My name is Justin C. Cliburn, and I am a specialist in the Oklahoma Army National Guard. I served in Balad and Baghdad in 2005 and 2006, returning in December of last year. I have been a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War since April 2007.
I attended the IVAW national convention in St. Louis in August. There, I told them that they can have all the success they want in DC, Philly, New York, LA, and Seattle; it's not going to mean a thing until you win the "heartland." They told me to put my money where my mouth is, and I am now the South Central Region Coordinator for Iraq Veterans Against the War. Since September, we have started chapters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and Austin, Texas. We'll have a Lawton/Fort Sill by the end of the month and will set our sights on Fort Hood and Fort Bliss, Texas after that. IVAW is growing, nationally and in the region; we're coming to a hometown near you whether you like it or not.
I'm not here to change minds, though; I don't have nearly enough time for that. Instead, I appeal to the veterans to come out of the woodwork because the best way to honor the veterans is to listen to what they have to say and to encourage them to say how they feel. The best way you as a veteran can honor those who came before and those who will come after you is to speak out against what you feel to be wrong. The sentiment is there; the passion is there. I've seen and heard it; we're only missing the will to organize and speak out.
So, in closing, I say this to the veterans: I have participated in IVAW activities in St. Louis, Washington DC, New Orleans, and Lawton, Oklahoma. I have been quoted in newspapers all across the world. I am still alive and well. My rank is safe; my honor is intact. You CAN speak out legally; you CAN be an engaged American citizen. Utilize the freedoms you protect. Even so, IVAW membership is completely confidential; no one in your chain of command will ever know you are a member. I urge you to log on to www.ivaw.org for more information.
All it takes for evil to flourish in the world is for good men to sit around and do nothing; let's do something.
So if MY soldier wants to speak out about how proud and brave he is, is he allowed?
Or would he be shot down? (please excuse the pun.)
[I'm not shooting youdown, by the way...]
Thank you for voicing your opinion with respect to those who are opposed to it.
----
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
If your soldier spoke out in support of the war, I would not imply that he doesn't have that right. I would, however, be just as skeptical of his sentiments as I am of others who support the war. What type of psychological motivations are behind his words? Does it make him feel better to believe that his friends died for a reason? Is it too much for him to perform his job AND believe that he is doing so in vain? Can he make a reasoned argument for how this war is making our country safer other than "Here or There"? Has he stopped to think about every other insurgency and occupation in history? I would be critical of your soldier's words, but I would never attempt to quell his right to free speech, as it is one of the rights the US military takes an oath to defend.
Justin.
:) Thank you for a well thought out and heart-felt response.
I agree with you wholly. I am glad that you can be accepting even though you are skeptical.
My situation was hypothetical, but I feel that much better about the world that there are in fact people out there who can defend their opinions and ideas and still be respectful of the contrasting views.
----
http://progressiveu.org/143541-how-to-survive-the-2008-elections
Good for you!! I also think that it is a possible and real thing to both support the military and be against the meaningless war on terror. We also happen to live very near to one another. It would be great to see you guys around the OU campus! There are plenty of anti-war people here who could help you out.
How come we only ask ourselves the really big questions when something bad happens?
Let me first say that I think there have been mistakes in this war(however war is not always clean), but.....even if we didn’t invade for the right reasons ask yourself this, if I was an Iraqi would I rather be under the rule of Saddam or in 10 or 15 years, possibly prospering under a FREELY elected government?
Also would you want to take the risk that Saddam under no UN restrictions would be able to revive his WOMD program and supply them to terrorist? I have heard that he didn’t like dealing with terrorist but do you want to take that risk?!?!? I wouldn’t and don’t want to take that risk.
I know that I met several Iraqi police that said no they didn’t like that we were in their country but also in the same breath said they would not want us to leave. In fact I can remember being in Sadr City and kids running out just to wave at us and yes some showed us the bottom of their shoes but for the majority of the time I felt we were welcomed.
Like any war there are atrocities and soldiers will be soldiers, but with our mistakes I feel in long term this war will viewed as just and fruitful for the stabilization of the Middle East.
