Posted on 04/16/2004 5:07:20 AM PDT by 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.Good and bad. But it's only one year.
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.
There are people who just love to say this. Note, however, that it is a self-contradictory statement.
If you cannot prove a negative, then you have no idea whether or not your statement (itself a negative) is correct. Yet in saying "you cannot prove a negative," you are treating the unproveable statement is if it were true. As the great half-man said, "Logic is a little bird that smells bad."
(In reality, however, in many cases it is possible to prove a negative -- people do it in math all the time.)
Interesting to see what Canada would do if attacked. Depend on the United States to save them? Where is their military?
Amazing how those who can't protect themselves know how to criticize the actions of those who actually do something about the terrorist threats.
Thanks for posting this soldier's email. I would humbly submit this as an exhibit in the case for those of us who opposed the war with Iraq from the get go. Contrary to the claims against us that we were anti Americans, terrorists, appeasers, isolationists, etc. what we were was consistent to conservative and libertarian understanding of failures of central planning and the dangers of ideologues. Ideologues start with grandiose ideas and build upon them. When reality conflicts with the basic tenets of their faith they dismiss reality, those unrepentant communists around the world for example. This is why some of us have disagreed with neoconservatives. They are central planners and ideologues. They had an idea for transforming the middle east and indeed the world. From the start their critics predicted this mess in Iraq. They predicted the need for large amounts of troops to pacify the country after the military was defeated. In fact the generals in the pentagon took issue with the neocon civilian authorities and were harshly slapped down by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. al. In summary everything the neocons predicted has failed to materialize and everything their critics said has come true. The cost has been heavy in blood, treasure and American prestige. Unfortunately the ideologues have learned nothing from failure and wish only to invade more Arab countries - preventative war you know - making the world safe for democracy, etc.
P.S. I'd like to add that those of us on the right who criticized the invasion of Iraq always thought the reasons for the war were fraudulent.
More than they'll ever know. Much more.
As if there was any doubt about you being a disruptor not interested in a good faith argument, this response to Coop's question settles that.
As mentioned earlier, not finding WMD's is no more proof of a LIE than a weatherman's forecast turning out wrong is.
Now, again, please offer just one shred of real evidence of a LIE on Bush's part, or go crawl back under your rock.
Well, boys and girls, this is what's known as a lie right here! They have found all sorts of things, including illegal missiles, weapons programs, WMD precursors, WMD storage sites and equipment... everything but WMDs.
Kay's Interim Report (hint: notice how I actually back up what I say with supporting evidence? Fascinating concept, huh?)
So you can't prove a lie at all, not even a little. And at this time I can't tell they were telling the truth about Iraq having recent WMD stockpiles. But the circumstantial evidence is overwhelmingly in my favor.
So anyways, you were bloviating how there was this big series of lies and everyone knows 'em. Well, I do not. Please educate me and provide some examples.
No. But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq, when you consider that many of the original estimates of manpower requirements to topple Saddam Hussein in the first place (by the civilians in the Bush administration, of course -- not the military leadership) were nowhere near that high.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.