Points of view:
From my previous post, I attempted to frame the discussion, of our need to get out of Iraq, in terms of what are our intentions are from a strategic, tactical, and logistic point of view. Whether you are a hawk or dove, red or blue, whether you have an interest because a loved one is serving, or are an uninvolved concerned citizen, in order to try to determine what we should do next, you need to determine for yourself, what your expectations are.
Should we, the American people, be the baby-sitters of the world, the caring mentor of common sense, or the provocateur of revolution and civil war?
Can we buy-off the world's countries from making decisions that we feel are self-defeating? Can we save the world from disease and pestilence? Can we protect all those that choose a religion that is based on cultural beliefs that are based in tribal and nomadic perseverance in hostile economic and geographical existences?
In 1823 we, the United States, ascribed to what was called the Monroe Doctrine (a policy in which we declared that we would only involve ourselves in the world's affairs if the world's countries injected their arguments on us or our lands). This doctrine has been superseded many times, for what has been perceived as 'in the best interest of our common good'. Examples such as the Mexican-American war, World War I and II (due to our allegiance with Britain and France), in the furtherance of global peace and protection of our allies. But when did we 'start' inserting ourselves in other's battles and civil disputes. From my perspective, the first instance was Korea, the second Viet Nam, and on, and on, and on, since then.
So what did we learn? We learned that we can amass the most significant war machine the world has ever known. We have the most technologically advanced weapons, the best trained soldiers, and more money than god, to throw at any country we want to change the status quo of. But for all of those attributes, how has it all worked out? North and South Korea are still in the midst of a civil war, only separated by a US/UN supervised DMZ with no resolution anticipated in our lifetime. The Viet Nam debacle will live in infamy as our first and only complete defeat.
We have inserted ourselves in numerous other small skirmishes, some of which were successes due to our overwhelming size and power, but in most cases the outcome is only assured by our long term occupation and support of the government we inserted.
The case I make here, is that a 'much more faithful' adherence to the Monroe Doctrine would have been much more beneficial to our Country's security and economic development.
Now that I have digressed to our country's earliest views on how we should conduct ourselves, I will attempt to apply some of those thoughts to the current conflagration.
Adages:
Break/Buy: Our country was defined by, and created in a struggle to not be controlled by an imperial power, that had as it's major goal to utilize the resources of our country without due process, and the acknowledgement of the rights of those that provided the service that developed those resources. The analogy has merit in that we have interjected ourselves into the sovereignty of Iraq. We did this to protect our interests in an economic product, and that act has caused us to buy-in to the protection of the resource, or deal with the consequences, as Britain was forced to do, at the time of our independence.
Vacuum: The reasoning behind James Monroe's Doctrine was an understanding that by extending oneself into other's conflicts, it detracts from our ability to develop the most beneficial state of existence for the people for which our federation was created. And, with the realization that (even in the 1820's) we do not live in a vacuum. If someone was to attack us, then we are duty-bound to protect ourselves. That would be the equal reaction. Conversely, of course, if we attack another sovereign nation, we must assume they will also employ a defense equal to the threat.
Horse to Water: What is our responsibility to re-create other governments in a likeness of our own? It is with the original design of our own ruling document, The Constitution and it's amendments, that we acknowledge that our form of government was not perfect upon it's original publication. Further, in this period of turmoil, while trying to deal with warring forces that no longer take the shape of country vs. country, we find that there is great debate about some of our constitutional protections regarding privacy and security of our homes and personal privacy. As the wars become religious jihads, the method of securing peace against our attackers requires methods and tactics that were not envisioned by our Constitutional authors. At the time of our establishment as a country, tribal war as in Europe, in the middle ages, had long since passed, And, our personal war against the tribal, indigenous Indian natives of our country, was easily dismissed by force and deceit. So the question remains, if we don't have a static form of government, that has a history of being able to bend and meld itself, even to threats from within, from indigenous people or from immigrants and guests, how can we make an assumption that our form of government is more appropriate for another country than what existed before our presence?
The only long-term, centralized, forms of government, in the middle east, have been in the form of Sheikdoms or monarchies. Even they are based on a dominant tribal position that was inclusive of, but larger than, a sect of Islam, such that dissenting sects chose to settle in other more accepting locations. This has been the history and culture of a constantly warring, nomadic, and missionary existence of the Islamic people. What has worked, for millennia, are benevolent or tyrannical dictatorships. How can we make the leap of faith of hoping to install our form of government that is both inappropriate and in direct sectarian conflict with the tenants of their religion (even the peaceful Muslims).