Using that rationalization though, we should go liberate the North Koreans, the Saudis, the poor folks in Darfur, etc, etc. Simply saying that we took out a corrupt government isn't enough. Yes, we did that, but we also destabilized the entire region and provided the green light for Iran to seek defensive measures fearing another US backed Iraq directly next to them. Saddam was a bad guy, to be sure, but the level of violence in that area hasn't been that high in decades or centuries. It's a paradox that we find ourselves in. Even the most ardent opponent to the initial invasion will admit that withdrawal is not an easy task and not one that can be easily predicted. Terrorist attacks have tripled in the years since the invasion and terrorist cells use the invasion and occupation of Iraq as a recruiting tool . . . and it's working. Whether we leave today or ten years from now, there will be very rough bumps in the road, but, without the US occupying their streets, history tells us that they will have to "man up" and make the progress for themselves.
Many of our Iraqi police told us to our faces they wanted us there, and then they told our interpreter differently. They were also the ones running death squads by night, setting up fake checkpoints to extort money from the populace, and making a pretty decent wage working for the US. So, all I'm saying is, I pay more attention to the reactions of those I didn't directly know or who didn't directly benefit from our presence. Every poll taken shows that the majority of the Iraqi people want us to leave and a very high number of them say that violence on US soldiers is justified to end the occupation.
"Saddam was a bad guy, to be sure, but the level of violence in that area hasn't been that high in decades or centuries."
Under Saddam's rule, over 100 thousand kurds were gassed.
Countless thousands were tortured and killed for opposing him, even just in protests.
Women were 'honor raped' and killed.
but you think that doesn't qualify as a high level of violence?
Honor killings happen in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia far more than they ever did in Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq was a pretty secular country.
If you were so concerned with the Kurds, why didn't you lobby for liberation back in the 80's when that was going on? Why did it take a decade or more for you to come to their defense? Go there and speak to people in Baghdad. They'll tell you that under Saddam, they never had to worry about their children being blown up on the way to school. They never feared shopping in the markets. IEDs never littered the streets. As long as you didn't speak ill of Saddam, you were generally left alone. Was it an ideal life? No, but it was a hell of a lot safer than the mess they find themselves in today.
If the US had done something to defend the Kurds just after it happened (or, better yet, while it was happening), then I would buy the argument that this is all benevolent, but that argument went out the window we sat around and let things happen that we now cite as justification for a war that didn't go quite as they planned.
In over two decades of Saddam's rule, a hundred thousand Kurds were gassed; in five years of a US invasion and occupation, close to a million Iraqis have been killed. Yeah, I wonder why they're not more grateful for "saving" them.
"Honor killings happen in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia far more than they ever did in Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, Iraq was a pretty secular country."
Iraq was VERY secular, until Saddam wanted more support from the islamic terrorist groups, when he changed the flag to include religious overtones.
"If you were so concerned with the Kurds, why didn't you lobby for liberation back in the 80's when that was going on? Why did it take a decade or more for you to come to their defense?"
in 1980, I was 1. What did you want from me? I couldn't poo in a toilet yet and you wanted me to fight for the kurds?
"They'll tell you that under Saddam, they never had to worry about their children being blown up on the way to school. They never feared shopping in the markets. IEDs never littered the streets."
Why do you blame the United States for that, rather than the terrorist supporters and the Iranians which are passing weapons to those that we (including yourself when you were over there) fought? Why not cast the blame on those who would bomb innocents going to market? They're the ones doing it.
"As long as you didn't speak ill of Saddam, you were generally left alone."
Yeah, that's how it was in soviet russia as well. As long as you didn't complain about waiting in line for 3 hours to get stale or moldy bread, then the KGB didn't arrest and shoot you. So peaceful, that society was.
"If the US had done something to defend the Kurds just after it happened (or, better yet, while it was happening), then I would buy the argument that this is all benevolent, but that argument went out the window we sat around and let things happen that we now cite as justification for a war that didn't go quite as they planned. "
Yes, it is a shame that the UN wouldn't allow us to finish the job during the first persian gulf war under the previous President Bush. It is a shame that the UN turned their heads to continue to collect money during their Oil for Food scandal while Saddam continued to kill people who spoke out against him. It is a shame that the UN consistantly refuses to act to help the oppressed masses of many countries. It is a shame that unless we lead the way, the world will not act. (And it is a shame that when things get so bad that we DO act, the UN condemns US and not the oppresive murderous tyrants.)
