The Big, Bad, Liberal Media.
It was late in the tour, late summer or early fall; it was difficult to gauge the seasons. All I know is that it was still hot. By this time, I had such a routine that I felt like I worked an ordinary nine to five job, but, under the surface, I knew my job was anything but ordinary. It had been a relatively quiet tour; only one guy had been killed, but he wasn't "one of ours". I felt guilty every time I said that no one had been killed yet and always corrected myself . . . "but he wasn't 'one of ours'." I think it made me feel better to pretend that SFC Laughlin hadn't been killed, that we really weren't in a war zone. I tried to forget that the very policemen we were training weren't running death squads, weren't members of al Sadr's Mahdi Militia. I put the IED blast that went off just in front of me that day in the mosque standoff in the back of my mind. I ignored the tracer round I saw fly my head. I was in denial, and I hated to hear about what was going behind the scenes.
We reported to the motor pool that morning expecting to hear the same old shit: yesterday there were six IED's; two car bombs; three kidnappings; one EFP; and four tortured bodies had been found in our AO. Whatever; I was numb to it and didn't get alarmed anymore. CPT Ray and SSG Bruesch instead told us that we would have to search every nook and cranny in the IHP compound today. We weren't going to be liked, and we might not like what we find, they said. The day prior, a squad had accidentally found a secret torture chamber and prison at the MOI building. Iraq's Ministry of the Interior had housed a secret prison; tortured prisoners had been found. Oddly, I wasn't surprised, but I wasn't really letting in sink in either. We made our way towards IHP and I still expected the same mundane day I had conditioned myself to experience.
We arrived and told Major Muhammad and General Ali of our intentions. We put guards at the different buildings and, to the protest and anger of the IHPs, searched every building room by room. The police who we had tried to build a rapport of trust and cooperation with for the past several months looked on in anger and disbelief as we looked for torture victims in their compound. I looked at them from my overwatch position in the gunner's hatch and saw the rage in their eyes. Either they were hurt and angry that we didn't trust them after all this time, or they were just angry that we were looking places they never thought we'd look. It didn't help that our guys walked from building to building and room to room like members of a renegade swat team in some b-rated action flick. I found myself angry and frustrated, but I didn't know why. I thought this was a waste of time. I was afraid we'd find nothing and have to explain why we hadn't trusted them. I was afraid we'd find something and have to try to detain and question fifty or more armed torturers. Either way, I didn't like our options. I just wanted to sit in my fantasy world and pretend it had never happened.
I didn't want to think about the tortured men at MOI or possible torture victims right under my nose. I didn't want to feel like a fool. I didn't want to acknowledge that the Samarra mosque bombing had changed everything; I didn't want to think of our guys as members of death squads. Most of all, I didn't to come to grips with the possibility that I had been doing nothing but training murderers; I didn't want to think that my house raid training had made them a better death squad. Ignorance is bliss.
All that had happened, however, and it was about time I faced reality before it snuck up and killed me. I started to think about how profound a find the MOI prison was . . . this was like finding a secret torture chamber in the State Department building in DC. This was huge; this was going to be all over the news and serve as just another example of how corrupt the Iraqi government was. Viewed in that light, I started to think about everything else that had happened: the IHPs being caught running a death squad; the time Mahdi Militia took over the fuel station by force and the IHPs refused to do anything; the missing IHPs; the missing weapons; the lackadaisical attitude of the force; the intel reports detailing what all had occurred in that area under their watch. It was sobering; all these months and nothing had changed.
I made mental notes and waited to see the story in the news. I was curious to see what CNN could say about it and curious to see how it affected the political environment back home. Days went by, and then weeks. Nothing was ever reported. The media never even knew. I had been told that all the liberal media did was report the negative news, the things that portrayed the mission in a hopeless fashion, the liberal media was nowhere to be found. I was a little frustrated and a tad hopeless. I wanted to track down every person who had told me about the big, bad, liberal media and shake them. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT! HOW CAN THEY ONLY REPORT THE NEGATIVE NEWS WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HALF THE NEGATIVE NEWS?