What conclusions can I draw from my, perhaps, uneducated or naive assumptions? The main conclusion is that we can apply our typical, heavy-handed methods to achieve results that, both historically and currently, we have no understanding of. What worked in the past has no parallels to the situation we have found ourselves in. The one experiment, on this scale, that we attempted to engineer a new political, cultural, and economic model, was Viet Nam, The only lesson we can take from that, is that if we had just left them alone, they would have figured it out themselves, just as our 'forefathers did'. That we interjected ourselves into a cultural and political abyss that we (read Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield) had no understanding of, is an understatement. Our goals were indecisive, poorly conceived, wholly misguided and megalomaniacal, on the part of our President. The only options we have are to realize that we have no answer in terms of how they should rule themselves. The country, as a whole, was abused, tortured, and terrorized by the threat of genocide. This was a secular fear, without regard to Sunni vs. Shii, or Kurdish, northern or southern allegiances. Just fear. Most of the countries surrounding Iraq have found a way to govern themselves in a manor that incorporates the many factions of Islamic sects, tribalism, and geographical history (not necessarily to our liking, but who cares). We need to let them decide how to govern. Prevent ethnic cleansing, yes. Protect them from outside influences and importation of weapons of war, yes. Train them to redevelop the infrastructure, including security and services necessary to rebuild a cohesive peaceful country, yes.
In the view of our leaders, all of the countries of the Middle East pose a threat to us in the form of acquisition of WMD, fomentation of terror, or a threat to our ally Israel. We need to stop trying to engineer the political, cultural and religious aspects of a part of the world we have no understanding of. Our only real friend is Israel and we should treat them as we do our children. Teach them to get along, don't pick fights, protect yourself if challenged, and don't bite off more than you can chew. If they can ascribe to that, then they deserve our the help we provide of technology and political support, that our renewed diplomatic credibility can lend.
In Part 3, I hope to provide some direct references to support some of my opinions and conclusions.
Dennis Hunt
Friday, August 17, 2007
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Iraq War Exit Strategies (Part 1)
In 'till we win (G.W. Bush), orderly exit (most Democratic and Republican candidates for office), immediate and safe withdrawal (Military Families Speak Out), immediate withdrawal-screw Iraq (too many voices, with no logical plan)... These are the sentiments I most frequently hear amongst my friends and associates. So which strategy is right? None of them or all of them?
Without defining what 'win', 'orderly', 'immediate', or 'safe' mean, how can any of these policies be the best or most appropriate one? Mr. Bush seems to define a win as achieving all military and nation building objectives, at whatever the cost (because we have to stop the terrorists over there, before they come here). Our Senators and Representatives would like to define 'orderly' as whatever politically expedient way they can show support for our troops without tipping over the basket of eggs, that represent our sorrowful diplomatic status with the rest of the middle-east and radical Islam. Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization I belong to, takes a very diplomatic approach to 'immediate and safe' by wanting an immediate conclusion with the reality that we will not, in the near-term abandon Iraq, and that significant withdrawal would jeopardize those that remain. The 'screw Iraq crowd is just to uneducated about reality to spend the time trying to categorize their position.
I am not a great enough mind to develop all of the arguments on each side of these issues. But I will make some observations that color my view of the obvious arguments and how we should approach them. First, we do not live in a vacuum, and therefore for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Second, like the sign on a fine china shop says on the door, 'You break it, You own it' (I only wish Mr. G.H.W. Bush had taken G.W. to one of those shops). Third, but probably not last, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. Enough of the adages, I think the point is served, that our Leadership has undertaken choices which have an impact on our Soldiers and the American people, and will have a long lasting effect on us.
Our concerns with the war is little served by the question of 'should we have entered into a war in Iraq'? We already broke it, and now that we own it, what are we going to do with the million shards of hate, distrust, dishonesty, dis ingenuousness, deceit, and corruption that have evolved. The piece we broke was not a pretty piece (after all Saddam Hussien will go down as one of the most brutal dictators in the modern age), But it was the piece that held together the collection of all the vying parts of secular and sectarian forces together.
