Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AN EMAIL FROM THE FRONT
andrew sullivan ^ | Wednesday, April 14, 2004 | in iraq

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.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: army; iraq; lettershome
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-273 next last
To: ExpatInLondon
ExpatInLondon...

I will give you credit for one thing. Judging from your by
line at least you followed thru on your threat to leave the U.S. if George Bush was elected.
41 posted on 04/16/2004 6:33:27 AM PDT by Dog Anchor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ExpatInLondon
"Sorry but actually the UN were not convinced"

You mean Hans Blix. Now did you forget all of the missiles (of recent vintage) that not only exceeded the range allowed by the UN but also were designed to carry chem/bio?

Did you also forget UN Res. 1441 that passed 15-0? It started out by saying that Saddam was already in material breach and that it was a FINAL opportunity to comply or face serious consequences?

"and about connections to Al-Qaeda then I would love to know what they were."

Did Saddam or did he not support terrorism? Careful now because this will define whether or not you're going to be intellectually honest.
42 posted on 04/16/2004 6:33:43 AM PDT by Broadside Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ExpatInLondon
What you expect to find? A warehouse that says "WMD's are us"? That stuff was moved to Syria or hid in the desert.
43 posted on 04/16/2004 6:35:06 AM PDT by wordsofearnest (It ain't the whistle that pulls the train.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ExpatInLondon
"Um, I assume you mean the Congressional 'authorisation' that was based on the lies being put out by Bush administration?

And actually under our Constitution Congress does not say 'why' we go to war. Congress is the sole organ of government authorised to declare war. They're supposed to be neither a rubber stamp nor an echo chamber for administration lies."


In the United States, we spell authorization with a "Z", not an "S". Your correction makes you look petty and ignorant.

I am having trouble understanding why you are repeating DNC talking points on a conservative website. It isn't April first anymore, not even in Britain. I think I'll just report you for abuse and wash my hands of this.

APf
44 posted on 04/16/2004 6:37:36 AM PDT by APFel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Coop
As far as securing the country, who in their right mind thought it would be easy? Umm, nobody?

Baloney. Go back and do some research on the conflicting views of Paul Wolfowitz and the military brass at the Pentagon back in early 2003. Wolfowitz's dismissive attitude towards their manpower estimates was thoroughly disgraceful and (now that we know they were right) should have been sufficient cause to fire him.

If we are willing to accept the notion that our country's military affairs are going to be overseen by a bunch of snot-nosed Ivy Leaguers who would eat 200 pounds of crap before they would even think of wearing a military uniform, we have no reason to complain that John Kerry, Al Gore, or Al Sharpton would be disastrous as this country's commander-in-chief.

46 posted on 04/16/2004 6:38:51 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ExpatInLondon
Bush was ill served by advisors who lied about WMD.

Who, specifically, lied? Clinton, Kerry, the U.N., and most of the anti-Bush brigade drew the same conclusions from the same intelligence. A lie is something that you know to be untrue. Where is the evidence that Bush advisors had that knowledge?

47 posted on 04/16/2004 6:38:53 AM PDT by JimRed (Fight election fraud! Volunteer as a local poll watcher, challenger or district official.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: ExpatInLondon
I'd rather think you're not intentionally lying about the authorization and assume you didn't read it and don't care to.


Nonetheless, Congress said most publically and officially why it authorized war against Iraq.

49 posted on 04/16/2004 6:40:52 AM PDT by mrsmith ("Oyez, oyez! All rise for the Honorable Chief Justice... Hillary Rodham Clinton ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator

To: Coop
"See, you may live in your critical little vacuum world, Richard, but the rest of us live in reality. You cannot simply send 300K troops into Iraq and ask the rest of the world to please be on their best behavior. These senior folks are making extremely tough, life-or-death decisions with resource constraints."

Look you are taking out your frustration on me. I'm not the enemy. No one is a bigger defender of the war on terrorism than I am. I was for going into Iraq; still am but my only point is that while the war went very well, the occupation has been a disaster. One can put all the lipstick on this pig they want, but it is still a pig. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney all out to be fired and a new team brought in if Bush intends to be reelected.
51 posted on 04/16/2004 6:42:45 AM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
NOBODY with a clue thought winning the peace would be easy. Nobody.

Heck, I was dismissive of Shinseki's 300K troop estimates, and I still am. No apologies. But that doesn't mean I thought by any stretch that things would be easy. Some folks are just unable to comprehend the complex challenges involved.

52 posted on 04/16/2004 6:43:08 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: Tiger500
Look, virtually all of the military experts are saying that we are undermanned there. Are they all wrong?
54 posted on 04/16/2004 6:43:58 AM PDT by RichardW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ExpatInLondon
It seems pretty clear that they lied.

It seems pretty clear you're not very objective. If I say my car is in the parking lot, but go out to find it's been stolen, does that mean I'm a liar? Of course not.

If you're going to call this Administration liars, then please also includes the Impeached Rapist's administration (there's a shocker), the United Nations, Hans Blix and friends, UNSCOM, ...

55 posted on 04/16/2004 6:45:30 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Coop
NOBODY with a clue thought winning the peace would be easy. Nobody.

Yes, they did. The timing of this war was originally aimed at getting U.S. troops out of harm's way long before the 2004 election. That's why John Kerry's best campaign ad this summer will be George W. Bush's silly performace on the deck of that aircraft carrier last year.

You think these people don't realize this? Of course they do.

56 posted on 04/16/2004 6:48:27 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RichardW
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney all out to be fired and a new team brought in if Bush intends to be reelected.

What an insulting comment. If you're truly a big defender of the war on terror, then I would hope you could comprehend the difficulties involved. The occupation has by no stretch been a disaster. Unfortunately some expected Iraq would look like Hong Kong inside a week. And instead of placing blame where it lies - with Hussien, Islamic terrorists, Ba'athist remnants, Iran and Syria (to name a few) - you run around trying to blame the people who have done the most to help us make real progress in this war on terror.

Oh yeah, you're just a huge supporter!! < / sarcasm >

Reminds me of the saying "With friends like you..."

57 posted on 04/16/2004 6:50:02 AM PDT by Coop (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Coop
If you're going to call this Administration liars, then please also includes the Impeached Rapist's administration (there's a shocker), the United Nations, Hans Blix and friends, UNSCOM . . .

This point is a particularly interesting one, because in my mind it confirmed all of my hesitation about this war in the first place.

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.

58 posted on 04/16/2004 6:51:24 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE north strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"The timing of this war was originally aimed at getting U.S. troops out of harm's way long before the 2004 election."

Actually I'd say it had more to do with Afghanistan, the UN and the weather.
59 posted on 04/16/2004 6:51:45 AM PDT by Broadside Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

Comment #60 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-273 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson