SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jlallen who wrote (42479)4/13/2004 12:14:36 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
Rah! Rah! Rah! Sisk Cum Bah!

To paraphrase, "We've killed men, women, children and infants, and we're proud of it."

Wake up! Quit being a jingoist.

lurqer



To: jlallen who wrote (42479)4/13/2004 12:21:22 PM
From: Harvey Allen  Respond to of 89467
 
Fresh Marines take over tricky mission in Ramadi

BY MIKE DORNING

Chicago Tribune

RAMADI, Iraq - (KRT) - Less than two weeks after Lance Cpl. Justin Stadelman's unit took responsibility for patrolling this restive town in western Iraq, red-hot shrapnel from roadside bombs already had torn through his Humvee, not once but twice.

"The first one, seriously, I thought I was in the pit of hell, because of all the fire and smoke," said Stadelman, a 23-year-old Marine from Loveland, Colo.

At Camp Hurricane, a walled compound on a dusty camp along the Euphrates River, the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment has begun a six-month deployment with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in one of Iraq's most dangerous towns.

Located within the volatile Sunni Triangle, Ramadi is just 30 miles from Fallujah, where four American civilian security consultants were killed Wednesday. The burned bodies of two of the consultants were left hanging for hours from a bridge.

One year after the ground offensive that swiftly toppled Saddam Hussein, U.S. forces in Iraq continue an often-deadly struggle against a persistent guerrilla opposition.

More than 110,000 fresh soldiers and Marines are either in Iraq or on their way this spring, as the U.S. military completes its largest rotation of forces since World War II. The Pentagon plans to repeat the rotations annually until the country is stabilized and can provide its own security.

The troop turnover is a time of testing and heightened peril as each side probes the other anew for weaknesses.

Fresh troops are learning hard lessons as they adapt to a conflict unlike the conventional wars that the military has long been configured to fight. Casualties have risen sharply, with 52 U.S. troops killed in March versus 20 in February, according to a coalition spokesman.

The Marine Corps in particular has arrived determined to maintain a focus on winning over members of the local population, even as it mounts a stepped-up campaign to capture or kill guerrillas.

Drawing on lessons from their experience suppressing insurgencies in places such as Latin America and the Philippines, the Marines have a strategy in Iraq that calls for restraint and an emphasis on building relationships with residents and local powers.

At the same time, Marine commanders have chosen to show a greater presence on the streets; the Army units they replaced had largely pulled back to the outskirts of towns.

Like Fallujah, Ramadi has been an epicenter of resistance to coalition forces. Saddam forged close alliances with tribal leaders in both towns and, as a result of the dictator's patronage, many residents held lucrative, high-level posts in the old regime's army, security services and state-owned industries.

The region also is a stronghold of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalists, who senior military commanders in Iraq believe are playing an increasingly important role in the insurgency.

In Ramadi, the 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment is experiencing firsthand the toll taken by roadside bombs and rocket-propelled-grenade attacks as it navigates the complexities of developing allies and identifying enemies in an unfamiliar tribal, Islamic society.

The commander, Lt. Col. Paul Kennedy, a 40-year-old Boston University history graduate, courts sheiks over lunches at their homes. He rushes with a convoy one night to reinforce a police station and reassure its chief of the unit's support amid rumors of an attack. Another night he leads raids on the homes of two suspected insurgents thought to be involved in an attack on a Marine patrol.

As Marines move through town on patrols, they scan rooftops and alleys for snipers and watch the sides of roads for detonation wires. On debris-strewn streets, bicycles, fuel cans and even piles of trash have hidden bombs. At night convoys of Humvees barrel along roads with their lights out, taking cover in speed and darkness.

The Marines constantly change the times and routes of their movements, trying to complicate attempts to ambush them. Even meals shift every day. With no kitchens at Camp Hurricane, hot food comes by convoy and its schedule is kept deliberately erratic.