It is funny when you mention the fact that we saved thousands of people from Saddam they always respond with why dont we invade these other countries? So are you saying we need to invade these countries also? In fact do these countries kill there people on the scale like Saddam did (except Darfur) and that isnt in our National Intrest. I was making the point that even though you didnt agree why we invaded which I do at least we still freed the people. In fact ho wdo you know how many innocent people were killed in Iraq, he controlled the media!
Like I also said that the people said they didnt want us there like the polls suggest but they still wanted us there for protection...you can always skew a poll by how you ask the question. Dont be naive in believing all polls!
We could prove that wife beating is on the rise if we asked the question "Have you been caught beating your wife?"
doesn't mean that it is... but we can make a poll LOOK like it is.
So, enlighten me, Lance. How many Iraqis did you poll?
ooo... nice attempt. because I am not in Iraq, my views that support the freedom of the iraqi people from an oppressive tyrant who murdered 100 thousand kurds for opposing him is less important than your opinion that America is evil for fighting in Iraq to free the iraqi people from an oppressive tyrant who murdered 100 thosuand kurds for opposing him.
As long as we can take little jabs like that, was it your anti-war rallies or my pro-war rallies that included signs with slogans like "We support the troops when they shoot their officers" ?
link: http://www.oakparkgop.org/imgs/2_shoot_officers.jpg
You act is if I have no idea what I'm talking about when I speak of the strong anti-occupation sentiment in Iraq when you have never yourself spoken to an Iraqi. You can make the case all you want for why you support the invasion and occupation, but you can't act is if I am completely ignorant in my statements about the sentiment I encountered, which is supported by poll after poll (with the questions, methods, and number and location of respondents included). Without even addressing the issue, you dismissed the polls, as well as my firsthand experience. I never said that your support of the war is unimportant; I simply took your mis-guided, snarky attempt at dismissing scientific polls and turned it around on your all-knowing self.
If YOU want to take ownership of every pro-war rally and every stupid sign people hold up at them, fine, but I speak for myself and for my organization and that's it. Every facet of society opposes this war; you don't get 70% of America opposing the war by only counting the most radical revolutionaries in the nation. There are a ton of "9/11 Truthers" that show up at IVAW events, but we think they're nuts and do all we can not to be photographed around them.
70% of the population opposes the war?
or 70% of those polled oppose the war?
HUGE difference between those two.
I think you have your opinion, and you're allowed to have it. And you're allowed to express it (unlike the iraqi people when Saddam was in charge... if you said about him, then, what you say about the war now, they'd have already locked you up, cut out your tongue, tortured you, then killed you. But it was more peaceful then, according to you.)
I think there are many in Iraq who do not want us there. of course, there are many in Iraq who we fight. They tend to plant bombs in cars to blow our soldiers and innocent iraqis up.
Of course, if they don't want us there, why do the Kurds welcome us, even naming their college after us?
Again, I just suggest that the opinion that we're evil for going over there and freeing the iraqi people from an oppressive tyrant who gassed 100 thousand kurds, and had countless thousands tortured and killed, for opposing him is, at best, a little misguided.
We can disagree about the reasons why we went over there. However, to say that we are not doing good is to REALLY ignore many horrible things done by Saddam.
Of course, earlier in this thread, you said that things were more peaceful over there..... as long as no one said anything bad about Saddam.
I'm sure the soviet era russians would beg to differ about the quality of THAT kind of peace.
I am not nearly as naive as you think I am. I hear about the poll, look it up, and see what questions were asked, who asked them, where the respondents lived, etc.
I am not saying we should invade those other countries, but, by your logic, we should because it would liberate oppressed people. Is saving lives only worth it when those lives happen to live in an area of the world that has much of the world's oil? (Note that this isn't meant in a "Bush is evil and lining his pockets in oil" sort of way; this is purely about "national interest" as you claim we should liberate people when the end result is in our national interests.) If we only liberate peoples that can help our national interests, does it make it benevolent or is it just a means-to-an-end way to get what we want and feel good about something in the process?
lancekates, Saddam included the religious overtones in order to unite the country. When the majority of the country is Shia and they are the oppressed, it is easy to want to rise up and do something. However, if you can create a national and religiously unifying identity by including something all factions can look to as their own on the flag, you can quell dissent.