When I realized that there wasn't a big, bad, liberal media skewing the news into an Iraqi quagmire, I realized we had all lost a scapegoat. We couldn't blame the media. We couldn't blame the liberal politicians. We could only blame the Iraqi government and security forces and our own government's mistakes. It was cold, difficult, and depressing, but I finally came to grips with reality.
Over the next few months, we found two cars involved in drive-by shootings and a man on the most wanted list in their parking lot, found out the Iraqi general in charge had been skimming $40,000 a month from the government, were set up at least twice by the IHPs to be blown to bits, and had almost gotten caught up in a confused, angry all out gunfight after two IHPs accidentally shot each other and we were thought to be the culprits. Every day closer to us leaving was a little more hostile than the last; every day was more and more eerie, more and more uncomfortable. We spoke to the IHPs less and less; fewer and fewer smiles were exchanged. We knew and they knew that we weren't exactly on the same side. Some remained friendly and I continue to believe that they were legitimate, but I'll never know. I no longer thought of them as contemporaries I needed to train to fight the good fight. They were simply friendly faces to acknowledge until I could jump on that plane and fly home.
I left that place with mixed emotions, but grateful that I no longer had to frequent the place where I constantly looked over my shoulder. I was disappointed that, in my mind, there was no longer a group of dedicated, ambivalent Iraqi policemen manning that building and there was no longer a big, bad, liberal media to blame it on.
Let me say your an amazing writer and I always enjoy your post, this one ranks at the top. Secondly, I could care less what the media reports or doesn't report each and every one of you made a difference over there. Maybe some bad, but I am willing to bet more often than not it was for the better. It's never easy for soilders and for that I am sorry. But thank you for your service, and thanks for writing about it so honestly.
Silent enim leges inter arma
If the liberal media report 80% on negative news but only "know half of the negative news" it is still negative news! You are being Naive if that is how you feel. All of the major news stations are Liberal except Fox News which is owned by a liberal.
Why don't you define liberal for me? How did the liberal media do when they were reporting the run-up to the war? They sure didn't question anything, did they? They didn't seem too liberal there. What about when MSNBC canceled Phil Donahue's show (which was rated number one on their network) and an internal memo was leaked saying they had to do it because they didn't want to seem unpatriotic during the run-up to the war? What positive news do you want them to report? A school was opened? Fine, half the kids don't even go anymore in fear of dying. A class of IHPs graduated? Great, now they'll go run a death squad or something. They already report military successes; they get flack for reporting political failures.
It was all about the numbers his show was #1 for msnbc but that was it! Still I think you cant say with the exception of Fox that major media outlets arent Liberal.
FOX/O'Reilly: 1.4 million
CNN/Chung: 0.9 million
MSNBC/Donahue: 0.4 million
But that reflects the overall average viewership of the networks:
FOX: 0.7 million
CNN: 0.6 million
MSNBC: 0.3 million
Counting only prime-time, MSNBC was even further behind:
FOX: 1.1 million
CNN: 0.9 million
MSNBC: 0.35 million
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1825
He was skeptical of the war's merit and actually debated it; what a crime.
Even Liberals had to face facts that it is a business and they have to make ratings/money. It was a patrotic time and I am sure you yourself were feeling the same thing it would have been ratings suicide. Besides being Liberal is more than being anti war.
"It was a patriotic time" doesn't excuse the media from their obligation to question, investigate, and inform.
I define the media as a direct presentation of facts or occurrences with little attempt at analysis or interpretation. I feel you want the media to push your viewpoints or an agenda...when they dont then they are wrong in not doing so!
Odd how the media in general won't do anything to critisize Iraq or the US government on important issues, they seem to reserve it only for little news. The media seems to fear making the government look bad.
And I love all of your wrting man, they're phenomenal.
That statement is ridiculous.
All the media does is criticize.
Yes, meaningless things usually. They don't always cover the big things. You don't see them covering how the US lied about the nuclear capabilities of North Korea.
The media chooses what it covers. In both directions.
All I am saying, is if you Google news "Iraq" and go by date, you will find all of the bad things and none of the good new developments. There is a reason for that.
R U crazy I see things that critical of what is happening in Iraq almost daily...well except now since things are going better, which you dont hear too much about!