Nearly three weeks after the 1,000-person battalion assumed responsibility for Ramadi, two of its members are dead. Another's jaw was torn from his face in an explosion. One more lost a leg. Three others each lost an eye.

In all, more than three dozen have been wounded, although more than half have returned to duty with only minor injuries. Rarely does more than a day go by without an explosive device detonating near a convoy or a foot patrol.

Despite the casualties, the unit presses on with patrols, on foot as well as in vehicles.

And despite the loss of their comrades, the Marines are exhorted to show friendliness toward civilians. In the parlance of the military, the unit is employing "wave tactics," everything from throwing candy to children to, literally, waving greetings at Iraqis.

Before departing their home base in Camp Pendleton, Calif., the Marines were given lessons in basic Arabic and classes in religious and cultural sensitivities. They were warned not to wear sunglasses when speaking with Iraqis or show the soles of their shoes, which is considered insulting in the Arab world.

The battalion begins its deployment with plenty of enthusiasm. The unit was stationed in Okinawa, Japan, during the invasion of Iraq, and several Marines admitted to envying the combat action ribbons awarded to members of other units.

Again and again, Marines fell back on the same words to describe how they felt about missing the offensive: "Left out." And though they acknowledge the occupation is far more complex than the ground war, most said they were glad to finally get the chance to test themselves in combat.

"I joined to be an infantryman. This is what I trained for," said Lance Cpl. John Huerkamp, 21, of La Crosse, Wis.

But already the Marines in this unit are showing frustration with the insurgents' heavy reliance on hidden bombs, which often are detonated by remote control and leave no obvious enemy to fight.

The Marines were warned about the explosive devices during their training. But, even so, many said they were surprised at how common they are.

"I mentally prepared myself to get in a fight with somebody. Now, I'm in a fight with somebody I can't see," said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Wade, 28, of Waterloo, N.Y.

"There's no way you can catch `em, unless they're real dumb," said Sgt. Curtis Neill, 34, of Colrain, Mass. "It's kind of anticlimactic: We get whacked and we get nothing."

And, as the attacks mount, it will be difficult to keep Marines from souring on the residents.

The first time Wade saw a bomb wound one of his friends, "I went from waving to instantly angry for 36 hours - a good 36 hours before I stopped," he said.

Kennedy, the battalion commander, is conscious of the danger. In training ahead of time and in messages on the ground, commanders have tried to inculcate members of the unit with the message that attacks against them represent the actions of a few in Iraq and not the wishes of the many, he said.

Waging a campaign in which winning over shapers of the town's public opinion is as important as neutralizing leaders of the insurgency, Kennedy said he is keenly aware of the damage that could be done by a single inflammatory incident.

The unit's mission easily could rest on the conduct of a corporal in the tense, emotion-filled moments after his squad is showered with flame and shrapnel from a bomb, he said.

"Their actions have strategic consequences," Kennedy said. A school bus or a mosque caught in crossfire could easily incite the community against them, he notes. "If they get hit by an (explosive) and they spray (gunfire) in all directions, we'd never recover from that.

"That's all based on the actions of a 22-year-old," he said.

-
duluthsuperior.com



To: jlallen who wrote (42479)4/13/2004 12:59:53 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 89467
 
If the Invading Boots Were Not Our Own

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by pissed off patricia

If Russia had invaded Iraq last year against the advice of the US, and everything that has happened to the US soldiers had happened to Russian soldiers, I wonder if the US would be as angry with the insurgent Iraqis as we are now? Would we even call them "insurgents" or would we call them "Iraqi defenders"? Would the word at the US water coolers be anti Iraqis or anti Russians? Would we hear rumbles that the US should go into Iraq to help the invaded Iraqis? Would we feel sympathy for the Iraqis as the Russian soldiers tore down the doors of Iraqi homes and forced the families out on the street? When tragic events happened in Iraq would we be supportive of the Russians or would we say that they should have seen it coming? If, during all this death and war, we discovered that Putin had lied to his people in order to receive their support for the Iraq invasion, what would we say? Would we say that Putin should be jailed for his deceit? Would we say that he was justified if he lied to his people because Saddam was a corrupt leader?