You may scoff at the idea that many people would rather live and work without the freedoms you and I enjoy if it means they and their children will be safe, but it's true.
I don't give suicide bombers a pass, but you are a fool if you don't realize that it is our own invasion and occupation that gave rise to terrorism in Iraq. We are the ones who let the genie out of the bottle and there are close to a million Iraqis (the actual numbers vary and will never be known) who would love to be alive in Saddam's Iraq right now rather than in a wooden box in the ground.
Ignorant statements like this disgust me.
Saddam included religious overtones so he could garner more support from neighboring extremiss, and institute more fundamentalist laws keeping women in the home. He took away their rights; encouraged rapes, beatings, and murders; did not allow them to leave the country without a male relative; and no longer allowed them to vote. That's right; 60% of the population of Iraq could no longer vote after the Iran-Iraq War; that's 60% of the people whose husbands, brothers, and sons were killed by Saddam Hussein and legally could do nothing to elect people to speak for them.
He sure quelled that dissent.
http://www.progressiveu.org/221625-the-women-of-iraq
Is saving lives only worth it when those lives happen to live in an area of the world that has much of the world's oil?
We get more oil from canada and Mexico than we get from Iraq. If it was about oil, then we could have invaded one of those two for much less money.
Heck, if it was about oil, then we could have just illegally purchased it like France, Germany and Russia did, with the help of Kofi Anon's son (Remember the "Oil for Food" scandal? Where those countries, via him, bought oil from Iraq in exchange for cash and weapons?)
lancekates, Saddam included the religious overtones in order to unite the country. When the majority of the country is Shia and they are the oppressed, it is easy to want to rise up and do something. However, if you can create a national and religiously unifying identity by including something all factions can look to as their own on the flag, you can quell dissent.
Saddam quelled dissent by killing the dissenters. We elect them to congress.
You may scoff at the idea that many people would rather live and work without the freedoms you and I enjoy if it means they and their children will be safe, but it's true.
Funny, the Kurds seemed rather happy to have us take out someone who gassed 100 thousand of them for opposing Saddam. And I remember all the joy at the people being able to vote in the first FREE election in a few decades. (Much more free if those who oppose the current leader don't end up missing and dead, as happened to Saddam's opponents)
I don't give suicide bombers a pass
Yes you do. You blame us for their actions. That IS giving them a pass.
but you are a fool if you don't realize that it is our own invasion and occupation that gave rise to terrorism in Iraq.
see? you blame us. for THEIR actions. THEY choose to use suicide bombs in hope of killing enough innocents so as to destroy the morale of the american people. Thanks to the Democrats, it worked in vietnam after the tett offensive, which we won. They're trying it now, and they're counting on people talking about how horrible the United States has made Iraq.
We are the ones who let the genie out of the bottle and there are close to a million Iraqis (the actual numbers vary and will never be known) who would love to be alive in Saddam's Iraq right now rather than in a wooden box in the ground.
Umm.... hmm.... yes. the United states, according to you, is responsible for the killing of 1 million Iraqis.
Funny how killing people is only bad when one can stretch the truth to make it looks like we're responsible.
When Saddam killed 100 thousand Kurds for opposing him, you called it peaceful.... but when we fight terrorists who bomb innocents, you blame the united states.
sorry for the bad typos
My point exactly.
Still missed my logic...I feel that we were "JUST" in the invasion by keeping Saddam from giving WOMD to terrorist and the by product was that we freed the Iraqi people. There will be a period of adjustment that might take years to see fruition of our work, a stabilized country and ally. You have to look at the long term of what our goals are and not that people are dying. The cost of war is very tragic and the Iraqi people are suffering because we decided that we wanted to fight in their land, (this will sound mean) but I would rather fight over there than here!
Let me ask you this is war justified for any reason?
Well I also have first hand knowledge of Iraq and have a different viewpoint...like I said earlier I felt like I was more welcomed than hated. I had several friendships with Iraqis that made me feel that way. In fact one time we were surrounded by hundreds of Iraqi children and their families in Sadr city and never felt I was in danger or a was there a feeling of hatred towards us.
