper-partisan".

The truth looks partisan to the person with a false ideology. Do you really think the soldiers are lying? That The Nation invented the quotes? Can you offer any argument why?

Show me The Nation has a history of false reporting, and I'll listen. Show me that you attack them because they print truth you don't like, and I'll not be surprised.

Sooooo...still think Fox isnt credible? ROFL

Anyway back on topic...Im looking for that mysterious book that outlines how to 1. Wage a "humane" war, and 2. The chapter that says people wont die if they do the following things:...
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Its war.

When will people understand that wars are not nice?

I think people understand that. But it's hard to resolve the goals of the mission with the reality of war. Ya know?
 
What would you expect, from someone stupid enough to risk their life, for the dreams & lies of a madman?

bush and his assassins are laughing at all of us.
 
Craig said:
Show me The Nation has a history of false reporting, and I'll listen. Show me that you attack them because they print truth you don't like, and I'll not be surprised.

Well, as most of you love to attack Fox for lying by ommision, and by "implying" they mean different things, here's a nice example from you <ahem> non-partisan source:

This article talks about how our health care sucks, and specifically mentions a Dr Prem Reddy:
----------->"But let's not just pick on the insurance companies, though I wouldn't mind doing that--with a specially designed sharp instrument, over a period of years. Sunday's Los Angeles Times featured a particularly lurid case of medical profiteering in the form of one Dr. Prem Reddy, who owns eight hospitals in Southern California. I do not begrudge any physician a comfortable life--good doctoring is hard work--but Dr. Reddy dwells in a 15,000-square-foot mansion featuring gold-plated toilets and keeps a second home, valued at more than $9 million, in Beverly Hills, as well as a $1.4 million helicopter for commuting.

The secret behind his $300 million fortune? For one thing, he rejects the standard hospital practice of signing contracts with insurance companies, because he feels that these contracts unduly limit his reimbursements. (In a battle between Aetna and Reddy, it would be hard to know which side to cheer for.) In addition, he has suspended much-needed services such as chemotherapy, a birthing center and mental- health care as insufficiently profitable. And his hospitals are infamous for refusing to treat uninsured patients, like a patient with kidney failure and a 16-month-old baby with a burn.

But Dr. Reddy--who is, incidentally a high-powered Republican donor--has a principled reason for his piratical practices. "Patients," the Los Angeles Times reports him as saying, "may simply deserve only the amount of care they can afford." He dismisses as "an entitlement mentality" the idea that everyone should be getting the same high-quality healthcare. This is Bush's vaunted principle of "private medicine" at its nastiest: You don't get what you need, only what you can pay for."<--------------


Talk about skewing the facts and not quite telling the whole story. What about this?
"He canceled managed-care contracts. He began advertising to senior citizens, who are covered by Medicare, which pays a steady rate. He worked to keep the emergency room open at all times so as to not lose patients to other hospitals.

He also stopped automatically transferring emergency patients to hospitals in their insurance network, a practice that has drawn fire ? and lawsuits ? from other hospitals and insurance companies.

Reddy says he needs about $2,000 per patient, per day to cover typical hospital costs. HMOs are willing to pay him anywhere from $800 to $1,500. But without contracts, the insurers must pay the full charges when their patients come to the emergency room or are admitted to the hospital.

"Since Reddy's hospitals don't have any contracts, he's able to get premium reimbursement rates for cases that come through the emergency department," Otake said.

But that also means HMOs won't send patients to his hospitals for scheduled procedures. Also, once emergency patients are stabilized, their health plan will push to have them transferred to another hospital that holds a contract."

This guy attacks the one thing that is providing crappy care to Americans: The HMO model. Why is that bad? Source

And if this guy is such a satan, what about this:
------ Dr. Prem Reddy Academic Excellence Scholarship
Dr. Prem Reddy Academic Excellence Scholarship assists in funding half of two President?s Academic Excellence Scholarship recipients (PAES) annually who are from the High Desert Region, and are health care majors (i.e. nursing, pre-med, and health ed...