Tremenduous writing skills, and really sloppy reasoning.
"HOW CAN THEY ONLY REPORT THE NEGATIVE NEWS WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HALF THE NEGATIVE NEWS?"
They manage, on the half they do know.
You observe the reasons that intervention is the only way to break the cycle of cruelty and corruption in most of the world, and specificly Iraq. Your usual conclusion that this makes the war unjust or useless is only an opinion. I do not share your hopelessness. I am not sure this will work, but giving up is sure not going to benefit the Iraqi people.
If you live just below the poverty level in the US that makes you richer than 85% of the world. Twice as wealthy as over 50%. Slavery is still happening today. More people live under oppression than freedom. Is that the way we want things to be at the end of this century?
If using force to remove dictators, and supporting democracy where they have never had it is wrong, at least it is wrong through good intentions.
What do you think CAN be done to help?
What region were you stationed in? That could make a huge difference in how you see the war on the ground.
P.S. You have no idea how grateful I am towards you for your service in Iraq. The people who volunteer for the military are the kind of people who make this country great.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I was stationed in Baghdad and spent most of my time at police stations there; honestly though, no matter where you are stationed, people are going to see things through different lenses regardless.
After reading this, I couldn't think for quite a while. Then I read the comments and now I don't know what to think. I have a brother in the military, but not on the ground. I hope to God he never goes there.
Are you in favor of pulling out of Iraq, having been there? What do you think can/should be done to fix things there? Did you see anything hopeful there at all?
CEM
After reading this I have to say to all the people that did not thank this person in their post they are sorry and inconsiderate. This person needs a huge accomidation from the amercian public for the service that was provided for our country. Whether you believe in the war or not you should always thank the men and women who put their lives on hold to protect all of our lives. To many times we forget this and think that the soldeirs are just supposed to know it.
Cliburn, I want to personally thank you for all you did over there. I know it was not easy and much of it will stick with you for life. I hope you know that there are people in this world who know what you did for our country. THANK YOU!!!!
I don't think your post condemning those of us who did not thank him is appropriate.
If I thanked him in every comment I left, it would detract from any discussions we would have, and any points I have in disagreements would no longer be taken seriously, or in the very least would have less of an impact.
I'm sorry, but I feel very offended by your criticism. This user has been here for a long time, many of us have thanked him in the past, and I find it unnecessary to thank him in every post. That's just ridiculous, and it detracts from the purpose of this website; to bring about change and have discussions. Especially when I am in disagreement, and I believe he has been woefully wrong in the past by essentially condemning women to die because of their religion.
"Especially when I am in disagreement, and I believe he has been woefully wrong in the past by essentially condemning women to die because of their religion."
Do you mind telling me when I ever did that?
Other than that, I agree with you. I don't come to ProgressiveU to get pats on the back and thank yous. I don't think I did anything that helped America out in any way, so why should I be thanked?
One of your comments:
I left you a comment in response, which you never even bothered to defend against.
http://www.progressiveu.org/204214-veterans-day-speech-by-justin-c-clibu...
If you believe that:
A) Creating something that everyone could look to in a very divided country is not a means of creating (at the least the appearance of) unity
or
B) That I, in any way, shape, or fashion, condone or endorse the abuse of women,
then you are out of touch. What does it matter if Saddam took away the right of women to vote when the votes didn't matter? Do you know how the voting process took place in pre-invasion Iraq?
According to my interpreter, all the men would go to the polling place, sign in, and then be escorted into a voting booth by two large, intimidating, well-connected men, who would watch the man vote. After the man voted for Saddam, the men would pat them on the back and say, "Good, good. Now, go drink goat's milk and eat dates and have fun!"
He didn't know what happened if you voted against Saddam; he never did.
My apologies for not replying to your comment in the other thread. I got several comment emails at once and they were all lumped into one. I clicked on the first one and replied to it, but never scrolled the page to look for others.
Hmmm well.
Votes used to matter in Iraq. In case you've forgotten, pre-Saddam Iraq was one of the more enlightened middle eastern countries, and continuing to move in that direction.
