Published in todays NYTimes.
To the Editor:
Re “A Mournful Month” (front-page photograph, Oct. 30):
Last week, my daughter’s fiancé, a marine, returned from seven months in Falluja, Iraq. As I greeted him in our home, so relieved that he was safe, he looked at me with incredulity and said, “Not a scratch.”
Truly, it was amazing to us that he came back without a physical mark.
The emotional toll may be revealed in time, but for now we are all experiencing survivors’ guilt when we see the photos of the wives, parents and children of the ones who did not come back.
We spent last evening hearing stories from the streets of Falluja, and the clear message was that the citizens of Iraq don’t want us there.
No one can be trusted, lawlessness abounds, and the control that the Marines had in the city when my future son-in-law arrived last March has been lost to the insurgency.
Let’s get all our troops out of there before any more lives are wasted.
Helen
Sudbury, Mass., Oct. 30, 2006
You left out a second major problem with this fiasco as regards the guard and reserves. They have no, repeat no equipment today. It is all in Iraq. To wit: our son was in a cavalry unit in the guard. Off to Iraq, home and equipment, much of it worn out (Bradley, Humvees, etc) left in Iraq. His unit could not return to Iraq or Afganistan for at least five years. They have to reorganize to light infantry and retrain for that mission.
In a word as my spouse, a thirty year veterans like to say: Bush has killed the national guard.
Posted by nlacey at November 1, 2006 07:32 AMHelen of Sudbury is a pretty smart cookie, and nlacey thanks for your informative comments. How exactly are we're going to "re-equip" the Iraqi Army when we've blown through all our equipment?
Oh well, I guess we can borrow and spend even more of our chilren's future away. The sky's the limit, right?
paradox, failed wars are very hard to stop, as you say, and failed occupations perhaps more so (look at today's West Bank occupation---and Napoleon's Spanish Ulcer, and Spain's decades-long attempt to supress the revolt of the Netherlands).
But if I remember right, military familes, and the officer corps especially, very strongly supported the Idiot-in-Chief's reelection in 2004 by tremendous margins.
That was our nation's chance to repudiate Bushism and ameliorate the Iraq debacle. The military establishment didn't help us. Now, the full blown disaster has overtaken us.
Hey US military: maybe Democrats aren't the worst thing imaginable for national security and the health of the military! Just a thought.
Posted by euzoius at November 1, 2006 08:13 AMThe National Guard equipment will be cannibalized in order for the remaining equipment to stay working.
That's not how it is supposed to work but in time of crisis, the term "make it happen" will apply.
Soldiers will scramble to make their equipment right. Regular Army, Reserve, and Guard units will be stealing from each other to make sure that their vehicles are in top working order.
I can't imagine the backlog of parts on order. I bet the term critical spare is not often heard.
Bad and misleading post. The Army deserves absolutely none of the blame for the fiasco--the civlian chickenhawks that pushed them into it (Wolfowitz, Feith, etc.) deserve all of the blame. SHINSEKI TOLD THEM! Remember? The Number One guy in the military told Congress and the world it would take several hundred thousand troops to do the job. He was ridiculed by Number One Chickenhawk Wolfowitz and told to hit the road. The generals have to take orders, no matter how stupid, from the SecDef and Prez. They tried to talk some sense into those worthless cocksuckers but they "knew it all." If you read the book Fiasco he shows that the Army was unprepared to fight a counterinsurgency--right. That's because after the tragedy of Vietnam we hoped mightily there would never be another counterinsurgency campaign. Why should there be? The Powell Doctrine, now abandoned, said go in with great force, win, and get out.
Posted by howard hughes blues at November 1, 2006 09:32 AMI agree with euzoius, by the 2004 election, members of the military should have known bushco had no clue as to how to "win" in Iraq, and helped us vote them out of office.
The brain is a terrible thing to wash.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 1, 2006 10:38 AMThe military have a responsibility to have stopped crimes against humanity. instead, they participated. they took orders from a tool, did not use any thought, and are hence
deep in their own creation. we deserve better. Nancy Pelosi will put responsible people in power when she becomes president in a few months
Steve,
This post is just amazing. Thank you. It is excellent. I have posted it on about 5 blogs siting LeftCoaster as well.
The reactions are: " vavoom.....this says it. " I put it in the DailyKos comments, ThinkProgress, RawStory, americablog and crooks and liars.....It is a great post.
