Posted on 03/12/2006 7:36:24 PM PST by gleeaikin
After spending 8 months in Gulf War I (Aug. 1990 to April 1991) with an elite unit, and now in Afghanistan this soldier has definite opinions on the Iraq/Afghanistan war, politicians and supporting our troops. The threat of civil war in Iraq and the outbreak of suicide bombing in Afghanistan heighten concerns here at home. Here is a front line assessment of implications for the future.
Question: Recent reports indicate that Iraq Sunnis are turning on Al Qaeda. If they are driven out of Iraq, what are the implications for action in Afghanistan?
Answer: "Most likely suicide bombers have made it into Afg. already. Watch for reports of arrests or actual bombings. In many cases it is getting harder and harder to be a suicide bomber in Afg. The communities, even in the cities, are too closely knit. Everybody knows everybody. Someone will identify the new people who don't belong there. The only place Al Qaeda has any credibility is in the countryside where there are no US troops.
"The US Army is the goose that lays golden eggs. We have plenty of money and we spend it. Halliburton is nickel and dime compared to money we waste on local contracts. However, it does buy us friends. The people who have spent some time around us know that we are a good meal ticket and we are not here to turn them into Christians, make their women prostitutes, or eat their children. We are generally decent people. We go to great lengths to respect their culture and not impost our ways on them. However, we are not to be messed with. We are the sleeping giant with great resolve.
I don't see this war ending any time soon. AQ is still out there and they still have supporters. It really doesn't matter what any of these politicians say--we are stuck here. The minute we leave things will start to fall apart.
The worst thing we can do to AQ is to show any potential supporters that US is the one that is going to butter their bread. There is no money in Jihad. These people want JOBS, a HOME and a nice FAMILY. AQ will not bring them peace and prosperity."
Q: In a recent interview after the bombing of the golden mosque, Daniel Pipes expressed concerns about the reactions of Turkey and Iran in the event of the breakup of Iraq. Do you think his pessimism is justified?
A: "I really think Turkey is more concerned about being part of the European Union. [Would not want to make EU mad by invading an Iraq Kurdistan.] They will simply have to live with a border problem that is much like our problem with Mexico.
The Shiites in Iran and Iraq are of different tribes. They have long standing tribal animosities. Yes, they can put this aside in the interest of business (there is a lot of trade along the border) but I don't see an alliance. Besides, they will have their own oil [the Shiites in an independent southern Iraq] and will be fairly independent. Remember, everybody wants their own fiefdom. And don't forget the old Iran-Iraq war was fought in their back yard. There is more tension than teamwork there."
Q: What thoughts do you have on the US political situation regarding the Iraq/Afghanistan warfare?
A: I am very much against my views being used to advance a political agenda. Right now the Dems are reaching out to disgruntled vets--not because they care about vets, but because it advances their own political ambitions. Both sides are to blame for the sorry state of affairs in this war. Both sides also use the military as a mere political tool for their own purposes. Wa have a saying, "there is no justice--just us." If you don't have a dog in this fight then you are just on the outside looking in. No politician has a dog in this fight. Honestly, of this is such a noble cause why don't the children of these politicians join the Army? Only we here and our people back home are sacrificing in this war. For anyone else, this war is just a story on the evening news."
Q: A few weeks ago 4 US military were killed near Kandahar. What are your thoughts on that?
A: "In the minds of many the war is over. We have 12 conditions we must meet before we are allowed to do anything useful. All missions must be approved by the Afg. government. We are no longer allowed to operate at will. These 4 guys died because of this. These guys should never have been alone out there like that. They should have been accompanied by a light infantry company. However, we would need a full light infantry division here full time to provide that sort of security to units all over the country. I am not sure the politicians or the American people are willing to pay for a Cold War sized Army. Nor does anyone seem to have the stomach to do what must be done. It seems like everyone seems to know how to run the war better than the people who do this for a living. We are restricted by State Dept. nicities and political correctness. As a result our people get killed. A lot of the guys who go outside the wire are engaged in little more than combat tourism. Remember, we really aren't allowed to do anything useful here."
Q: What do you see for the future of the war and the outlook of the American people?
A: "In Afghanistan I don't see this war ending any time soon. AQ is still out there and they still have supporters. It really doesn't matter what any of these politicians say--we are stuck here. The minute we leave things will start to fall apart.
I just don't think we (as a people) have the will to do what must be done. Armies kill people and break things, and that is not a reality that the American people are comfortable with. I really can't see Alexander or Patton fighting this war the way we are. The ground rules are being set by the State Dept. and we have to follow them.
The problem is that the strategic vision and the tactical reality on the ground do not mesh. We cannot fix what is wrong in this part of the world. The fact of the matter is that these people have more real freedom than we do. [I think he means in Afg.] For the most part anarchy is the norm--not chaos--just the absence of government. What holds these people down is in their own heads. They are slaves to their culture and customs. We cannot liberate these people from their own mind."
Q: What do you see as the future of the war?
A: The war has no clear goal and as such is, it cannot be won because we have yet to define the conditions for victory. The global war on terror is all things to all people. It is whatever people want it to be on any given day. We do not have a clearly defined goal. What are the conditions for victory? When is the war over? When can we go home? This is a forever war."
Q: What can we at home do to support the troops?
A: "How about everyone who "Supports the Troops" volunteer for a nice tax increase to pay for the war? How about a military pay raise? Aren't we worth it? How about some better equipment? How about giving every returning vet a good JOB?"
Yep. Things are going better than the media tells us. My biggest fear is letting political correctness pressure our politicians into folding.