During Saddam's reign, things moved rapidly backwards.
Because of this religious unity that you are so proud of - the violent abuse of women became rampant and state-approved. Young women were even brought to Saddam's palace to be raped. Honor killings increased exponentially. Women could no longer walk the streets alone safely or wearing western garb.
Read my article. Educate yourself. Then come back and talk to me.
You're welcome to drop the high and mighty crap any time now. How you read what I have written and come away thinking that I am "proud" of the religious unity Saddam was attempting to bring about is beyond me. I don't know what has given you the impression that I support or endorse the abuse of women or religious extremists, but you obviously have it in your head that I am something I am not. I am agnostic, bordering on atheist. I think the Islam religion is an insane delusion and believe that those who use it to further their power plays are insane, evil, or both (I believe the same thing about Christianity and Christians, but I recognize that moderate followers of each religion are usually quite sane and quite kind).
I did read your article; it is well-written and well-researched. What you have failed to address in response to me is this: you assert that I endorse the subjugation of women because I advocate for withdrawal from Iraq, arguing that the women of Iraq will only lose more and more rights and, therefore, I am pro-abuse of women. A rather weak argument, if you ask me. You claim that women's right to vote was taken away so that they could not vote Saddam out of power, but NO ONE could vote him out of power. He was called a dictator for a reason.
I know full well the quite liberal history of Iraq. Baghdad, for all its problems, is still pretty liberal compared to many other Middle Eastern cities. At the time of the invasion, there were still women doctors and women in government. Women worked at the police stations we went to and dressed in western clothing. Women (at least upper class women) went to college at a higher rate than anyone in the US would ever believe.
You make the assumption that I want to abandon Iraq, as if I am a bitter soldier who wants to rid myself of the burden. Nothing could be further from the truth. Part of the IVAW charter states that we advocate reparations be made to the Iraqi people through international NGOs and that we continue to rebuild what we have broken. As long as it is US-led, however, there will be resistance. Look at the history of Iraq; they have never lied down for an occupation. This is no different, even if many of those involved have the best of intentions.
The way for Iraq to move forward is without US soldiers watching their every move. They absolutely can do it without us, as they did just fine creating a relatively liberal society in the days before Saddam and the Baath Party.
Drawing out of Iraq is akin to leaving these women to die.
We created this mess; now we have to fix it. You have written several times that we should just leave these cultures to be; but it is clear that since we entered Iraq these women have a chance at freedom and actual rights again.
You're not in Baghdad anymore; you don't know the chances that have occurred recently. When you were in Baghdad, you weren't paying attention to start with, since you supported the "unity of religion" and all the great things that came with it. Get off your high horse and realize that I don't respect you because you believe you know everything in your ignorance of, "I was a soldier in Iraq so you can't argue with me."
Don't insult my intelligence. This conversation is over.
No, it isn't since you insist on putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, in a million years "supported the unity of religion and all the great things that came with it." I hate religion. I hate it there and I hate it here. I have agreed to disagree with many, many people on this topic, including here at ProgressiveU. You are the only one who insists that I have said or supported things that no reasonable individual would come away from my writing believing. I never supported Saddam Hussein. All I did was give an alternate reason for including the religious elements on the Iraqi flag (which, essentially, had the same goal in mind) and you have ran with it ever since asserting that I supported Saddam Hussein and the religious extremists. You are making broad jumps, not me.
Most of my stories here have been just that: stories. Just a way for me to write what I experienced down and have a way to reconcile things without resorting to the heavy drinking that comforted me in my first few months back (and the coping mechanism that thousands of veterans use everyday.) I don't want a pat on the back (in fact, I HATE being thanked "for my service", et al), but I don't want to be attacked either. You disagree with me, fine, but don't for a second believe that you can call me a misogynist, a religious kook, a Saddam sympathizer, or closed minded and think that you can simply end the conversation as if you have finally set the record straight. You have no idea how conflicted I was in Iraq or how many people I spoke with about it. You don't know how many people there told me we were viewed as occupiers. You don't know how much I support women's rights. You don't know how connected I feel to those people still. For you to think that the conclusion I have come to was an easy one is wrong. I went to Iraq believing that my mission was helping either the Iraqis or the US or both. I came away thinking it was none of the above, but I don't have to change your mind. All I care about is that you understand that I am reasonable and kind (poll the rest of my platoon and see how much they cared about the Iraqis . . . answer: zero). Tell me my position is wrong, but don't think that you can make me out to be a misogynist or a religious nut when I have been called a hippie, a male feminist, and an atheist bastard by those in my platoon who think we should just nuke the entire country.