Would we support American troops being sent to Iraq to help the Russians after the Russians discovered they had bitten off more with this war than they could chew? What if bush appeared on TV and said, "Even though we all know Russia did not plan well enough before declaring war on Iraq, and even if Russia went to war based on lies, I think I should send US men and women into this war to aid the Russians. The Russians have created a disaster in Iraq so I think some of our troops must go and die in order to bring some help to the Russian soldiers." What percentage of Americans would support the war then? How much support would bush get? Would Americans be more prone to aid the Iraqis or the Russians?

Today, this war is no longer about threats to the US or about liberating the Iraqi people, it's about being the victor. One of the eventual reasons for invading Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people from the rule of Saddam. Saddam is no longer a factor, so how do we justify being liberators now? What are we liberating the Iraqis from now? Are we saving them from themselves by killing them? Wasn't that sort of what Saddam was doing? Iraqis may have a different definition of freedom than the bush administration does. Maybe they see freedom as the ability to make their own decisions, even if those decisions don't necessarily comply with what Americans dictate.

When one determines that they are going to honestly set people free, they must be prepared for those people to take their own direction. No one is truly free as long as they are under the control of someone else. In Iraq we now appear to be directors more than liberators. The Iraqis no longer have to obey Saddam, but now they must obey the US. We have freed the Iraqi people to be subjected to and directed by the laws and demands of the US. Is it any wonder that many Iraqis are angry? What we have given them is not freedom. We have given them a change of dictators. They are now free to hate Saddam openly, but they are forbidden to express the same emotions toward the US. Saddam used chemical weapons, we use bullets and bombs, and like Saddam we only use our weapons on those who will not fall in line.

Bush repeatedly says that we will stay the course. Each time he makes that statement, one has to wonder what course he is speaking about. What is the course and how will we know when he has achieved his purpose? Will it be when each and every Iraqi has acquiesced to our rule and our demands? That may be bush's course and purpose but if it were the course and purpose of another country, would he make that same demand with the same resolve?

Bush led America into this war based on false information, not from the intelligence services but from his own mouth. He said that invading Iraq was necessary to prevent Iraq from attacking the US. Once the facts were known, he changed his reasoning for the war and began telling Americans the invasion was to free the Iraqi population. He changed course in mid-stream.

Americans were not concerned about the plight of Iraqis on September 12, 2001. Pro-war Americans only became concerned about the plight of the Iraqi people when they realized they had been had by bush and the lies he told to justify his war. Bush gave them an excuse to save face, and they took it. It would be generous but not believable to think that Americans were so concerned about the freedom of another country that they would set aside their concerns about 9-11 and instead go to war for the liberation of Iraq. It sounds very selfless now, but in fact it was very selfish then. This war was not conceived based on fact and humanitarian concerns, this war was conceived based on lies and as a result it has become inhumane. Americans tolerate this war solely because it is their war. If another country had brought this war to Iraq we would see it for what it is. If the boots that invaded Iraq had belonged to soldiers of another country, I'm reasonably sure no American soldier's boots would have followed.

This is a war that should have never been America's war. Americans were not concerned about the future and freedom of the Iraqi people until that was the only reason they had left to justify bush's war. Americans are good and generous people, but now they and the American President are using that goodness and generosity to try to deflect the truth and justify the deaths of American soldiers. Would Americans try as hard to justify this war if it were the war of any other country but their own? Can they actually justify the deaths of American soldiers in the name of goodness and generosity?

America's reputation has been damaged by a war that should never have been our own, and Americans are the only ones who have the ability to repair that damage. But before we can repair the damages, we must make admissions. No "after the fact" reasoning will do. Bush must admit to his duplicity, many of us must admit our own complicity, and our country must take responsibility for contributing to the war we would not have supported had it been anyone else's but our own.

buzzflash.com