Entries Tagged 'Iraq' ↓

Time Magazine has some advice for Obama (who is planning a little trip):

Still, there are a few ways Obama can reach out to ordinary Iraqis and make his trip more meaningful.

First, he should invite a group of Baghdad journalists — mostly Iraqis, but also a few Westerners who’ve been in Iraq for several years — for a chat. This would not be a press conference; Obama would be asking all the questions. The majority of journalists live in the Red Zone and see much more of Iraqi life than anybody in the Iraqi government or the U.S. embassy. Iraqi journalists don’t need to “embed” with U.S. troops in order to get to dangerous districts like Sadr City or Amariyah — they live in those neighborhoods, and they could tell Obama a lot more about the Iraqi condition than he could glean from any number of official briefings.

The advice is good.

I still remember, and always will, the time George W. Bush visited the Green Zone briefly while I was there. I wasn’t allowed in the Palace because I didn’t want to give up my pistol to walk through and get to my hooch. And that was one little symptom of what’s wrong with our mentality in America.

I don’t think Obama is going to do much good for this country I adopted, but I’ll take what I can get. If he listens to Time Mr. Obama will visit with people who live in the Red Zone while he is in Iraq.

If there’s not enough time to organize such a meeting, there’s one surefire way Obama can meet Iraqis. At the main entrances to the Green Zone, there’s almost always a long queue of folks waiting to get in, usually to visit a government office or a member of Parliament. Once they get past the elaborate security checks, they’re usually made to wait on the lawns of the building that serves as Iraq’s Parliament. It would be relatively easy for Obama to send a member of his entourage, accompanied by an Iraqi translator, to invite a random selection of these Iraqis for an informal chat — few would turn down the chance to meet him.

If Obama is too scared or too controlled to go to one of the major checkpoints, then he should be able to get on the buses that run from point to point within the Green Zone. Those buses are populated by a mix of contractors, soldiers and Red Zone folks, and could provide our next President with a real viewpoint from someone who actually has to suffer the consequences of the occupation.

I’m expecting that this will be a typical political visit, however. My belief is that Obama represents business as usual.

Since I lived for a year in Baghdad’s Green Zone, I felt it was necessary for me to read what happened before I got there, under L. Paul Bremer, bureaucrat extraordinaire. That is why I recently found myself reading Imperial Life in the Emerald City, by Rajiv Chandrasekaran.

To say that the Bush Administration and its chosen Iraq occupation overlords made poor choices during and immediately after the invasion of that country would be an understatement so vast that I have no words to describe how big an understatement I would be making. Reading Imperial Life in the Emerald City reinforced for me many of the reasons why I heard the impact of so many mortars during my 2005-2006 sojourn to Iraq’s largest city and at the time one of the most violent if not the most violent city in the world.

I met Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Baghdad in 2006, when I credentialed him for access to military bases. The man was humble, unassuming and patient with the bureaucratic process he endured, which is much more than I can say for Geraldo Rivera, who had sycophants hanging all over him and required that we open for a special session to credential him. In any case, the book itself is superly written in a professional tone.

The damning indictments of cronyism and poor decision making due to a complete lack of understanding of the culture and history of Iraq are presented artfully, without the forced overtones of sarcasm that would have appeared had I written Imperial Life in the Emerald City.

From the story of the Iraqi expatriatate who returns post invasion to open a five-star pizza shop only to find his American customers cannot leave their fortified enclave to the tale of the minor minister who is assasinated for trying to help his country without being politically involved, to the detailed descriptions of the “little America” inside a several square mile compound in downtown Baghdad, this book is well worth reading.

I do not know if L. Paul Bremer has yet publicly admitted how arrogant and stupid many of the decisions made in that first year of occupation were, but he knows it in his heart. If he doesn’t that would mean the man has no heart.

Having served in Iraq, and having been to a few locales outside the “Emerald Palace” I called the Green Zone, I still hold pain in my heart for the people I met and for their suffering. Things may be turning around now in that country. But in reading Imperial Life in the Emerald City, it becomes clear that much of the violence that wracked the country and the city of Baghdad could have been avoided if things had been done differently in the beginning. We’ll never know how many died because of bad decision making, but it is clear that the numbers are in the tens of thousands and possibly much higher.

If you’ve ever wondered what was really going on in those first days of the occupation, you owe it to yourself to read this book. Highly recommended.

Perhaps the most important statement Mike has made on the topic of Iraq is:

One of the main reasons we made so many mistakes in Iraq was that high officials in the Bush Administration were often afraid of the truth and viewed a serious foreign policy question with ideological blinders.  Instead of honestly appraising the facts on the ground, they saw only what they wanted to see.  And instead of encouraging candor and even dissent, they ignored or attacked those who disagreed with them.