You hate Saddam, yet on the other thread of yours, you said that people preferred living under Saddam than now?
Your pro-saddam points are giving praise to a madman who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people when they opposed him.
but you don't support him. ..
you suggest that WE'RE at fault for terrorism in Iraq.... but you don't support him.
You even go so far as to say that we're making Iraq a worse place..... but you don't support him.
If you give such compliments and support to those you DON'T support, what do you have to say about those you DO support?
I see that you can't differentiate between what Iraqis say in polls and to soldiers and what I believe to be true: that Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator who ran a police state. There are starving people in Russia who actually preferred living under Soviet reign; that doesn't mean that I support Soviet communism, does it?
I haven't heaped a shred of praise on Saddam Hussein; nice try though. You must be trying really hard to make me out to be an America-hating, Leftist, radical, communist, terrorist-loving quack if you look at my comments and come away thinking I support Saddam Hussein. I don't support Kim Jong Il either, but I don't support an invasion of North Korea . . . wait, I guess that means I support him, doesn't it?
How many terrorist attacks occurred in Iraq before the invasion? How many suicide bombers? We let the genie out of the bottle whether you think it was worth it or not.
There are starving people in Russia who actually preferred living under Soviet reign; that doesn't mean that I support Soviet communism, does it?
Name them. Also compare them to the list of over 100 million people that just STALIN had killed, and tell me that they're better off under Communism just like you said that they're better off under Saddam.
How many terrorist attacks occurred in Iraq before the invasion? How many suicide bombers?
Well, 100 thouand Iraqi's killed by gas, countless thousands killed by sadam in torture chambers. his two kids had a fetish for watching people tortured to death whlie they raped women.
People lived in perpetual fear of being arrested and turned in for not being for saddam enough
There's a good video on this called "Buried in the Sand" that details Saddam's 'peaceful country" . . . as well as other islamic terrorism across the region.
cutting of hands, beheading people, torturing them to death, starvation, lining them up and shooting people..... That's the pre war Iraq....
We hardly let the 'genie out of the bottle' . . . no matter how much you want to believe that.
I'm not saying I agree with these people, but they do exist. Just check out this report from Pew...
Russia's Weakened Democratic Embrace
"Public opinion is tracking political developments in Russia. Russians have been considerably less enthusiastic about democracy in recent years than they were in the early 1990s...The climate of opinion was different in the fall of 1991, the Russians were discarding communism and hoped for a democratic future...Today, however, nearly a decade and a half since the Soviet Union's collapse and six years into the Putin era, many Russians are disillusioned. In 1991, by a 51%-39% margin, Russians believed their country should rely on a democratic government rather than a strong leader to solve the country's problems. By 2002, the share choosing democratic government had fallen to 21%. Although it has since risen slightly, confidence remains low, with only 28% of Russians in our 2005 survey saying the country's problems can best be solved by democracy."
It really isn't whether or not these people would really be better off or not, but whether or not they think that they would. Again, I don't agree with these people, but it is a fact that they do exist...
Failing the Stalin Test
"Since 2003, we have conducted three surveys in Russia, and according to these polls, there is no stigma associated with Stalin in the country today. In fact, many Russians hold ambivalent or even positive views of him. For example, one-quarter or more of Russian adults say they would definitely or probably vote for Stalin were he alive and running for president, and less than 40 percent say they definitely would not."
Russia is a perfect example of how you can win the battle, but lose the war. Our military is fully capable of beating the people of Iraq into submission, just as we did to Russia without or superior economy, but unless we also find a way to win over the hearts and minds of the people, then everything that we are doing in Iraq is pointless in the long run.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Yup, it is amazing that if you brainwash people enough, they'll say positive things about Stalin.
