[Scape]

The Real Iraq We Knew

$1:

Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on, Iraq is in shambles.

As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out.

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

What does Iraq look like on the ground? It's certainly far from being a modern, self-sustaining country. Many roads, bridges, schools and hospitals are in deplorable condition. Fewer people have access to drinking water or sewage systems than before the war. And Baghdad is averaging less than eight hours of electricity a day.

Iraq's institutional infrastructure, too, is sorely wanting. Even if the Iraqis wanted to work together and accept the national identity foisted upon them in 1920s, the ministries do not have enough trained administrators or technicians to coordinate themselves. At the local level, most communities are still controlled by the same autocratic sheiks that ruled under Saddam. There is no reliable postal system. No effective banking system. No registration system to monitor the population and its needs.

The inability to govern is exacerbated at all levels by widespread corruption. Transparency International ranks Iraq as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And, indeed, many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry, which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction. Yet holding people accountable has proved difficult. The first commissioner of a panel charged with preventing and investigating corruption resigned last month, citing pressure from the government and threats on his life.

Against this backdrop, the U.S. military has been trying in vain to hold the country together. Even with "the surge," we simply do not have enough soldiers and marines to meet the professed goals of clearing areas from insurgent control, holding them securely and building sustainable institutions. Though temporary reinforcing operations in places like Fallujah, An Najaf, Tal Afar, and now Baghdad may brief well on PowerPoint presentations, in practice they just push insurgents to another spot on the map and often strengthen the insurgents' cause by harassing locals to a point of swayed allegiances. Millions of Iraqis correctly recognize these actions for what they are and vote with their feet -- moving within Iraq or leaving the country entirely. Still, our colonels and generals keep holding on to flawed concepts.

U.S. forces, responsible for too many objectives and too much "battle space," are vulnerable targets. The sad inevitability of a protracted draw-down is further escalation of attacks -- on U.S. troops, civilian leaders and advisory teams. They would also no doubt get caught in the crossfire of the imminent Iraqi civil war.

Iraqi security forces would not be able to salvage the situation. Even if all the Iraqi military and police were properly trained, equipped and truly committed, their 346,000 personnel would be too few. As it is, Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And, again, corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone.

This is Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reality we experienced. This is what we tried to communicate up the chain of command. This is either what did not get passed on to our civilian leadership or what our civilian leaders chose to ignore. While our generals pursue a strategy dependent on peace breaking out, the Iraqis prepare for their war -- and our servicemen and women, and their families, continue to suffer.

There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition.

America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.

This column was written by 12 former Army captains: Jason Blindauer served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Elizabeth Bostwick served in Salah Ad Din and An Najaf in 2004. Jeffrey Bouldin served in Al Anbar, Baghdad and Ninevah in 2006. Jason Bugajski served in Diyala in 2004. Anton Kemps served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Kristy (Luken) McCormick served in Ninevah in 2003. Luis Carlos Montalván served in Anbar, Baghdad and Nineveh in 2003 and 2005. William Murphy served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Josh Rizzo served in Baghdad in 2006. William "Jamie" Ruehl served in Nineveh in 2004. Gregg Tharp served in Babil and Baghdad in 2003 and 2005. Gary Williams served in Baghdad in 2003.

[Jaime_Souviens]

U.S. general says al Qaeda in Iraq crippled, not destroyed


(Reuters) - The U.S. military has crippled, but not destroyed al Qaeda in Iraq , Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway said on Monday.

"I think that they significantly have been crippled," Conway said after a speech to the Center for a New American Security think tank.

"I think that's a fair word. I would not say destroyed, I would not say eliminated," he added.

Conway said the U.S. military had made great strides in recent months in Anbar province west of Baghdad, once an al Qaeda stronghold and the most dangerous place in Iraq for U.S. troops.

He said the province was far more secure now, thanks in part to the cooperation of local Iraqis in providing intelligence and work by special forces targeting al Qaeda.

But Conway stressed that al Qaeda elements had shown "an amazing ability to regenerate" and carry out sophisticated operations even after the loss of significant leaders.

"Are they crippled? Yeah. Are they still dangerous? Absolutely, and certainly they are not destroyed," Conway said.

The Washington Post on Monday reported the military believes it has dealt devastating blows to al Qaeda in Iraq and that some generals have advocated publicly declaring victory over the group.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said on Monday that U.S. commanders in Iraq had cited progress but not described al Qaeda in Iraq as "defeated." (Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa and Kristin Roberts)

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1526130220071015

[xerxes]

Looks like more phoney soldiers....

[Jaime_Souviens]

Who knows whether they're phoney or not...

Even if they're real, ask yourself, what is the weight of their opinion supposed to come from? Because "This column was written by 12 former Army captains". That's why. They're supoposed to be more authentic. Not Washington pundits, politicians, or anything else. It's a 'guys on the street/guys on the ground' sort of appeal.

But why should that matter? No one directs wars based on what a dozen captains say.

Look, if they want to report on what it was like for them, on what it was like on the ground, on what it felt like to be there, fine, they're expert on that. But they're not experts on geopolitics, national security, or American foreign policy. ---Of course, they're entitled to an opinion on foreign policy and these other issues; but on those issues, they're not experts, they're just citizens like anyone else.

This is just an attempt to grab at people emotionally. Not rationally.

Of course, people are just suckers for that kind of appeal.

[xerxes]

Maybe not, but they're in a prime position to see the effects of policy and its usefulness.

