Dissent From the Front Lines

When will we listen to the troops? I'm not talking about soldiers used as props for a George Bush photo op, telling reporters what Washington wants to hear. The military is disciplined and thus accustomed, from Gen. David Petraeus on down, to toeing the official line. But the Iraq war has also produced brilliant messages of dissent from the ranks that should cause us to stop in our tracks and reconsider what we have wrought. First, a group of sergeants came forward, and on Tuesday it was the captains' turn to speak out.

In "The War as We Saw It," an eloquent Op-Ed article published in the New York Times in August, seven sergeants summarized the futility of their 15 months of fighting in Iraq: "To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is farfetched." After penning that crie de cour, two of the soldiers died in Iraq and a third was severely wounded.

On Tuesday, the Washington Post printed "The Real Iraq We Knew," by 12 former Army captains, all of whom served in Iraq. It begins: "Today marks five years since the authorization of military force in Iraq, setting Operation Iraqi Freedom in motion. Five years on, the Iraq war is as undermanned and under-resourced as it was from the start. And, five years on Iraq is in shambles. As Army captains who served in Baghdad and beyond, we've seen the corruption and the sectarian division. We understand what it's like to be stretched too thin. And we know when it's time to get out."

How come those brave veterans know it's time to get out, but leading Democrats, who voted for the war to be authorized, are still pussyfooting about quickly removing the troops from this ever-deepening quagmire? They're jockeying for political advantage, knowing that drawing out the war hurts the Republicans. It is a deeply cynical ploy that works only because with our all-volunteer military, most Americans don't have to face the choice of sacrificing themselves or their loved ones in a futile and losing war.

Yes, it costs the taxpayers, but so do the "Halo 3" video games they are purchasing in record numbers, and for most Americans, Iraq is a make-believe war. Even the cost seems unreal, as Bush is the first president in U.S. history to cut taxes in a time of war, with the result that more than a trillion dollars in long-term obligations will not come due while his administration has to foot the bills.

If there was a draft, people would be in the streets demanding an end to this carnage, which now threatens to go on for decades. That is precisely what the neocon ideologues who got us into this mess built their fantasies on: a volunteer force, supplemented by hundreds of thousands of contractors (including 50,000 mercenary troops like those from Blackwater) and the purchase of largely irrelevant but highly profitable high-tech weaponry, although they forgot about simple armor for the troops.

The most fraudulent neocon claim was that pro-Western, even pro-Israel Iraqis, like their favorite, the now totally discredited Ahmed Chalabi, would police the country as surrogates for the U.S., and that Iraqi oil sales would pay for it all. The 12 captains, who worked with the locals, are very clear as to the forlorn outcome of that plan: " ... many of us witnessed the exploitation of U.S. tax dollars by Iraqi officials and military officers. Sabotage and graft have had a particularly deleterious impact on Iraq's oil industry which still fails to produce the revenue that Pentagon war planners hoped would pay for Iraq's reconstruction."

As for that other ongoing illusion--that we are turning power over to Iraqi forces we have trained--the captains write: "Iraqi soldiers quit at will. The police are effectively controlled by militias. And ... corruption is debilitating. U.S. tax dollars enrich self-serving generals and support the very elements that will battle each other after we're gone."

Building an empire on the cheap and by proxy doesn't work. If you want one, and of course most of us don't, since only a few fat cats benefit from such imperial adventures, you need a vast conscript army.

As the captains put it: "There is only one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately." Enough said.

Originally published at Truthdig.com

Comments

[LizM]

I guess the Bush administration does not have a monopoly on offering up false choices.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, maybe, Pelosi's actually a Bush employee on the side? You know, fake resistance, claim
to be representing someone/something, but no
real substance to it, when it comes right down
to it...there's issues, I think, related to Large Sums Of Money...fraud, graft, corruption,
you name it, there's a laundry list...one
thing IS for sure, as long as the troops are
in Iraq, that meter keeps running, and some
people are profiting wildly by the whole thing,
to get to the bottom of it all means finding out
about all of that, and holding people to public
account who'll likely be trying to avoid that
particular circumstance...stay tuned!