I'd bet, if you asked those same people, they'd also say that the mass starvations and food issues were the result of 70 years in a row of bad weather, which was the official government propaganda.
Meanwhile, liberals here embraced Stalin, even calling him "Uncle Joe" as FDR did.
They didn't get communism in a day and they won't break the communist mindset in a day. It may take a few generations to get rid of the rampant communism mindset.
That still doesn't mean that they're BETTER OFF with Stalin, living a 'more peaceful' life, as was suggested with Saddam.
I agree. But, my point is that unless we can actually effect a real difference in their lives, all of our talk of freedom and democracy will be falling on deaf ears. For the most part, I am a supporter of our goals in Iraq, but I think that we have done a very poor job of showing these people that our way is actually better. Most folks, and especially folks who are living in socially and economically repressed conditions, aren't really aware of the larger issues that we see from the lofty position that we enjoy living in one of the most powerful and affluent countries in the world. All they know is that they don't have jobs or schools or electricity or often even food, and if the system we offer can't provide them with a relatively quick resolution to the most basic challeges that these people face in their day-to-day lives, they probably aren't going to agree with the idea that we're actually helping them.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Oh, I think the free elections were a good sign of how it is better without Saddam.
Remember that many in Iraq, despite what you hear from others, are VERY thankful that we are here.
Heck, the Kurds named a college after us!
...though I think that another thing that often confuses the issue for us is that most Americans don't understand the deeply divisive nature of the religious and ethnic politics of the Middle East. I mean, how many Americans do you think could actually explain the difference between an Arab and a Kurd, or between a Sunni and a Shi'ite?
We often assume that what is good for "Iraq" is going to be viewed as "good" by all of these groups, when in fact many of the factions are so diametrically opposed to one another, that anything viewed as "good" for one group is almost automatically viewed as "bad" by the rest.
The Kurds are a good example of this. The Kurds like us because they are a relatively small, and under Saddam essentially powerless minority that is experiencing more power and control under U.S. protection than they have seen in generations. On the other hands, the Baathists--who held the bulk of the wealth and power under Saddam, and naturally going to resent having their power and status lessened.
Holding the moral high ground really doesn't mean very much when it comes to finding practical socio-political solutions to the problems in Iraq. Military force is only a path to real victory if you are willing to utterly destroy your enemies, leaving not one stone left standing upon stone, and killing every man, woman and child who opposes you. If our values are a little less blood-thirsty than that (and I hope that they are), then we really have no other choice except to try to find other, non-violent ways to win over our enemies, and make them our friends.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Well, the Kurds were made into a much smaller group by Saddam.
As far as destroying the enemy... That is vital. I am one who criticizes the president for not fighting this war harshly enough.
However, it is not a country that we are at war with, but a segment of a religion. That makes it much more difficult than previous wars.
Very true. That's one of the main reasons the Kurds like us so much.
With a civilian body count rapidly approaching the 100,000 mark, I'm not sure that I agree. I know that there are incredible challenges in trying to sort the insurgents from the law-abiding citizens, but the fact is that we seem to be doing a pretty piss-poor job of it, and our ineffectiveness in that regard is what is losing us the war for the hearts and minds of the people.
I think that's a little over-simplistic. What we are facing is a religious sub-group that has its power entwined neatly with significant political and military interests. If it was JUST religious fanatics, I don't think it would be so difficult to root them out. But, since those fanatics are backed by many surrounding, political and military groups...well, I think that there is a particularly important lesson to be seen in this...
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
Again, you take an example of something that I obviously do not agree with and try to turn it around as if I hold Stalin in high regard. I chose that analogy for a reason: it is obvious to me and most everyone that communist Russia was a terrible place, but that there will always be segments of the population that prefer the past under brutal but consistent conditions to an ever-changing situation in the present.
People in pre-Saddam Iraq did live in fear, but that's no different than now for many of them. The only difference is that then they were afraid to say anything bad about Saddam and now they are afraid to simply walk to the market in many cases.
