AN EMAIL FROM THE FRONT

andrew sullivan ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | in iraq

[dennisw]

AN EMAIL FROM THE FRONT:
Here's an email from a soldier I first corresponded with when he was a cadet at West Point. He's legit - and his email is worth printing in full, I think. I'm not endorsing everything he says, but it's worth hearing what a very bright and committed young soldier is going through right now:

Troop strength - I think we have consistently underestimated the number of troops it would take to pacify Iraq. Gen Shinseki's original estimates were much closer to the mark. The fact that the 1st Armored Division (my unit) has now been extended for at least 4 months shows there aren't enough troops - in order to deal with a fairly minor uprising we had to break the one-year-boots-on-ground pledge. If we had had a strategic reserve, this would not be necessary. However, the dirty secret is that there aren't any more troops to be had - at least not the active-duty armor/infantry brigades and divisions requried to fight a tough enemy. Furthermore, the frenetic destruction that occured after the fall of Baghdad set us way back in terms of reconstruction - more troops could have limited if not prevented the extensive looting.

Sadir et al. - Although his uprising is seen as a ominious sign for the coalition, it does have an upside. His poorly trained and poorly equiped rag-bad militia is being chewed up by our army. His defeat and eventual marginalization will serve the coalition well. After one year of occupation, I think many Iraqis have come to see the army as rather toothless - we get blown up by roadside bombs or mortars and yet we continue to rebuild schools, enforce the laws, train police etc. Now because of Fallujah and what has been going on in Baghdad, our potency and resolve are on full display. My task force alone has killed many insurgents in the last two weeks - something that was not happening before. By confronting us in a conventional way, Sadir et al. are playing to our military strengths - and it isn't going well for them.

Long term prospects - I have to admit that after one year here I am largely pessimistic. Iraqi society is sick in many ways. Sometimes it's hard to tell if Saddam was the problem or the symptom. I just don't know how a society so divided along ethnic and tribal lines, with no democratic or liberal traditions and almost zero respect for the rule of law can build any kind of society accept and autocratic one. I'm not ashamed that the US came here with good intentions and noble sentiments about the universality of our values - democracy, liberty, the rule of law etc., but I think all our efforts might be eventually futile. In essence, we have given the Iraqis an enormous gift, but they don't seem to be seizing the opportunity. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink...

The Army - Most soldiers in my unit were pretty demoralized by the extension. We were promised a one year tour and now that promise has been broken. Retention will certainly suffer. However, we are facing a difficult time in Iraq and our continued presence is necessary. What I would like to hear and I think most soldiers feel the same way - is for someone high up to say "Look, we didn't plan for this. Things have gotten screwed up and we need your continued sacrifice. This is why it is so important you stay." Instead we have gotten vague comments about "managing the troop redeployment" - as if it were some little snafu or inconvenience. The truth is, our division is now getting ready for another bloody and hellishly hot summer that none of us expected to ever go through again.

Good and bad. But it's only one year.

- 1:42:52 AM

[Alberta's Child]

It was stated they we would be there for years.

120,000 of them?

[neefer]

The fact is that they had no WMD with any kind of capacity to be used against us. Anthrax in the mail killed Americans.

Saddam was a murderous dictator. Not a nice guy. So what. Why is that our problem? Bin Laden doesn't fall into the nice guy category either, and until 9/11/01, your logic for not going after bad guys with ill intent would have made more sense.

[Dog Anchor]

Foreign Affairs
The Wall Street Journal
The Economist
Reason
Insight
The New Republic
Biography of Theodore Roosevelt
Science
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Victor Hugo
Nikos Kazantzakis
Henry James
William James
Henry Miller
Aristotle
Ayn Rand

[CSM]

"It seems pretty clear that they lied. And that this war is pointless and harmful to America."

Expat is a very apt name for you. Do you also consider the Chirac, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, H.Clinton and UN statements declaring the existance of WMD also lies? Everyone in the world had the same intelligence and everyone knew that WMD existed in Iraq. It is just a matter of time before they are found.

How has America been harmed? It seems to me that the concentration of terrorist attacks in the ME is a benefit to America. No attacks on US soil is somehow harmful to us? Check your priorities!

[Broadside Joe]

"No I don't think Iraq supported terrorism against the US anywhere near the run-up to war. Do you have a shred of evidence that it did"

Oh it had to be against us alone? Did you forget our Dept of State people that were killed in the west bank? Do you know who Hamas is? And it had to be "in the run up to the war"? Keep moving the goal post, go ahead I guess that's all you can do. Slick willy should have nuked them when Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41.

How's that for "other reasons"?

[Coop]

The entire series of claims about WMD and Al-Qaeda. All lies. Everyone knows it.

An entire series of 'em? And everyone knows? Well, then it should be quite easy for you to prove. Please proceed.

[Blessed]

> Everyone now knows that and even the administration is tactitly admitting it. Intent to use them would be the only legitimate reason for a war and it is clear that Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of this administration lied our country into war.<

You don't consider genocide as a legitamit reason for war?
Why does the WMD have to be a threat to continental US to be a treat to the world and the US? (Kuwait and Israel were in reach of his missles)

The problem with our thinking over the past 15 years in this country is this idea that if we don't get a perfect outcome their must be a reason and somone must be held responsible.A baby is born with birth defects it's the Dr's fault.Terrorists act it is someones fault for not preventing it.I wonder if this is not brought on by the computer age."Garbage in garbage out" implies perfection is obtainable.

[MissAmericanPie]

Iraq should be divided up between all the zealots, with a nice big slice for the Kurds. Then we can leave them to kill each other and do the job for us. It probably took someone as brutal as Saddam to control those fools over there and force them to co-exist.

Our quick exit may de-stablize the entire middle east, leaving them busy killing each other. Iran will, no doubt, attempt to rush in, Syria will object. Not really a bad result, on the face of it.

[Broadside Joe]

"120,000 of them?"


Nope. As the the Iraqi forces were built up we would slowly stand down. This has all been explained before many times over in the press.

[conserv13]

The answer is clearly to split the country up into three new countries.

I agree, but what happens when those three 'new' countries start fighting each other? They will fight over oil $, water, Turkey will not get along with a 'Kurdistan', etc...

I can see why we supported Saddam in the 80s when we HAD to to balance Iran, and why the US does support dictatorships when it is in our interest.

[Alberta's Child]

Why does the WMD have to be a threat to continental US to be a treat to the world and the US? (Kuwait and Israel were in reach of his missles)

That's exactly the point. You've presented a perfectly valid argument for why Saddam Hussein was a problem . . . for Kuwait and Israel.

[neefer]

True, Ex, there were plenty of reasons to go after Bin Laden before 9/11.

Going after Hussein turned Khadaffy into a "good guy." WMD or not, the war in Iraq sends a message to trouble makers.

[Alberta's Child]

Understood. Did the Bush administration even think in their wildest dreams that 120,000 troops would be there even one year later?

[CSM]

"As far as I can tell the whole thing stinks and I will be casting my vote accordingly (no, not Kerry)."

With your attitude and slant towards the BBC, why don't you step up to the plate and denounce your US citizenship? Why even participate in our elections if you don't have the vision to still view these events from an American perspective instead of the BBC perspective?