Posted on 01/07/2007 12:56:14 PM PST by rightalien
I went to Iraq prepared to die. A former soldier called out of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), I was a supporter of the war and ready and willing to do my part. I got into decent physical shape, signed my medical waivers, and volunteered for the job of training Iraqi Troops and taking them into combat. I had no illusions as to the potential price I, or my wife and 2-year-old daughter might have to pay. I made my burial wishes known and wrote about 50 letters to my daughter, dated and spaced to guide her through the challenges which I knew would come in life. I made peace with the plausibility of my death, content in my knowledge that our mission was critical for the ultimate stability of the world and the best course available for American security.
When my daughter was 26, she would finally receive the letter explaining my attitudes towards the war and how I felt about my death. This is the phrase which I believe best captured it:
"In order to secure the American people, democracy had to be spread to the region because democratic governments are far less prone to going to war and they are far less prone to internal strife and violence. The process couldn't help but be messy, but it was necessary. Obviously, I don't know how this experiment works out, but you do. If Iraq is a democratic nation now, or if Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi, Kuwait, or one of the others has become democratic, then the war was worth it. However, if we pulled out because we lost too many soldiers and got out in an act of political expediency, then I did die in vain."
Two years have passed since I wrote this. I came back from Iraq over a year ago. When I lie in bed at night, I think about my experiences there and the men I knew who didn't come back. I think about how our government executed the mission and the serious mistakes of the occupation planning. I watch the cynicism of the "elder statesmen" who are willing to allow our young men who have already died, die in vain and willing to sacrifice more young men in order to achieve a politically palatable surrender--which will neither accomplish our mission, nor earn the respect of our foes. I watch as a segment of our society grabs hold of every setback and is almost gleeful at the chaos. They seem to enjoy seeing the president humiliated. And I grow more frustrated every day.
I am frustrated because I know going into Iraq was the correct strategic decision. But for some reason, our administration decided to do the occupation in an utterly incompetent manner. If we had just kept the Iraqi Army and police intact, been willing to put in 200,000 more troops for the duration of the occupation, and made sure every unemployed Iraqi man had a job, we could have cut off the insurgency before it even started. We would have made that first step towards a democratic Middle East. We would have struck fear in the hearts of our enemies. We would have created a close ally in the country that occupies perhaps the most strategic piece of land in the world.
But we didn't. A suspension of reality and an unwillingness to engage our enemies in total war instead created an environment where the skeptics have an opening to declare their victory by our defeat. Meanwhile our president is either unwilling and unable both to articulate the stakes in the conflict and give the American people reason to continue to make the investment.
Almost four years into the war, the comparisons to Vietnam have finally become at least somewhat relevant. We are engaged in a war with a strategic importance the administration either can't or won't articulate. While we overwhelmingly defeat the enemy when our forces meet on the battlefield, we are unwilling to demonstrate the patience required to wage a counter insurgency. Our forces are slow to give responsibility back to host nation troops. Most importantly, our country again fails to demonstrate a level of will commensurate to that of our enemies'.
On my desk there is a form I need to return to the army. They want to know what I plan to do. My choices are: stay in the IRR; join a reserve unit; or resign my commission.
By any measure of logic I should resign my commission, but I can't quite bring myself to do it. I still believe in the war. And I feel if my country needs me again, I should be willing and available to return. Indeed, I would gladly return, for as long as the war took-- if I knew my country and its leadership had a commitment to the cause matching my own.
Do we?
J.B. Smith served in Iraq from December 2004 to September 2005 as an advisor to three Iraqi Infantry Battalions.
He previously served on active duty from 1992-1999 in the US, Korea, Germany and Bosnia. He lives with his family in North Carolina.
Exactly my question. Do they know what they want??? Do they care about our heroes who risk their life??? Do they continue court marshaling the troops for doing their job??? Do they know, care about the consequences??? Please God, the warriors and this country really need your help.
I think he underestimates the enemy in thinking the occupation could have been easy if only... It is hard because they are fighting us.
Yeah - and can you imagine the screaming of the MSM if that path was chosen? Keeping the "Nazis" in power while we double the amount of troops? Sometimes, alternatives also have unintended consequences...
The myth has to die. There was no Iraqi Army anymore. The old Iraqi Army was a bad sovieteque joke. Their armor/airforce/navy/heavy weapons were destroyed. The enlisted men deserted their army and went home. What was left was a bunch of broken, mostly Baathist Officers. Disbanding this paper "army" was no mistake. The mistake was not to built the New Iraqi Army earlier. The first experiments with a Civil Defense Corps and a small Police-Army were disastrous. The way the Iraqi Army is built today should have happened already in 2003.
And in many ways, it's harder than it needs to be. The troops' hands are tied in many instances because of the desire of the higher ups in the military and political
"leadership" to fight a politically correct war.
I would strongly urge this person to continue service in our armed forces.
There is not a more noble profession on the earth presently.
The President has consistently articulated the vision to win. He does not have a media that gloats over him with bogus photos of him with a baby in his arms.
The troops have won and continue to win in Iraq.
94% of Iraqis despise al Qaeda-- which is a much higher percentage than here in the US. CNN openly runs analysts who support the return of Islamic courts to govern Somalia.
History has well informed us that Vietnam and Somalia were not lost by solders but by politicians.
I think Bush has done a commendable job. I think the fact that he proposes to increase troop commitments in face of the Democratic win of congress is a testament to his wisdom and courage.
I personally doubt half of the carnage reports from Bagdad are even true. I know many of them are false and I know that our media refuses to embed with soldiers to offer us the truth.
I also realize that both conservatives and liberals are agreed in their contempt for this president.
It is wrong to pull out from Iraq and everyone knows. I could care less if I am the last person who says so. It will always be wrong.
Simple solution:Get rid of the "rules of engagement" - we don't need more troops, destroy Al Sadr his militia & any other dead enders (make examples of them), warn Iran & Syria that ANY evidence of interference in Iraqi affairs will be met with swift & violent retribution upon their govt. & military leadership command & control as well as ability to wage war and then have the testicular fortitude to do it.Sadly, it is not going to happen.Deja Vu all over again.
This loyal citizen speaks for all Americans who believe in our cause.
"Sad tales" by brave vets notwithstanding, we support our Commander in Chief, and we salute the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who serve loyally whether they personally agree with each and every executive decision.
It's what soldiering is about.
As am I, but for reasons that weren't sited by the Soldier.
1. The President should not have stated that Islam is a "peaceful religion".
2. Minimization of civilian casualties at all cost, is stupid for any war!
3. Bowing to LIBERAL WORLD CONCERNS was wrong as well.
4. We should have attacked Iraq much sooner than we did, and also carpet bombed Tehran.
5. Members of the American press and as well as the Liberal Kennedy types in congress should have been brought up on Federal charges as traitors.
War is war, and our soldiers are our own flesh and blood, of whom we ought to hold at a much higher value, than to any anti American Muslim living in the 3rd world!
Trying to achieve some obscure and meaningless and far fetched political objective, by means of political manipulations with our Military commanders, as to how to conduct a war, is stupid at worst, and foolish at best!
War should always be all out, and the objective to any war is to "Crush and annihilate" your enemy.
We haven't done that, because our commanders are playing containment games with the enemy. And while I'm at it here; World opinion of us, is not what is important, and it never has been!
If you think that it is, then clearly you are on the wrong side.
the comparisons to Vietnam have finally become at least somewhat relevant
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.