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

[jim35]

"...andwhat makes it worse is that it's clear that this has been the result of a huge fraud perpetrated by incompetents and people who do not have America's own interests at heart..."

What is clear is that you are giving aid and comfort to our enemies in time of war. No big surprise that you live outside the U.S., what bothers me is that you're going to vote. Quit trying to pretend that you are in favor of what is good for the U.S., or that you supported the war in the beginning. I think you're a liar. Iraq was a danger because it would eventually have given WMD to our terrorist enemies, or used them again itself, to our detriment. They DID have WMD, and the fact that we haven't found stockpiles doesn't mean we haven't found the means to produce them, a will to use them, a connection to international terrorism, plus they had tried to assassinate GHWB, and had a hatred for the U.S. in general. Ignoring this threat would have been catastrophic. There is a word for those who provide aid and comfort to the enemy during times of war. Can you guess what it is?

[Alberta's Child]

That's the first time I have ever heard of such ridicolous rankor! Please provide proof of this claim.

I don't think that's a big secret -- I seem to remember Richard Perle stating this quite clearly back in 2002.

[r9etb]

But I'd be very interested in seeing one of your proofs of a negative (and not in a mathematical context since I am not a mathematician).

Tell you what: I'll show you the proof after you demonstrate that the statement "You cannot prove a negative," is true.

[Broadside Joe]

"I'm sorry you find an open exchange of views so disturbing."

What I honestly find disturbing is not the expression of 'views', but rather the all out avoidance of 'examples' or 'reasons' for taking out Saddam per your request. And instead of admitting that you either forgot or were wrong you simply try and move the goal post. That my friend is EXACTLY what a liberal would do. That's the only weapon they have.

[safeasthebanks]

"Bush and his administration's going on and on with unfounded claims that are presented as uncontrovertible fact and that are then dispoved on the ground is indeed either deliberate lying or sheer incompetence. You choose."

And the dissembling keeps on comin'.... YOu have stated on this thread time and again that Bush lied. Now understand, FR is a place where adults come to debate issues, and, as adults, we are expected to back up our statements with facts. YOu still have provided none.

We'll get around to debating the "sheer incompetence" charge after you either put up or shut up on the lying charge. Understand junior?

[jim35]

"...virtually all of the military experts are saying that we are undermanned..."

Yeah, all of the "experts" except the ones in command in Iraq. The President has said, over and over, that he will provide more troops if General Abizaid requests them. He hasn't requested them. Ask HIM why.

[Dog Anchor]

And of course Iraq was not the 'home base for terrorism' as if there has to be one.

Correct. Iran, Syria and Afghanistan were the home base for terrorism.

The U.S. has neutralized Afghanistan and Iraq which is in
between Iran and Syria. Bold and brillaint geopolitical strategy.

No, I would rather not go to war or execute such international use of military power. But then, I would not attack the U.S. homeland by any strech of the imagination.

[jim35]

"...The first day I saw "conservatives" using Bill Clinton, the U.N., Hans Blix, etc. as credible reinforcement of the Bush administration's rationale for the war, I knew the whole thing was a fraud..."

These conservatives are merely pointing out that noone, not even our opponents, had any doubts about the presence of WMD in Iraq. This is not a fraud, this is simply the truth. The fact that these opponents are, in general, liars, does not detract from the fact that EVERYONE believed this to be the case. Nor does it prove that WMD don't still exist somewhere in an Iraqi spider hole.

[CSM]

"Of course I know what a WMD is. I also know that Iraq had none before the war."

If you had specific intelligence that led to you knowing these things as facts, you should be tried and found guilty of treason. There was no reason for us to put American lives at risk if this information was available. If you had it, and kept it to yourself, then you committed a treasonous act.

[Broadside Joe]

"But it is an incredibly long time to have 120,000 soldiers in Iraq,"

We had more than that during the war. And aside from all the hand wringing guess what? We won. This all reminds me of that cartoon where there were three kids in the back seat of car yelling "Is it Viet Nam Yet?"...

[Alberta's Child]

We were prepared to move much earlier, however the likes of you prevented it and demanded more "international cooperation." Another concession by the administration that is resulting in a "slapping" by those of you on the left!

You never heard me demand any such international cooperation. In fact, I said at the time that this administration's "concession" in this regard was disgraceful, because you cannot have it both ways -- if Saddam Hussein represented a real threat to the United States, then by delaying the war in this manner the Bush administration failed to place the interests of the United States above that of the "international community."

[mrsmith]

But the 120,000 strength- at this time- was what the administration did decide upon.
Sure some had less and some had larger estimates, but that is what the administration went with.

It's hard to fault them for that.
Even after the very serious setback of the failure of the new Iraqi security forces they only had to increase their numbers by about 15%.

[Alberta's Child]

Since I am not a Canadian and never have been, I'll consider your entire post pretty much irrelevant.

[CSM]

"In fact, this is my basic complaint about how this administration has performed on this specific issue -- they've done things the way I would have expected the Clinton administration to do them."

Yep, taking an aggressive stance and taking the war on terror to the reagion where their strength lies is certainly the same thing as doing nothing. In fact, underfunding the intelligence community and military is the same strengthening these organizations in your mind.

And I heard that canada's schools were better than ours!

[jim35]

"...The fact is that they had no WMD with any kind of capacity to be used against us. Everyone now knows that..."

Everyone knows that? Take your eyes off the London Guardian for a few minutes, talk to someone besides common Eurotrash, and realize that YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS do not make up EVERYONE. What EVERYONE knows, is that Saddam had WMD, used WMD, attacked his neighbors, supported terrorism, and hated the U.S. Suddenly, EVERYONE knows that he never had WMD? You are an idiot.

[Broadside Joe]

Go ahead and keep dancing and moving the goal post. I gave you two KNOWN reasons beside the WMD for taking him out. You just refuse to acknowledge it.


Thanks for playing.