A Marine sees what defeatists don't

OK, so we're off to the races with the word 'defeatists'. Yet I was bound and determined to finish this USA TODAY op-ed...

"This is my third deployment with the 1st Marine Division to the Middle East. This is the third time I've heard the quavering cries of the talking heads predicting failure and calling for withdrawal. This is the third time I find myself shaking my head in disbelief. Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield. We can and will achieve our goals in Iraq."

<snip>

"As I write this, the supply lines are open, there's plenty of ammunition and food, the Sunni Triangle is back to status quo, and Sadr is marginalized in Najaf. Once again, dire predictions of failure and disaster have been dismissed by American willpower and military professionalism."

<snip>

"Nothing any talking head will say can deter me or my fellow Marines from caring about the people of Iraq, or take away from the sacrifices of our comrades. Fear in the face of adversity is human nature, and many people who take the counsel of their fears speak today. We are not deaf to their cries; neither do we take heed. All we ask is that Americans stand by us by supporting not just the troops, but also the mission. We'll take care of the rest."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=14&u=/usatoday/20040519/cm_usatoday/amarineseeswhatdefeatistsdont

I don't support the troops, and I don't support the mission. As for fear--if it wasn't for fear we wouldn't be in this mess.

He really just doesn't get it.

We will dictate peace and democracy with our M60s.

After all, this is his THIRD trip over there! While that may not be a sign of failure, having to come back over and over is a sure sign that we aren't winning.

we are not.. obviously they know alot that we don't.

Heyo

You think his commanding officers would have been very happy if they read a letter from him or another soldier saying how we're losing several men every day to snipers and bombs, how Iraqis are selling captured US arms and body armor on the black market, and how most of Iraq still doesn't have electricity, water, medicine, police or jobs? The same kinds of letters were published from soldiers patrolling Vietnam, and look how successful we were there.

If ten people from ten different areas report all is well it does not prove that all is well everywhere because there may still be trouble spots these ten people never see.

On the other hand, if ten people from ten different areas report serious problems then all is not well because there are still these serious problems.

Just one drink after another . . .

I sure hope Kerry doesn't take your position...

I don't support what they're doing. I do "support" the ones who've laid down their weapons and refused to fight. They're the ones with real courage.

I think most of the young people in the military joined to better themselves, for education, earn some money, or they really wanted to serve their country. It turns out that they are now just pawns serving Bush's evil dersires. They have no choice.

I was referring to the majority of the military and not to the torturers.

I AM a "troop", at least for the time being -- and I have no problem saying that I give no weight to such meaningless shows of empty patriotism as one saying that they "support the troops".

The only way I can think of to truly "support" them is to ensure that their lives are not spent on foolish misadventures having nothing to do with their stated oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic." And when this fails, to work to bring them home as soon as possible.

Of course, I realize that in our current society in which people have the average attention span of a goldfish and where empty patriotism is all the rage, it would be political suicide to say such unpleasant truths.

You still stateside?

My unit was alerted last November -- initially they were talking about mobilizing the whole Battalion, but in the end they only took four detachments of about 58 people each. I was spared.

I'm just hoping I can get through the rest of 2004 and resign my commission this December.

I think this misadventure was doomed from the beginning because too many people in America and Iraq didn't believe the cause was justified.

You have my sympathy because if you get orders to Iraq, you have to go. For me to say you shouldn't hae to go there has nothing to do with you or the sorces already there. We disagree with your CIC and his arrogant quest for middle east power.

I hope you don't get those orders!

I disagree with the people who say we should just pack up and leave Iraq. I would be ashamed of my Country if we pulled out and Iraq turned into a bloodbath civil war, because we would have caused it! I support a plan to step up training of an Iraqi Police Force, Military, and Iraqi chosen governing body. Then we get the hell out of the middle east!

Of course, the consequences of choosing not to go may not be desirable or palatable.

To be quite honest, if I were to receive deployment orders (I came very, very close this winter), I'm not certain what I would do. If I obeyed those orders, I would be participating in an action that I believe to be exploitative, imperialistic, and having absolutely nothing to do with the oath I took. If I refused those orders and suffered the consequences, I would likely be court martialed and given a black mark for the rest of my life. And, I would also have to worry about how this would affect my wife.