How many have died needlessly because of arrogance? It is criminal. Absolutely criminal. And the immense suffering of Iraqis was prolonged and enhanced needlessly because of a few bureaucrats and their immense ignorance and stubborn insistence that they were the only ones who knew what was right for the people who live in the birthplace of civilization.

Mike’s article contains some very important thoughts, and as usual, is honest and well worth the read. Please take the time.

There is no way to know how many American lives were lost in Iraq due to the tortures we inflicted upon Iraqis at Abu Ghraib and other places.  This is no argument of moral equivalence.  I have seen the atrocities committed by al Qaeda and other terrorists, and I am not saying that Americans have ever come close to those acts.  New Yorkers saw the atrocities of al Qaeda, as did many others.

Yet, when we tortured detainees, we lost something very important, something that America and its allies need in order to prevail against terrorists, not just in Iraq, but all over the world.  We scarred our honor.

Whatever you think of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, I will not judge you for your opinion. What I am interested in doing is making the best of a bad situation. I think that Michael Yon has the same goal. Torture, in any form, is a moral abomination that is not justifiable. Using torture to win is actually losing. Go read the article and see if you don’t agree. The Bush Administration has been wrong from day one on this issue.

Michael’s voice is one I give some authority to, since he has spent more time than most on the ground, among the troops actually doing the fighting and policing and rebuilding.

One of the biggest problems with the Iraq War is that politics has frequently triumphed over truth. For instance, we went into Iraq with shoddy intelligence (at best), no reconstruction plan, and perhaps half as many troops as were required. We refused to admit that an insurgency was growing, until the country collapsed into anarchy and civil war. Now the truth is that Iraq is showing real progress on many fronts: Al Qaeda is being defeated and violence is down and continuing to decrease. As a result, the militias have lost their reason for existence and are getting beaten back or co-opted. Shia, Sunni and Kurds are coming together — although with various stresses — under the national government. If progress continues at this rate, it is very possible that before 2008 is out, we can finally say “the war has ended.” Yes, likely there still will be some American casualties, but if the violence continues to drop and the Iraqi government consolidates its gains, we will be able, in good conscience, to begin bringing more of our people home. I will be paying very close attention to the words of Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, who is replacing General Petraeus as the overall commander in Iraq.

I served in the war from 2005-2006, as you know if you’ve read this blog for any length of time. I am also a libertarian. Therefore I have mixed feelings about this war. While I believe troops must stay until Iraq is stable, there are still many questions that need to be answered. Primary among them - were there really WMDs when we invaded. If so, where did they end up? I have always thought Syria was the answer. Of course, seeds of doubt have been planted as to whether Saddam actually had any WMDs after the 90s. I know from personal verification that small quantities were found.

While we rebuild the country we broke and try to make it better in the process, we need to examine the mistakes made leading up to the war. We need to continue to ask ourselves if the motivations for invading were just or just concocted. War is an ugly and terrible thing that should never be entered cavalierly.

We’ve mortgaged so much for the war in Iraq. We need to demand some accountability both in the short and long term. Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll get the levels of accountability I expect - anymore than Congress will suddenly start diligently working together to actually improve the “land of the free and home of the brave.” Iraq is stabilizing, and that is good.

What would have been better is if we had a plan when we went in. We could have avoided appointing arrogant officials like L. Paul Bremer. The Bush administration has done an abysmal job of representing itself in the public arena. Yet some voices still claim that Saddam had the weapons and the intent that would justify our invasion of Iraq. The voices are ignored or dismissed.

Iraq is still a question mark on the world map. History (and the politicians who write it) have not yet cast final judgment. I will be watching and waiting. Where do we go from here?

Is the U.S. Army so focused on the here and now that it is failing to stay at the ready for possible future conflicts with conventional armies?

That is the question being asked by NPR’s Guy Raz in his article Army Focus on Counterinsurgency Debated Within.

Col. Sean MacFarland was among the first to successfully apply counterinsurgency doctrine in Iraq in 2006. And yet he was a co-author of the recent internal Army report suggesting that the Army is far too focused on counterinsurgency training. This singular focus, he writes, is weakening the Army.

The report cites field artillery as an example of an area that has suffered from inattention. Since 1775, artillery units have served as the backbone of the U.S. Army. But today, a stunning 90 percent of these units are unqualified to fire artillery accurately — the lowest level in history.

I anticipate very real possibilities of conflict with conventional armies in my lifetime. On the other hand, a career in the Army is only 20 years, so I’m not sure it is that important that many artillerymen are serving as truck drivers in Iraq and Afghanistan. If they need to convert back to artillerymen it won’t take very long.