[unitron]

We should never have let the idiot-in-chief get us into this mess, but we did.

Do we now have no moral obligation to stay until we fix what we broke, and can we just abandon those Iraqis who have worked with us to be trapped in the crossfire of the death squads who will be fighting each other over who gets to be first to slaughter those we kick to the curb?

Since Turkey seems to have troops to spare for foreign adventurism, how about we send our troops up to patrol the border between Iraq and Turkey and keep a lid on the Kurdish separatists, and the Turkish troops can come down to the middle of Iraq and referee between their fellow Muslims?

[CatfishJohn]

...i am waiting, much like the delayed acknowledgement of the role agent orange played in causing thousands of cases of diabetes in now middle- aged vietnam , for eventual studies of the inevitable health impact of the unfiltered toxic and parasite ridden euphrates river water halliburton knowingly supplied to our brave troops at a huge profit margin for showering, shaving and making coffee with..but alas, an utterly cowardly and invertebrate democratic congress and a corporate media intentionally obsessed with brittany spears most recent fender bender has forgotten about this criminal abomination already...more criminal cronyism abominations agaisnt our troops surley to to be revealed...or maybe not...as our soldiers and their families bear the brunt of this disaster while americans blithely shop and play with tech-gadgets....

[dadw5boys]

The Mexican Army was spotted in the USA over 250 times last year protecting drug smugglers.
We need the reserves on the Mexican Border to STOP THE INVASION.

[Rescisco]

"How come those brave veterans know it's time to get out, but leading Democrats, who voted for the war to be authorized, are still pussyfooting about quickly removing the troops from this ever-deepening quagmire?"

Its simple. They really do not have an ounce of courage or a dash of knowledge. They are afraid to lead and uncertain about where to go. In fairness, the incentive to lead and to be bold is non-existent when the public participation in the political process is so sporadic and uninformed. Being a leader and being bold only invites "swift boating" from the opposition and the public always falls for it.

[Doofus]

It's actually simpler still.

Whoever quits Iraq gets to take the
responsibility, the blame for the loss.

So it's more like a game of 'chicken' at this point.

[Rescisco]

Absolutely right, and much more efficiently stated.

[CaptainObvious]

Since the congre$$ won't act to cut off war funding, it is up to the citizenry.

INCOME TAX REVOLT!

[MikeDu]

Perhaps we should all switch sides.
The "support the troops" crowd should naturally support withdrawing them to the safety of their homes and families. The "oppose the lying warmongers" side should push for the continuation of this war as the surest method of emasulating the military and greatly reducing its future potential for harm.

As to the future of Iraq, what future? Much of its population has fled, its birth rate is down and mortality rate is up. Its infrastructure has collapsed. "We" stomped on Iraq for sheer spite and this was the result of our actions.

[SamThornton]

It should be clear by now that the Bush plan for Iraq has never included anything other than permanent occupation.

In retrospect, each Bush ploy has served the interests of kicking that ball just a little bit further down the field.

Bush hopes to commit American interests to this objective so deeply that extricating ourselves from Iraq will be accepted as unacceptable.

So far, each argument Bush has advanced for continued occupation is easily refuted and all have been refuted by knowledgeable people, including many in the military. But, each has also served to enable his intransigence.

It remains to be seen how much further damage Bush will be able to inflict on the nation in the time remaining to him. Given his track record, I'd bet we're in for even more severely delusional policy making.

[jrockbg]

As a soldier I respect the opinions of the servicemen quoted in this piece. But I do disagree. If Iraq existed in a vaccuum then I would agree with many of their points. I agree with many assertions about us going in forthe wrong reasons and a failed plan once we got there. But none of that matters now.
Iran being increasingly hostile is a legitimate foreign policy concern. Our presence in Iraq in a way stifles a drumbeat to war towards Iran. Our troops are committed in Iraq, leaving a major invasion of Iran a last ditch effort. NO ONE WANTS DRAFT...except Rangel and Sharpton. And since our troops are already in the region, established in surrounding countries, there is no upping of the stakes by a troop build-up in the region.
We also can't ignore the potential loss of civilian life in what would be an ugly power vaccuum. Much like the end of the Vietnam war.
Are we in a horrible situation in Iraq? Yes. Is leaving the best thing for the U.S. and the world? This soldier says no.