I had tremendous friendships with Iraqis as well. I "adopted" two Iraqi kids and we bought them shoes, clothes, food, toys, candy, backpacks. One of them was killed by a suicide bomber before I left and it tore me up so bad to grieve with his best friend, Ali. Of course there are people who like the soldiers. On the whole, soldiers are good people; we make the best of the situation. Most of the people who hate you aren't going to walk up and tell you though. You either have to be keen to the body language of people who don't talk to you, ask your interpreters what the grafitti says outside the station (sometimes it's English though, Death to the USA; Go away) or build up enough of a rapport with a friendly one to ask what the overriding mood towards the occupation was in their area.
Look, man. We obviously saw our experiences through different viewpoints. I would love to think we did a good thing; I went over there supporting it. I just don't believe it to be true. That's why, in my speech, I don't try to change minds or denigrate those soldiers who disagree with me. We were all there and will always have that bond, whether we know each other or not.
I am not trying to change your viewpoint either just giving mine to balance out what you are saying....it is funny how Liberals or conservatives willl take whatever viewpoint that fits their agenda and use it to their advantage. Be careful not to get sucked up in the machine and do more harm than good!
I hear you, man. IVAW is non-partisan and doesn't trust any of the presidential candidates anyway. Since August, we have made it a priority not to work with many of the groups that kind of got us our start because it only makes us look like a bunch of [insert candidate here] supporters with IVAW on our resume OR it divides the group internally because, contrary to popular belief, we are not all "far left individuals" as Bill O'Reilly would say.
by the way, since you're a part of "Iraq Veterans Against the War" . . . you may be in a good position to answer:
How is Jesse Adam Al-Zaid doing? he joined your group last year. Made up a bunch of stories about his squad committing all sorts of war crimes... proven to be a fraud.
I only say 'proven to be a fraud' because when it was investigated, it turns out that the fellow who claimed to be a ranger and was a part of a squad that did all sorts of evil things.... was actually booted from the military before even completing his training, let alone ever being shipped anywhere.
Actually, he CLAIMED to be a member of our organization; he was never an official member and many IVAW members were skeptical of his claims. One fake soldier claims to be a part of IVAW and you hold it against me?
now now, let's be honest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Veterans_Against_the_War#Macbeth_contr...
Jesse Macbeth was for a short time an IVAW member who went on record in well publicized videos claiming that he had committed numerous atrocities in Iraq. This garnered him much attention on anti-war blogs and anti-war videos.
and in the interest of fairness:
IVAW went on record saying: MacBeth came to Iraq Veterans Against the War in January 2006 asking for help, and the organization and its members extended itself to help him in various ways. Assisting veterans is one of the founding principles of IVAW and it is a mission that we take seriously. After looking into his recent claims, we have learned that Jesse is not what he represented himself to be. Accordingly, IVAW does not in any way endorse Jesse MacBeth or any of his accounts involving military service.
He was clearly a member of your organization apparently from January to May of 06. Thankfully, once it was proven without any shadow of the doubt that he was not only lying about the war crimes, but even about having completed TRAINING, you did boot him.
My apologies. I was under the impression that they had only helped him get into some counseling for PTSD and things. I do know that each and every member of IVAW has their DD214 or something akin to that on file at the national office.
I learned of MacBeth late, since I was in Iraq while that whole thing went down, but I took one look at his "ranger" picture and knew he was a fake. How he fooled anyone is beyond me. The stories themselves would have made me call bullshit from the beginning.
That you have to show your dd214 is because of him.
He fooled people because the anti-war groups are itching for the types of stories that he was putting out. They'll take the stories and push them as true before there is even a verification that they ARE true. The anti-war groups are looking for reasons to call our troops 'war criminals.'
The same goes for another faker by the name of scott beauchamp over at the New Republic, who tried to publish stories about his squad being 'shock troops' to go kill innocent iraqis.
Turns out that his stories were falsified and wholly untrue (though he at least did indeed serve in the military), though it is still hottly defended by TNR, as they had already put more stock into that story than Dan Rather had put into the TANG memos about President Bush (which also turned out to be fakes, printed off on Microsoft word)