Nevertheless, the topic is always worth consideration - are we thinking ahead and training our military for the kinds of missions it will be fighting in the short and long term.

Whether you are for or against the occupation of Iraq, this editorial is well worth reading and carefully digesting.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about “GoArmy.com.”

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda’s brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

One year of my life gone forever in that nation. My feelings about our “imperialism” are very mixed. I am proud of my service in Iraq although I do not pretend to know what the future holds for that nation. We are nearing a pivotal moment - the change of command here will affect the course of 26 million lives there. I’ve long held the opinion that it will take decades to ensure real changes in the Middle East. The changes will have to be generational. A complete withdrawal now would certainly be a mistake.

Should we “surge” some more? I leave it to you to decide. Michael Yon is certainly a subject matter expert. He knows the troops, he knows the political climate, he understands the Iraqis and he has spent more time on the ground and in the thick of things than almost any American I know. That doesn’t mean his conclusions are correct, but they should be carefully considered.

I spend a lot of time bitching on this blog. I don’t really regret it, because I’m generally bitching for a reason - I hope to find others out there in the big bad world who feel similar to the way I feel, or who might change their minds and come around to my way of thinking on issues that matter.

As a former participant in the occupation of Iraq, I have very mixed feelings on that particular political morass. I think we have noble intentions and are generally doing things the hardest and most expensive way possible over there. Perhaps that is the only way to go about waging a war that really intends to change a culture. I’m not an expert, just a guy who went and came back.

The war in Iraq is so muddled and mischarecterized. Sometimes, even the people waging it have no idea what they are doing, where they are going and why they have to be there. It’s easy to lose your humanity in an environment where every moment might be your last moment.

That is why I am also touched to read stories like this one:

Ammar Haddad Muhammad, a 5-year-old Iraqi boy, and his father landed on time Saturday night in Charleston, S.C., to begin the process of getting life-saving surgery thanks to help from a Gainesville Marine.

There are certain things that I hold dear and honor when I see them. War can make us so tired. It certainly did in my case. Marine Major Kevin Jarrard, no matter his other human qualities, should be held up as an example of the kind of men we need when we wage war. In the midst of strife and conflict, he has twice reached out to remind Iraqis that they are just as human as we are and that we value their lives because we value all human life on general principle.

CNN is reporting that Washington diplomats are complaining about a policy that may force them to choose between serving in Iraq or losing their jobs. Poor babies. Grow up.

Calling it “a potential death sentence,” several hundred diplomats expressed their resentment Wednesday over a new State Department policy that could force them to serve in Iraq or risk losing their jobs.

I guess all these idiots thought they were signing up for a paid vacation at Sandals or Club Med. The arrogance of the American bureaucrat class never ceases to amaze me. If you little shits want to make decisions about foreign policy then you should live the consequences of those decisions. I think it’s great that you’re being forced to get up close and personal. Maybe we’ll be less likely to fight wars when our State Department is filled with people who have lived war. Walk away from your career if you don’t like the policy. I could care less. Just quit whining.

For those of you who are wondering why I haven’t posted - I’m busy. Too busy to write? Sadly, yes, at least on the blog. I’m working on it though. I’ll be back as quickly as I can get some people trained up. In the mean time, here’s a reminder of where I was last year, and where several hundred thousand of your fellow citizens are this year. BOOOM!!!

The entry was published in the 2006 World Almanac, and I was paid $225 for it, if memory serves correctly. But that isn’t what is important. What is important is that we’re still at war, and there are other people out there doing the job I was doing at this time one year ago. Some of them will not come home. Reach out and tell them you care about their lives. You can start at Milblogging.

See you soon, my fellow denizens of the electronic universe.

Here’s an interview with General David Petraeus worth reading, primarily because of the Maliki quote:

In an interview in this week’s Newsweek, Maliki avoided being drawn into the debate between the Bush administration and Congress. The U.S. “helped us by toppling the regime and accomplishing many steps of the political process but they still can leave,” Maliki said. “If the consequences of staying are bigger than the consequences of leaving, they will leave.”

Crocker said the Iraqis also are frustrated with their slow progress but are “very close” to agreement on a plan for managing the country’s oil production and share resources.

A key point is that both the Iraqi government and the U.S. government are saying the same thing about the U.S. presence in Iraq - if it SHOULD end, it WILL end.

What remains to be negotiated is when the U.S. presence should end. What should happen next? The Iraqi government needs to pass legislation related to two key issues - distribution of oil revenues and how the country will handle regional issues. The Iraqi government needs to show some sort of progress if it hopes to survive. Elections are coming up in the U.S., and everyone knows that they are going to change the political climate drastically - both inside the U.S. and in all the places where the U.S. has been manipulating governments, whether for good or bad.