[TheHandyman]

First, the obvious. The reason you think we should stay is you aren't there! Second, I doubt you are a combat veteran, someone who came under fire. Combat veterans realize very quickly when the cause is lost as this one is. Third, for some people the brainwashing never goes away. They are conditioned to believe that a war, however distasteful, once started must be finished even if it means total annihilation to one or both sides.

How many Americans would die if we brought all of them home right away? Let me put the situation in terms you can understand. A member of you family is sending other members out to be killed for no good reason. That same family member is spending every dime you have on getting the other members of your family killed and is making his friends rich with your money. Soon you will have no money to buy food, gas, electricity and pay your morgage. What will you do then? What can you do when that family member walks away filthy rich and moves to Beverly Hills?

So, when it comes to advice, yours is absolutely worthless because it is predicated on ignorance rather than fact! These Captains have hit the nail on the head!

[AuntSally]

On the draft again...

...Better yet, all members of Congress are required to serve on the front lines, in rotating six month deployments, a third at a time.

[wolf58]

Don't forget the chickenhawks of the Bush administration and yes of course King Bush himself.

[AuntSally]

jrock,

First of all, thank you for your service. And good comments. But just to be clear, I WANT A DRAFT...

I served on active duty for four years at the tail end of the cold war, and another four on inactive reserve. I'm over forty, and I want a draft. And I think everyone should be eligible - including me.

I agree w/ Mr. Scheer - this war isn't real to most Americans, and it needs to be. And the only way I can imagine it so is by instituting a near-universal draft. No deferments; no buyouts. Including congressmen. In fact, let's make it an over-thirty only draft. I'm not being hyperbolic; I'm serious. There remain too many people out there giving a full-throated defense of this miserable action, with no personal stake in it. We're happy to ask you to go, but not to go ourselves. It's shameful; it's destructive; it's counterproductive. And not only are we asking our youngest to go (I'm assuming you're in your 20's), we're also asking you to pay for it! Scheer isn't kidding about those tax breaks; I get to rake it in, forget about taxes and slurp lattes all day, tell you to fight this ridiculous war, and oh, by the way, would you pick up the check!

Time for all of us to put up or shut up. Past time...

[UltraClassic]

Hi Sally, let's be clear, no liberal or leftist democrat wants a draft. This is political posturing. Liberals and leftist democrats say they want a draft in an attempt to make a point, and more power to them. But if you think there is one liberal or leftist democrat who in fact would support a draft, I got a bridge to sell you.

[ClevelandTom]

"Our presence in Iraq in a way stifles a drumbeat to war toward Iran."

Wrong. Our presence in Iraq is Iran's primary motivation to meddle in Iraqi affairs and pursue nuclear weapons. The US is a clear threat to them and they are responding as any threatened nation would.

As far as the drumbeat for war in Iran we hear in the US, given the distant horizon to the day when Iran both has a nuclear weapon and a credible means of delivering it, I can only assume that the urgency is a political contrivance of the Bush administration eager to draw attention away from Iraq.

"We also can't ignore the potential loss of civilian life in what would be an ugly power vaccuum. Much like the end of the Vietnam war."

Yes, there was loss of life after we pulled out of Viet Nam. There was also tremendous loss of life - innocent as well as combatant - while the US was in Viet Nam. Which was greater? The latter. Would more or less die if we leave Iraq? I don't know for certain, but neither do you. One thing is certain... fewer Americans would die.

[sedalia066]

Many times different people have said, "You get what you pay for in this life." Maybe if the country were paying by higher taxes or a draft we'd get either a winning effort or withdrawal from a losing cause. I'd go for withdrawal any day for many reasons rather than trying to win by destroying more of the country and the price might be a lot less that what we are paying today. Today the price is much too high and we get nothing in return.

[snaggster]

Enough of this "we" business already. "We" don't need to listen to them. That illegal occupation is based on lies. That's the bottom line and nothing they say will change that.