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

[CSM]

Same thing with this quote. In context, it was made at a time that our culture was not in a "war mind" mode of operation. After 9/11 the culture changed. At the time of this quote, a pre-emptive operation to liberate Iraq was impossible, after 9/11 it became necessary.

It is a true statement that when/if Iraqis are willing to fight to liberate their own country, the sheer numbers of troops that we sent would not have been necessary. Hence, the current plan that as the Iraqi's gain the ability to keep themselves secure, the rampdown of troop strength will coinside......

[Joe_October]

Irag had WMD. They used them. We sold them to them. No one disputes that.

You are wrong.

Incompetence and lying has nothing to do with the scale of the results. If you are wrong, by your logic you are incompetent and a liar and a disaster and a horrible human being. Hey, just your logic, not mine.

Would you like to nuance your logic again?

No flaw in my argument, but since you are a traitorous, incompetent liar by your own logic, you can't possible see that point.

President Bush (and a majority of the US) thinks it's worth the risk to make the world better by freeing oppressed people and removing a threat to the US. He made his case and the Congress and the UN approved it (mostly because they could not refuse). Further, had we not been attacked and thousands of our citizens killed, we wouldn't have bothered.

There are not enough guns in the world to stop the US military in Iraq. There are enough weak people in the US to stop us (as they did in Vietnam). The terrorists who would burn fellow humans and string their remains up for their children and wives to see thank-you for your support.

If you want to have a hearing about the cause, I'm with you 100%. Only let's do it in 10 years when it doesn't help our enemies. What's the hurry?

Until then, please stay in front of me because like the John Kerry's of the world, I don't want you behind me.

[CSM]

Fine. I officially remove the term lefty from my posts to you. Now, your statement was that the war was started in March to ensure good publicity for re-election (victory).

You seem to conveniently forget that we were prepared to go to war much earlier, when the weather was conducive, and the anti-war contingent kept coming up with moving requirements to make the war "legal". The administration attempted to appease these jokers and what does it get them? Another slap in the face. The fact is that this delay allowed time for SH to move or hide the WMD, it further strengthened their resolve, it put our troops in more danger, etc.

That delay harmed us. That delay is a result of the anti screaming. Now that delay is forgetten and the anti contingent is chanting "Bush lied".

[Coop]

Bush needs victory in Iraq to be reelected. There is no question about this.

No question? Oh, Lord have mercy. If this were true - which it is not - since Iraq is still such a mess then President Bush should be trailing by 15-20 points in the polls.

He is statistically tied nationally, and is leading electorally.

Next silly assertion.

[u-89]

So we agree. The war is about world power and oil. Will you go so far as to admit that the war on terrorism was an excuse to invade Iraq at this time? I submit that the current Iraq war is part of a long range US strategy that goes back to the Bush the Elder administration. The existence of the Soviet Union kept us out of the region. When the USSR crumbled we saw an opportunity to implant permanent forces there. Why do I claim this? Look at a brief list of facts.

- Iraq was in financial trouble due to its war with Iran.

- Kuwait was pumping more oil than OPEC agreement allowed, deflating prices hurting Iraqi recovery. OPEC did not lean on Kuwait despite pleas from Iraq. Also Kuwait was drilling sideways under the border and tapping Iraq's oil.

- Saddam did a lot of saber rattling and warned Kuwait to cease and desist.

- US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie told Saddam "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Thus giving the green light to Saddam to proceed with his threatening action.

- No sooner had Saddam moved than we changed our position.

- We assured Saudi Arabia that our troops would be on their soil only as long as it took to liberate Kuwait.

- By leaving Saddam in power and creating no fly zones we constructed an excuse to make our military presence in the region permanent.

- By replacing Saddam we got a key strategic position in the region for military bases plus we got our troops out of S.A. which was a major sore spot to muslims (like the 9/11 terrorists).

- By taking Iraq we ensured the permanence of the petrol dollar thus securing our economy against the threat of the Euro becoming the standard of exchange for petrol.

- Our company's now get the contracts to update and develop Iraq's oil reserves and France and Russia are out.

As for the concept of central planning what else would you call a few people in D.C. deciding how the world should be structured and run? The president repeatedly stated the other night that "we can change the world." If conservatives truly believe that the folks in D.C. can not effectively run 50 states why should they have faith that D.C. can run the world?

P.S. Does it bother you that our leaders lie to us for the reasons for war? "Restoring democracy to Kuwait," "defeating terrorism [from Iraq]," "spreading democracy." Or is it the acceptable duties of leadership to say anything it takes to get the sheeple to go along with the big plan?

[Coop]

I notice you still refuse to provide one single example to back up your slanderous, outrageous claims.

You're a troll, and not even a particularly bright one.

[CSM]

"You are amazing."

I wouldn't say amazing, it is just that I read with my eyes open. It was pretty easy to see your lies throughout this thread. The "everyone knows" and "not one single proof/case" arguments are to easy to prove as lies. You should know better than to use them.

Either give us proof (as requested many times by multiple posters) or shut your brie hole!

[Prince Charles]

Bttt.

[CSM]

"and that Iraq was closely linked to Al-Qaeda. Not a shred of evidence has emerged to support those claims......."

Liar. I provide two examples of a link between Iraq and SH.

[Coop]

But of course the problem is very simple: we were told that Iraq had WMD (and that our government 'knew' where they were) and that Iraq was closely linked to Al-Qaeda. Not a shred of evidence has emerged to support those claims

Yet another lie. You're pathetic.

[SittinYonder]

So they'll go with Kerry over Bush? I don't see Kerry effectively positioning himself as the competent candidate.

[Joe_October]

I expect no less from you. Please just stay in front of me.

[CSM]

"But WMD has been found and nuetralized in Lybiya as a direct result of the Iraq war."

That is one way to look at it -- and it is certainly the approach taht Bush and Blair take. It may be; it is also the case the Khadaffy had been trying to rid his 'rogue' image for a while now and that being a shrewd politician he knew that Bush and Blair would have really appreciated the timing...

---

Yep, the anti American has just come out. Throughout this thread you have continually called Bush a Traitor and Liar and Incompetant. You have insuinated that Bush is somehow tricking the American public, and the world, into waging war on Iraq with some imperialistic goals in mind. Your tone has basically been that GWB is evil because we haven't found WMD.

Yet, now you say that Khaddafi is just this nice guy that was waiting for an opportunity to give up his WMD. You are sick and I hope you never come back to this country. In fact, you should move to Libya or Syria, if you think our leaders are so evil, but those nice guys are just tryin' to get by!

[CSM]

"People who are claiming that Iraq had WMD -- like Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz -- now need to put up or shut up after a year on the ground and thousands killed.

If they cannot do that then they are liars or fools or both. At any rate they will be out of office by this time next year due to their having lied us into war."

---

Maybe you'll get lucky and we will end up with a nice leader, like maybe Khaddafi!

[jokar]

mark