I am interested in finding out how you would fight this war, since you criticize the president for fighting it harshly enough. It is so difficult to know who is who and where the attacks are coming from that the only way to fight it more harshly would be to essentially wage war on the entire population, which would only reinforce the occupier mentality of the Iraqis and further alienate those we have worked hard to bring to our side. I don't claim to be a military strategist though, so there may be something I am missing (I mean that in all sincerity). What would you do as commander in chief that would result in the free and democratic Iraq that is the end goal of this war?
As far as car bombings, suicide bombers, IEDs, et al, yes we very much precipitated those things becoming commonplace in Iraq. Neither pre-Saddam Iraq nor post-Saddam Iraq has been an oasis of peace and that is exactly my point: in each society, citizens lived in fear, yet in post-Saddam Iraq there have been almost 4,000 American soldiers killed and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed (estimates vary) while hundreds of thousands of others have fled their homes, resulting in ethnically cleansed neighborhoods.
Once again, the Kurds would disagree with you. They are SUPREMELY happy that we are there.
Right now, their main threat is the Iranian troops and weapons that are sneaking across the border, but that's nothing new for the Kurds. They're strong.
The bombing in Iraq happens for two reasons, historically.
1.) The target is American. They love to kill and kidnap americans... they've been doing it since the late 70's.
2.) The target is someone who helps the Americans.
That the terrorists are bombing the iraqis only shows the vast support that we REALLY have.
Yes, I'm sure they're afraid. I would be too. But, people are thankful, nonetheless, that they are rid of saddam and that they can vote in an ACTUAL free election.
You do understand, don't you, that every time you write a post or go to a protest against the war, those words and acts are seen by our enemies. They see them and think "See? The americans aren't behind this president. We are winning!"
Though you (I imagine) do not intend to give our enemy morale, your words and actions are doing that very thing. They dig in a bit harder, fight a big longer, sacrifice a bit more.... because they know that if they keep doing what they're doing... killing, bombing... spreading terror.... people will rant against the war and we will eventually leave, giving them the country.
That is how they think they will win, as they learned from the way the left ranted and screamed about Vietnam (well, once Nixon was in there, anyway)
I don't have a problem with people thinking that war is bad and wrong. I don't think it is ALWAYS bad or wrong, there are times that I am against military action. (Bombing an Aspirin plant overseas to cover up some news story about the president's sex life comes to mind)... but when we are at war, ESPECIALLY when our men and women are over there fighting... that is the WORST time to make public shows showing your discontent with the war.
As John McCain and the other Vietnam POWs can tell you, the enemy sees and hears it, and uses it to build their morale and further their own evil agenda.
How many of those 'almost 4,000' american soldiers would still be alive if we didn't have the Demcorat base ranting against "Bush's illegal war for oil" ?
I completely disagree. If someone truly (in their heart as well as their mind) believes that we are only creating more dead bodies and doing little to uphold and defend the Constitution (the oath the military takes), it is their democratic duty to speak out. I would much rather have people I disagree with (whether pro war or anti war) speak out than become apathetic.
As far as the morale of the soldiers goes, when I was there, we laughed about the letters to the editor claiming that those who didn't support the war were killing our morale. We didn't care at that point. We just wanted to focus on the task at hand and remain alive (and we did do our best to perform jobs, even as it brought personal risk and many of us disagreed with the mission).
The people we are fighting in Iraq are not so capricious that simply believing that the Americans are in it for the long haul is going to make them quit. They are truly in it for as long as it takes and no matter how many times we claim to support the war or the troops fighting it, they are going to be undeterred. The fact of the matter is that we are not united behind our president. The majority of the country does not support him or the war he leads, so it's not an illusion we are creating; it's the truth. The same is true for Vietnam. The country did not support it and it was a travesty of democracy that it went on as long as it did.
As long as we are seen as the Western occupiers, we will be targeted and those who help us (many of which only help us because we pay well) will be targeted. But, if we leave (with NGOs and international peacekeepers taking over), eventually, you will see something like out in Anbar where they simply got tired of the constant bombings by Al Qaeda elements on Iraqis. When there is no "fighting the Americans" excuse, Iraqis will tire of being targeted by terrorist elements and will root them out. Once the foreign elements are gone from Iraq, it will be a test of democracy that I hope and believe that the Iraqi people can win.