[Jaime_Souviens]

xerxes xerxes:

Maybe not, but they're in a prime position to see the effects of policy and its usefulness.

Oh, come on, how many instances do you need of people in the same battle thinking it was lost or won?

I assume that no one is claiming that these twelve speak for anyone other than themselves. Of course, the article tries to create that presumption.

I fully assume that as progress toward a stable Iraq is made, the propaganda stating that there can be no solution will get more and more strident.

[Jaime_Souviens]

lily lily:

And besides - we've been told countless times that we should listen to the soldiers because they've been there.

Does that only apply if they have the right opinions?

You might have missed this...

"Look, if they want to report on what it was like for them, on what it was like on the ground, on what it felt like to be there, fine, they're expert on that. But they're not experts on geopolitics, national security, or American foreign policy. ---Of course, they're entitled to an opinion on foreign policy and these other issues; but on those issues, they're not experts, they're just citizens like anyone else."


But you've earned your smug points for the night.

[Jaime_Souviens]

lily lily:

Funny - I don't see that disclaimer when other soldiers give the opposite opinion.

Well, I don't think that a "letter" from 12 former captains endorsing the war and its aims would be taken as a stunning revelation from the battlefield,---or as a stunning indictment of Leftism,---or,
for that matter, as newsworthy.

So the situation isn't parallel.



Things like this aren't news. It's a manufactured event created in the place of news.

[xerxes]

Jaime_Souviens Jaime_Souviens:

lily lily:

Funny - I don't see that disclaimer when other soldiers give the opposite opinion.

Well, I don't think that a "letter" from 12 former captains endorsing the war and its aims would be taken as a stunning revelation from the battlefield,---or as a stunning indictment of Leftism,---or,
for that matter, as newsworthy.

So the situation isn't parallel.



Things like this aren't news. It's a manufactured event created in the place of news.

It is absolutely parallel. Half the time Bush is giving a stump speech, he often says something to the effect of "talk to the soldiers over there. They'll tell you they support this war."

Well here are 12 of the soldiers from over there who are calling BS on that.

[xerxes]

And what do you make of this?

$1:

Top US general hits out at lack of planning behind Iraq war


Ed Pilkington in New York
Monday October 15, 2007
The Guardian

A retired general who led US forces in Iraq at the start of the insurgency has indicated that he may name and shame the individuals in the Bush administration he blames for a "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan".

Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez has delivered one of the most damning assessments of US policy in Iraq, becoming the most senior war commander to do so. "There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he told reporters in Arlington, Virginia.

The White House responded with a statement that though there was more work to be done in Iraq, progress was being made. But what might cause anxiety within the administration was the veiled threat contained in Gen Sanchez's comments to identify individuals.

Asked by reporters to say who he blamed for the chaos in US policy, he declined, but added: "More to follow later."

Gen Sanchez's threat chimes with speculation that he is planning to write a book about his experiences as chief of the US-led forces in 2003/4 during a period that saw the flaring of the early anti-American insurgency and the outbreak of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.

Were he to put his criticisms down on paper he would join a growing line of former officials who have played out their disgruntlement with the Bush administration in book form. They include Paul Bremer, Gen Sanchez's civilian counterpart in Iraq, who published My Year in Iraq in January 2006, and George Tenet, the former CIA director, who accused the Bush administration of deciding to invade Iraq with little or no debate.

Even without naming names, Gen Sanchez's analysis of the mishandling of the occupation of Iraq, delivered on Friday, was piercing. "From a catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan to the administration's latest surge strategy, this administration has failed to employ and synchronise its political, economic and military power," he said.

Asked at what point he thought the mission in Iraq had started to go wrong, he replied: "About the 15th of June 2003." That was the day he took command of US forces in the country. Gen Sanchez went on to say that after four years of fighting in Iraq, there was still no clarity within the civilian leadership, which he accused of "lust of power" and of failing to mobilise all corners of government for the struggle in Iraq. "The administration, Congress and the entire inter-agency, especially the state department, must shoulder responsibility for the catastrophic failure, and the American people must hold them accountable."

Though no individual commanders were found responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal, the fact that Gen Sanchez was in command at the time of the abuse has been held as a negative mark on his record. He continued for a year in active duty after he left Iraq, but was not preferred for promotion to the rank of four-star general, thus forcing his retirement. Critics may accuse him of sour grapes should he seek to take his criticisms to a more personal level.

Gen Sanchez's comments come as a Washington Post journalist was shot dead in Baghdad. Salih Saif Aldin, 32, who wrote under the name Salih Dehema, was killed in the Sadiyah neighbourhood.

Here's a General saying effectively the same thing. Is he a raving Leftist who hates America as well?

[Scape]

Oh crap, what the hell... a dirty Sanchez!

[fan123]

i think it's about time for us to move out

[sasquatch2]

xerxes

$1:

Here's a General saying effectively the same thing. Is he a raving Leftist who hates America as well?

It is possibly an excellant example that some Generals, much like some alleged climate scientists can harbour a political agenda.

[TheFoundersIntent]

fan123 fan123:

i think it's about time for us to move out

You're welcome to move out anytime.

[Calgary123]

Funny how the warmongers refuse to accept the reality of this situation.... and keep grasping at this idea that something can be "won" over in Iraq.

Even when their own are willing to speak the truth.... those that have been there, and know the facts.

The collective American ego is still too proud to admit the fact that this was an enormous mistake, and that there were alterior motives behind this, and WMD's weren't it.