I'm hoping I don't have to make that decision. My committment time is up come this December, and I'm initiating the process to resign my commission ASAP. If they refuse to let me go, I already have legal representation lined up.

But don't portray this as a lack of a choice. There's always a choice -- and like others in life, this one is far from easy.

To say you have a choice to obey the orders or go to Court Marshal is like me saying I have a choice to have no money or rob a bank. Sure, one is civil law and one is UCMJ, but they both require one to break the law. I hope you don't have to make that decision either.

I don't know if this is true or not, but it would seem that if you only have 6 months to do, you might be a bit less likely to be deployed than others with a much longer committment. Sure hope I'm right.

away like camilo mejia he went awol because of prison abuse and he didnt want to serve in an oil driven war. he turned himself in such a brave and honorable man

The mission is a lie! The troops are brain-washed, frightened, and manic! I can't support any of this.

the assertion is that our deliverance of democracy was the only option available.
well that was never, ever the truth.
they were never, ever a threat making this an invasion -- you cannot claim in the face of an invasion to care for the people of said country.

Waiting for war in the Saudi Arabian desert as a young corporal in 1991, I recall reading news clippings portending massive tank battles, fiery death from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s "flame trenches" and bitter defeat at the hands of the fourth-largest army in the world. My platoon was told to expect 75% casualties. Being Marines and, therefore, naturally cocky, we still felt pretty good about our abilities.

I wonder what "quavering voices" told his platoon to expect 75% casualties? The news reports that I see are usually not specific to platoons. Could the "quavering voices" belong to other military personnel?

In the spring of last year, I was a Marine captain, back with the division for Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I waited for war in the desert, just 100 miles to the north from our stepping-off point in 1991, I was again subjected to the panicky analyses of talking heads. There weren't enough troops to do the job, the oil fields would be destroyed, we couldn't fight in urban terrain, our offensive would grind to a halt, and we should expect more than 10,000 casualties.

Many of the people who said there were not enough troops were military - both current and retired generals. Many of them were speaking of the occupation. It appears they were right.

I am not ignorant of the political issues, either. But as a professional, I have the luxury of putting politics aside and focusing on the task at hand. Protecting people from terrorists and criminals while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, no matter what brush it's tarred with.

I agree that the mission he describes is a good mission. However, what about the mission that involves kicking down the doors of innocent Iraqi citizens and arresting the male members of the household? We've recently learned that many of these arrestee are then terrorized when they get to prison. Is it partof the mission to protect the Iraqis from other US military personnel? What part of "protecting people from terrorists" involves machine gunning families at roadblocks?

It's nice to wnat to protect people from terrorists. It not so nice when that attempt at protection turns into terrorism.

We don't understand Iraq or its people. It is not our business to install a "good" government for them. Protect Americans from terrorists and build schools here for American kids. You're a lot more likely to succeed at that.

--we're not AT WAR with Iraq anymore. We beat their military soundly. Yes. Sure. Great job fellas. Now we're supposed to keep the peace, and it the PEACE that we're f*cking losing.

"Setbacks and tragedy are part and parcel of war and must be accepted on the battlefield."

We're not ON the goddamn battlefield anymore, you moron. And yet, it's funny how we keep regularly losing one or two men every day, even though things may have calmed down in Falluja once more. Things seems to be calm back in February, and look what happened.

This is the same thing that LBJ encountered in his disastrous trip to visit the troops in Vietnam. They gave him the same sentiments, instilled in them by the same planners bungling the war from on top. S, end of doubts. Johnson took confidence and commitment from the people trained to have that who were ordered into a situation out of their control and abilities??

Name any army in history, any soldier, as many medals as much compassion and bravery as can be mustered and it would not change OUR doomed leadership and the situation in Iraq- which is more than securing roads and safe zones.

The entire nature of occupation and its effects on troops misled, ill trained and lacking REAL supports of material and planning not flag waving and parades ten thousand miles away. It means deterioration, slow bleeding., quagmire and simmering growing resentment and resistance.