------ Cure A Little Heart Foundation
Dr. Prem Reddy is Trustee of Cure A Little Heart Foundation that helps thousands of under privileged kids in India, affected by congenital heart disease, by providing surgeries free of cost....

------ City of Victorville - Wellness Center
Thanks to a generous donation from Dr. Prem Reddy, City employees will soon be more fit and healthier, thanks to the opening of a brand new, state-of-the-art wellness center in City Hall....

------ Circle of Care Foundation
The Circle of Care Foundation received $1 million from the Chairman of the Board of Sherman Oaks Hospital, Dr. Prem Reddy....

There are 2 more pages of charities this guy funds. The un-biased rag The Nation simply doesnt tell the truth about this guy. They mislead readers into thinking this guy is the devil of healthcare, and is nothing but greedy which just isnt the case. Im sure there is more I just feel like looking, but I found this in just 10 minutes.



 
Originally posted by: Kntx
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Its war.

When will people understand that wars are not nice?

I think people understand that. But it's hard to resolve the goals of the mission with the reality of war. Ya know?

So what, in your humble opinion, would be an acceptable war? Or loss of life? Especially when those who are responsible for more attacks on the USA arent a country, but rather a static group with members all over the globe?
 
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
What would you expect, from someone stupid enough to risk their life, for the dreams & lies of a madman?

bush and his assassins are laughing at all of us.

Nice to let us know what you really feel about the troops.

"Support our troops... every last one of those idiots" is a sentiment I hear more and more from the left in my daily life.
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
What would you expect, from someone stupid enough to risk their life, for the dreams & lies of a madman?

bush and his assassins are laughing at all of us.

Nice to let us know what you really feel about the troops.

"Support our troops... every last one of those idiots" is a sentiment I hear more and more from the left in my daily life.

What do you want, a medal or a chest to pin it on?
 
Originally posted by: jrenz
Originally posted by: tomywishbone
What would you expect, from someone stupid enough to risk their life, for the dreams & lies of a madman?

bush and his assassins are laughing at all of us.

Nice to let us know what you really feel about the troops.

"Support our troops... every last one of those idiots" is a sentiment I hear more and more from the left in my daily life.

'Supporting the troops' means withdrawing them
COMMENTARY | July 05, 2007

By William E. Odom
diane@hudson.org

Every step the Democrats in Congress have taken to force the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq has failed. Time and again, President Bush beats them into submission with charges of failing to "support the troops."

Why do the Democrats allow this to happen? Because they let the president define what "supporting the troops" means. His definition is brutally misleading. Consider what his policies are doing to the troops.

No U.S. forces have ever been compelled to stay in sustained combat conditions for as long as the Army units have in Iraq. In World War II, soldiers were considered combat-exhausted after about 180 days in the line. They were withdrawn for rest periods. Moreover, for weeks at a time, large sectors of the front were quiet, giving them time for both physical and psychological rehabilitation. During some periods of the Korean War, units had to fight steadily for fairly long periods but not for a year at a time. In Vietnam, tours were one year in length, and combat was intermittent with significant break periods.

In Iraq, combat units take over an area of operations and patrol it daily, making soldiers face the prospect of death from an IED or small arms fire or mortar fire several hours each day. Day in and day out for a full year, with only a single two-week break, they confront the prospect of death, losing limbs or eyes, or suffering other serious wounds. Although total losses in Iraq have been relatively small compared to most previous conflicts, the individual soldier is risking death or serious injury day after day for a year. The impact on the psyche accumulates, eventually producing what is now called "post-traumatic stress disorders." In other words, they are combat-exhausted to the point of losing effectiveness. The occasional willful killing of civilians in a few cases is probably indicative of such loss of effectiveness. These incidents don't seem to occur during the first half of a unit's deployment in Iraq.

After the first year, following a few months back home, these same soldiers are sent back for a second year, then a third year, and now, many are facing a fourth deployment! Little wonder more and more soldiers and veterans are psychologically disabled.

And the damage is not just to enlisted soldiers. Many officers are suffering serious post-traumatic stress disorders but are hesitant to report it ? with good reason. An officer who needs psychiatric care and lets it appear on his medical records has most probably ended his career. He will be considered not sufficiently stable to lead troops. Thus officers are strongly inclined to avoid treatment and to hide their problems.