How narrow-minded lancekates has been. It honestly sounds like right-winged sound bits over and over. This war isn't about liberal v. conservative or democrat v. republican. We all wanted to kill people after September 11th. I was 13 years old and I remember my dad coming home and yelling "we're going to kill those terrorists finally!" the day the war was announced.
lancekates are you stationed in Iraq? Have you been stationed in Iraq? Are you in a branch of the military? I honestly don't know and would like an answer b/c if you are not than how can you possible argue againist a man whose actually been there? Where is your information coming from? Is it the friendly faces over at Fox & Friends?
Let's face it any tv news is utterly ridiculous in this country. From Fox to NBC and everything in between. They are ALL in it to make a quick buck and not one station is doing any real reporting anymore. Few stations bother doing any investigative work at all, so please don't tell me your sources are off the tv.
If you have credible sources backing your information that Kurds like us, SUPREMELY. Then I would be more inclined to listen. But until i know where your getting your info I'll take my chances with the guy who was actually there.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Read some of the sources from my Women in Iraq article.
Your answers lie there.
Actually, Lance is correct about the Kurds very much welcoming our toppling of Saddam. They have been an oppressed people for decades and decades and now they are semi-autonomous and have very little violence in the Kurdistan region of Iraq where they fly the Kurdistan flag and not the Iraqi flag. They want sovereignty and their own country.
This really isn't about "I've been there and he hasn't" and I don't want to turn into that (even though some prefer to view in that light). What it boils down to is that I, as an American and a soldier, do not believe that this war is making the US any safer, and that time after time polls have shown a decided anti-occupation opinion. Even those who maintain their support of the toppling of Saddam are growing tired of our presence; I saw it everyday.
We can continue to argue, but neither Lance nor myself are changing our minds.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I think that you are lost. You said "I had been told that all the liberal media did was report the negative news," and then you said you couldn't blame the media anymore just because they didn't KNOW about the incident. Are you listening to yourself? The liberal media is STILL the scapegoat. If they can get pictures of american soldiers torturing naked prisoners, don't you think they would KNOW about the discovery of the torture chamber? You said it yourself, it is such a huge event-how can you miss it? Therefore, I think its naive to say they didn't know. They know a lot more than you think. They have reporters there day and night trying to uncover negative news. Naturally, they filter the good news out and leave the bad news BECAUSE THAT NEWS SHAPES AMERICA"S OPINION OF THE WAR< WHICH THE MEDIA WANTS TO PROMOTE. I am sorry that you can not see this.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
You have completely misunderstood what was said.
Before I got to Iraq and especially while training for the deployment, the trainers and leadership made a point all the time to tell us that the liberal media was everywhere in Iraq ready to pounce on every bit of negative news that they could, even if the news was of an isolated incident that did not truly represent what was going on. During our training, I didn't know who we were being sent to kill, the insurgents or the journalists (slight exaggeration, but the media was vilified almost as much as the people trying to kill us). After I got there, I saw just how little the media actually got to see. I saw things that would have been front page news if only the media had known about them, but they didn't. They didn't because, unless they were there or a soldier leaked the info, they had no way of knowing about the torture chamber at MOI for example. So, I used to think that the big, bad liberal media was misrepresenting the war by showing all these atrocities, but then I realized that they were only representing what was going on by reporting what little they actually knew about.
Trust me, there is no way the media knew about the MOI torture chamber and didn't pounce on it. People in my own chain of command probably didn't know about it.
IF the media had actually reported this, however, they would have been vilified as only reporting negative news and trying to shape public opinion, but no one would have stopped to admit that it was true and ponder what it meant about the government we were backing there.
I ask this in all sincerity, what "good news" would you like to see on tv? What positive news about Iraq would you like to see that actually represents what type of successes are going on? I adopted a couple of Iraqi children along with my squad and we felt like they truly were sons or little brothers to us. That is positive, but it has little to do with the success of the mission. The media already reports major military victories by Iraq security forces, tribes aligning with the US, and every drop in casualties; what else do you want to know?