We can't let the Republicans run with this. They have to be shut down today on the Kerry thing. He needs to come out swinging today..again. All he has to say is that the joke was poor and then scream..."how dare you question my respect for the troops! " And then he should list off the points in your post.
Posted by s at November 1, 2006 11:22 AMBecause the Generals are just political puppets and don't have the character it takes to stand up to the radical lying lairs who stovepiped the intel and lied this country into war cj
Posted by cleve at November 1, 2006 11:54 AMIntriguing analysis, and the deployment of the Guard might have raised more concern if the media landscape had not changed so radically since the 1970s. Back then, even though the media basically went along with the VietNam war and the domino theory and all that for quite a while, there was not the full-on suppression and marginalization of dissenting views that exists now in the Fully Corporatized Media (tm). From the NY Times and the Washington Post down to highly corporatized suburban dailies, not to mention Clear Channel radio or the see-no-evil Networks, there was no questioning of the "cooked" information that led to the Iraq invasion, only cheerleading and more of the same.
Ownership diversity of the media since the '70s has decreased by, what, two orders of magnitude? Another case where quantitative change has a qualitative effect.
Posted by baked potato at November 1, 2006 12:44 PMShinseki did stand up to them. He said we need x number of troops, knowing that many wasn't available, so he was saying there should not be an invasion of Iraq. He was pushed out the door. A lot of other soldiers got out if they could. That's all you can do.
Posted by howard hughes blues at November 1, 2006 02:56 PMsuffice it to say, i have been studying the amerikan involvement in indochina for decades. outside of the library of congress, perhaps widener, perhaps the new york public library, i think that i have the most comprehensive collection of volumes on that topic.
though you think that amerikan officers who rotated through the amerikan involvement in the indochina war[1946 - 1975] must have learned some lessons of value, the questions remain....did they, or didn't they?
personally, i think that the amerikan military has been brain dead for decades. that the amerikan military is the most stultifying entity in amerikan culture. and most disastrously, amerikan corporations use this military as their organizational model.
in my library, there are two volumes that reveal very important insights into the indochina war.
1. THE AIR WAR IN INDOCHINA. AIR WAR STUDY GROUP. CORNELL UNIVERSITY. ISBN#0249-6.
2. WAR OF NUMBERS: AN INTELLIGENCE MEMOIR. sam adams. isbn#188364223x
what was it that these books reveal? THE AIR WAR IN INDOCHINA reveals that in spite of the fact that the UNITED STATES OF AMERIKA dropped more aerial munitions on indochina[principally on our ally, south vietnam] than were dropped on nazi germany, fascist italy, japan, throughout WW2, it wasn't enough to vanquish a population that cared to resist our invasion.
WAR ON NUMBERS reveals that the UNITED STATES OF AMERIKA preferred to ignore the reality of the opponent's order of battle. therefore, lbj, rmn knowingly refrained from raising the troop levels so as to wage the war successfully. because to have done that would have probably alienated the electorate.
i could say so much more about the amerikan military. personally, from those that i have encountered since 2001, USMA grads, i must say that they are still ignorant.
so, i close this way...
ponder on this. the amerikan officer class is brain dead.
or ponder on this. the amerikan officer class kowtows to the civilian politicians. the constitutional role.
even when the officer class knows that their masters, the amerikan poltical class is corrupt.
this country is in a dire strait. as i see it , the amerikan military needs to effect a coup. adhering to their oath to defend the constitution, the bill of rights. removing the unelected gangsters who have been/are subverting the philosophical underpinngs of this nation.
but i don't favor the idea of a golpe either.
so, we, the populace, are stuck in a horrible place.
how can we be saved?
Posted by albertchampion at November 1, 2006 07:19 PMparadox,
Your right. The national security elite has really blown it.
Whatever their abilities, managing national security isn't one of them.
Irrespective of the $500 billion/year cosmic arsenal and unparalled spin machine at their fingertips, occupation still requires young lads and lasses with rifles...and plenty of them. These economic conscripts in the Army and Marines are worn out after multiple tours and the IRR is being drained to meet personnel needs.
If they really want to win, the task at hand is clear:
Mary and Elizabeth Cheney to Iraq.
Nick Rumsfeld to Iraq.
Andrew Rove to Iraq.
Barbara and Jenna Bush to Iraq.
All their cousins and friends to Iraq.
It may not turn the tide but it's guaranteed to tone up the gene pool.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at November 2, 2006 07:32 AM