There are only two ways to fix this problem, both of which the president stubbornly rejects. Instead, his recent "surge" tactic has compelled the secretary of defense to extend Army tours to 15 months! (The Marines have been allowed to retain their six-month deployment policy and, not surprisingly, have fewer cases of post-traumatic stress syndrome.)

The first solution would be to expand the size of the Army to two or three times its present level, allowing shorter combat tours and much longer breaks between deployments. That cannot be done rapidly enough today, even if military conscription were restored and new recruits made abundant. It would take more than a year to organize and train a dozen new brigade combat teams. The Clinton administration cut the Army end strength by about 40 percent ? from about 770,000 to 470,000 during the 1990s. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld looked for ways to make the cuts even deeper. Thus this administration and its predecessor aggressively gave up ground forces and tactical air forces while maintaining large maritime forces that cannot be used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, the lack of wisdom in that change in force structure is being paid for not by President Bush or President Clinton but by the ordinary soldier and his family. They have no lobby group to seek relief for them.

The second way to alleviate the problem is to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq as soon as possible and as securely as possible. The electorate understands this. That is why a majority of voters favor withdrawing from Iraq.

If the Democrats truly want to succeed in forcing President Bush to begin withdrawing from Iraq, the first step is to redefine "supporting the troops" as withdrawing them, citing the mass of accumulating evidence of the psychological as well as the physical damage that the president is forcing them to endure because he did not raise adequate forces. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress could confirm this evidence and lay the blame for "not supporting the troops" where it really belongs ? on the president. And they could rightly claim to the public that they are supporting the troops by cutting off the funds that he uses to keep U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public is ahead of the both branches of government in grasping this reality, but political leaders and opinion makers in the media must give them greater voice.

Congress clearly and indisputably has two powers over the executive: the power of the purse and the power to impeach. Instead of using either, members of congress are wasting their time discussing feckless measures like a bill that "de-authorizes the war in Iraq." That is toothless unless it is matched by a cut-off of funds.

The president is strongly motivated to string out the war until he leaves office, in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused and persisted in making greater each year for more than three years.

To force him to begin a withdrawal before then, the first step should be to rally the public by providing an honest and candid definition of what "supporting the troops" really means and pointing out who is and who is not supporting our troops at war. The next step should be a flat refusal to appropriate money for to be used in Iraq for anything but withdrawal operations with a clear deadline for completion.

The final step should be to put that president on notice that if ignores this legislative action and tries to extort Congress into providing funds by keeping U.S. forces in peril, impeachment proceeding will proceed in the House of Representatives. Such presidential behavior surely would constitute the "high crime" of squandering the lives of soldiers and Marines for his own personal interest.

I wonder if you agree with this writer, Jrenz? And Palehorse?







 
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
We shouldn't have invaded Iraq at all, but this article doesn't prove anything beyond the fact that fighting insurgents who dress like the population that shelters them gets ugly.

Innocents get killed when there is no way to tell combatants from noncombatants until they shoot at you, and when the insurgents intentionally attack from within crowds, houses, and shrines. After it happens enough, the soldiers trying to stay alive stop caring as much.

The citizens of Iraq bear some responsibility for this since they do shelter the insurgents. Even the police look the other way, or even work with us by day then against us by night.

All of which argues for us getting out of the meat grinder, since even the soldiers who aren't maimed or killed come home damaged.

What intersting is that you are 100% on the money!!
Yet we can carry this to almost every war that has been fought!! It`s just a sad fact of war/survival!!

Peace!!!!
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1

So what, in your humble opinion, would be an acceptable war? Or loss of life? Especially when those who are responsible for more attacks on the USA arent a country, but rather a static group with members all over the globe?

I really don't understand what you are asking me. What is an acceptable war? No wars at all would be very acceptable to me.

 
Originally posted by: palehorse74

I know you hate the troops and all, but come on, can't you just go out to the airports and spit on them "like a real man"?!

Can you back up the "spitting" on the troops comment or are you just repeating the old meme....

 
Back
Top