One huge oversight in our march to victory is to acknowledge what disturbed the general most at the time of battle. The enemy melted away with their weapons and did not surrender. Subsequently the political leadership compounded that ongoing threat by distancing themselves further from even the simplest care for the old military.
This kind of guerrilla war can go on forever with dramatic target successes and perhaps increasing effectiveness on their home ground.
Nothing guarantees the loss more than our stubbornly miserable citizen leadership combined with an army not trained for conquest and occupation, like the Israeli occupation of Palestine on steroids without a brain and loads more Pollyanna hypocrisy and carelessness.

As for the talking heads, not the generals who have been pretty much spot on when they dared speak up, who doesn't despise them, especially the armchair quarterbacks of any stripe. If only they had been so despised from the outset- all of them- there would be no fake cheerleading section for presumptive victory and total blindness regarding implications and what reasonable decent people worldwide in the vast majority would do to stop this shame and horror.

If he is singling out peacenik columnists- an insignificant minority- it is only because current events are gracing them with more of a legitimacy of truth. The loons on the other side wanted to annex Iraq with a platoon and turn the spigots on while baptizing the ME into Christian Reconstructionism.

... while building schools and lasting friendships is a good mission, ..."

Today we bombed a wedding party and killed 40 Iraqi innocents. Time to pull your head out of your ass. You're not protecting anybody from anything. Let these people be.

In other words, he's parroting the "company" line - he has his eyes on promotion.

"I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government."

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/9316830p-10241546c.html

Q: What does the public need to know about your experiences as a Marine?

A: The cause of the Iraqi revolt against the American occupation. What they need to know is we killed a lot of innocent people. I think at first the Iraqis had the understanding that casualties are a part of war. But over the course of time, the occupation hurt the Iraqis. And I didn't see any humanitarian support.

Q: What experiences turned you against the war and made you leave the Marines?

A: I was in charge of a platoon that consists of machine gunners and missile men. Our job was to go into certain areas of the towns and secure the roadways. There was this one particular incident - and there's many more - the one that really pushed me over the edge. It involved a car with Iraqi civilians. From all the intelligence reports we were getting, the cars were loaded down with suicide bombs or material. That's the rhetoric we received from intelligence. They came upon our checkpoint. We fired some warning shots. They didn't slow down. So we lit them up.

Q: Lit up? You mean you fired machine guns?

A: Right. Every car that we lit up we were expecting ammunition to go off. But we never heard any. Well, this particular vehicle we didn't destroy completely, and one gentleman looked up at me and said: "Why did you kill my brother? We didn't do anything wrong." That hit me like a ton of bricks.

...

Q: You mention machine guns. What can you tell me about cluster bombs, or depleted uranium?

A: Depleted uranium. I know what it does. It's basically like leaving plutonium rods around. I'm 32 years old. I have 80 percent of my lung capacity. I ache all the time. I don't feel like a healthy 32-year-old.

Q: Were you in the vicinity of of depleted uranium?

A: Oh, yeah. It's everywhere. DU is everywhere on the battlefield. If you hit a tank, there's dust.

Q: Did you breath any dust?

A: Yeah.

Q: And if DU is affecting you or our troops, it's impacting Iraqi civilians.

A: Oh, yeah. They got a big wasteland problem.

Q: Do Marines have any precautions about dealing with DU?

A: Not that I know of. Well, if a tank gets hit, crews are detained for a little while to make sure there are no signs or symptoms. American tanks have depleted uranium on the sides, and the projectiles have DU in them. If an enemy vehicle gets hit, the area gets contaminated. Dead rounds are in the ground. The civilian populace is just now starting to learn about it. Hell, I didn't even know about DU until two years ago. You know how I found out about it? I read an article in Rolling Stone magazine. I just started inquiring about it, and I said "Holy s---!"

...

Q: Your feelings changed during the invasion. What was your state of mind before the invasion?

A: I was like every other troop. My president told me they got weapons of mass destruction, that Saddam threatened the free world, that he had all this might and could reach us anywhere. I just bought into the whole thing.

Q: What changed you?

A: The civilian casualties taking place. That was what made the difference. That was when I changed.

Q: Did the revelations that the government fabricated the evidence for war affect the troops?

A: Yes. I killed innocent people for our government. For what? What did I do? Where is the good coming out of it? I feel like I've had a hand in some sort of evil lie at the hands of our government. I just feel embarrassed, ashamed about it.

...

And so on.