Afghanistan is going to get rocky as the terrorists get run out of Iraq, they will head straight for Afghanistan. I hope we've got gunships trained on the borders there.
Quotes identical to leftists. My son is definitely not a lefty. More of a liberterian. He entered JROTC at age 15, got himself up early for drill, went into the military upon graduation, served in Gulf War I, and now in Afghanistan.
As to his strategic vision, I gave him a copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince" when he was 14. He has been reading ever since. I send all his emails to a WWII vet family friend. He was very impressed by the comments. Asked if son has read Sun Szu's "The Art of War". I said yes. Before we attacked Iraq in 2003, I asked him how many troops he thought we needed to do the job right. He said 450,000. This after Shinsecki had batted out for saying 350,000. Now we have Brimmer saying we should have had 500,000. So much for son's lack of vision. Pace has to back up the boss, same as Brimmer when he was there. Who knows what he really thinks. Of course Bush had to start the war when he did, for political strategy. Summer was coming and too hot to fight. Fall of 2003 would have been to close to the election, so he went in only half prepared.
I appreciate this info though I completely disagree with it.
It is difficult for me to see the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as anything short of monumental successes.
I actually think the Taliban and Saddam were bad.
I recognize that individuals still sympathize with such views but it seems that conditions favor the US in a massive way.
We have pacified Afghanistan in a way the Soviets never could even after a decade of effort.
Iraq has three elections and a US trained military force larger than our current 140,000 plus ground forces. All of this is done in less than 3 years.
Is there a US war that has been more successful than these two?
I question whether WWII was as successful. Death rates of civilians, combatants, etc. are all positive relative to previous wars and better in terms of pre-post war condition comparisons.
I think it is the nay sayers who live in a bubble.
Your son sounds like a great soldier. Bremmer, on the other hand, was an idiot and caused the problems we now have in Iraq, so I don't trust anything he has to say.
Thank you, I thought I was the only one.
I hate jumping to conclusions, and I especially hate it when someone is legit. But, this is a very odd thread, from top to bottom, with a lot of recent sign up dates. And with very different than most we see.
It may be true. This all may be true, but it is certainly a different has some different patterns than we usually see.
I'm afraid for the moment, I agree.
No, you aren't the only one.
It is very strange. No link is provided. Where is this info coming from?
The article itself seems suspiciously filled with CLASSIC left-wing socialist anti-war rhetoric. It's making me scratch my head here.
Two of my sons served on the border region. They think we will be there a very long time just due to the makeup of the region. It is going to take them a very long time to move into the current century. They are proud of the work they did but they think that most Americans have no idea of just how isolated the people are over there.
I would add to that list those who have been there and come back.
The percentage of the general population with any connection to the military or useful knowledge of it is smaller now than it has been in generations. The vast majority have so little clue they are nearly unreachable.
The United States has not mobilized for war. A little less than half the population doesn't even think we should be fighting it. There is no political will to do hard things, like prosecute traitors and compromisers of classified data, invade sanctuaries in "sovereign" states, or assassinate fruit-loop national leaders.
Hussein and Taliban were bad.
I agree entirely. My mother was raving about the evil Baath, and subsequently Hussein 35 years ago. I thought we should have continued GWI for another 24 to 36 hours. Something that no one has mentioned in all that I have read is that Gorbachev was facing a terrible situation with his hard liners. Anyone remember how close it came to him being overthrown. We could not have continued it much longer without giving the hard liners too much ammunition, then I don't know how Russia would have turned out.
What I really thought was unforgiveable was the way Bush Sr. allowed the Iraq planes fly to crush the Shiites in the south after he had specifically encouraged them to revolt. Perhaps his son is trying to expiate some guilt in connection with that shameful episode.
Yes there have been some successes. We will never have Husseins psychopathic and sociopathic sons to deal with. However, the premise was that Iraq's oil wealth would spark the rebuilding of the country. This has not happened, and have you been to the pump lately? The looting should have been stopped hard. A few summary executions in public. Instead we got Rumsfeld's "what are a few pots" crack. Instead of dismissing the upper echalons of the military and the Baath leadership and keeping the troops on payroll, we dismissed them all and as unemployed young men will do, they got restless. So I would say we have had some successes, are muddling through, but there was still a lot of PPPP (Pi.. poor prior planning), SNAFU and FUBAR
Well his indirect slam of the GOP by equating them with the Democrats surely raises questions about his agenda. The Republican party is the biggest supporter the troops have. There are lots of ways to support the war effort besideds signing up. What this guy is doing is subtly using the old 'chickenhawk' slur. If he really believes this I have to wonder if he really knows what he's talking about or if he's really who he says he is.
This is the statement that bothers me the most. This is not only untrue, it's also classic anti-war propoganda. Michael Moore used this argument as a driving force for "Fahrenheit 9/11." I actually believe there are PLENTY of politicians with family members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Q. What can we at home do to support the troops? A: "How about everyone who "Supports the Troops" volunteer for a nice tax increase to pay for the war? How about a military pay raise? Aren't we worth it? How about some better equipment? How about giving every returning vet a good JOB?"
This statement also bothered me. The suggestion of increasing taxes to pay for the war is classic DNC rhetoric. And as far as the military pay raise, Republicans have voted for tremendous amounts of troop funding while Democrats have blocked said funding (or voting for it before you vote against it).
But, it is entirely possible that the person is serving but not a right-winger.
Yep. Talking points through and through. Well, time will tell, if he is correct.
Semper Fi
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.