Perhaps, a greater issue, is the affect our decisions have had on the middle-east, in general, and our ability to deal with radical Islam, specifically. For it was radical Islam that was the rallying point of our President, that led us into this quagmire. 'Fight the terrorists over there, before we have to fight them here'. At least that was the excuse, after WMD was eliminated as a righteous excuse for invading a sovereign country. With Saddam invading and declaring wars on Kuwait and Iran, he at least proved that he was an equal-opportunity despot. His Sunni centered Baath party waged war on Sunni dominant Iran, and he was able to mollify the Shii' majority in a Sunni ruled dictatorship. What other stabilizing affects he had on other secular oriented Islamic kingdoms may be far beyond our Western understanding. What is clear is that every thing we have done to insert ourselves in the middle-east, either to support Israel against Palestine and Jordan, to support an illegal overthrow of the government, by the Shah of Iran, or to gain favor with the Saudi by selling weapons in return for bases, to monitor and control Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc., has done nothing but inflame Muslims, regardless of their secular distinction. When we push one way, an Islamic force pushes back another way.
The last issue is 'nation building'. We are so naive to believe that the method we have adopted to rule our country, is so superior that it is absolutely intuitive that every other country in the world would benefit by our form of government. Democracy, in any form similar to ours, has only existed for a mere three hundred years amongst the French, English, and US. Hundreds of cultures, thousands of countries for five Milena have existed for more consecutive years, than our form of democracy. We have been quite successful showing that other forms of government don't work, but we have very little evidence that we know anything about how to 'install' our form of government. That would say to me that what does work is much more dependent on culture, than ideal. And, at best, the most we can hope for is an amalgamation of what is culturally acceptable to those that are governed, and the ideal of how those that are governed should be respected.
In Part 2 of this post I will discuss some specifics of how other's portray our strategy and how they predict that strategy will affect our ability to extricate ourselves from this debacle.
Without defining what 'win', 'orderly', 'immediate', or 'safe' mean, how can any of these policies be the best or most appropriate one? Mr. Bush seems to define a win as achieving all military and nation building objectives, at whatever the cost (because we have to stop the terrorists over there, before they come here). Our Senators and Representatives would like to define 'orderly' as whatever politically expedient way they can show support for our troops without tipping over the basket of eggs, that represent our sorrowful diplomatic status with the rest of the middle-east and radical Islam. Military Families Speak Out (MFSO), an organization I belong to, takes a very diplomatic approach to 'immediate and safe' by wanting an immediate conclusion with the reality that we will not, in the near-term abandon Iraq, and that significant withdrawal would jeopardize those that remain. The 'screw Iraq crowd is just to uneducated about reality to spend the time trying to categorize their position.
I am not a great enough mind to develop all of the arguments on each side of these issues. But I will make some observations that color my view of the obvious arguments and how we should approach them. First, we do not live in a vacuum, and therefore for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction. Second, like the sign on a fine china shop says on the door, 'You break it, You own it' (I only wish Mr. G.H.W. Bush had taken G.W. to one of those shops). Third, but probably not last, 'You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. Enough of the adages, I think the point is served, that our Leadership has undertaken choices which have an impact on our Soldiers and the American people, and will have a long lasting effect on us.
Our concerns with the war is little served by the question of 'should we have entered into a war in Iraq'? We already broke it, and now that we own it, what are we going to do with the million shards of hate, distrust, dishonesty, dis ingenuousness, deceit, and corruption that have evolved. The piece we broke was not a pretty piece (after all Saddam Hussien will go down as one of the most brutal dictators in the modern age), But it was the piece that held together the collection of all the vying parts of secular and sectarian forces together.
Perhaps, a greater issue, is the affect our decisions have had on the middle-east, in general, and our ability to deal with radical Islam, specifically. For it was radical Islam that was the rallying point of our President, that led us into this quagmire. 'Fight the terrorists over there, before we have to fight them here'. At least that was the excuse, after WMD was eliminated as a righteous excuse for invading a sovereign country. With Saddam invading and declaring wars on Kuwait and Iran, he at least proved that he was an equal-opportunity despot. His Sunni centered Baath party waged war on Sunni dominant Iran, and he was able to mollify the Shii' majority in a Sunni ruled dictatorship. What other stabilizing affects he had on other secular oriented Islamic kingdoms may be far beyond our Western understanding. What is clear is that every thing we have done to insert ourselves in the middle-east, either to support Israel against Palestine and Jordan, to support an illegal overthrow of the government, by the Shah of Iran, or to gain favor with the Saudi by selling weapons in return for bases, to monitor and control Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, etc. etc. etc., has done nothing but inflame Muslims, regardless of their secular distinction. When we push one way, an Islamic force pushes back another way.
The last issue is 'nation building'. We are so naive to believe that the method we have adopted to rule our country, is so superior that it is absolutely intuitive that every other country in the world would benefit by our form of government. Democracy, in any form similar to ours, has only existed for a mere three hundred years amongst the French, English, and US. Hundreds of cultures, thousands of countries for five Milena have existed for more consecutive years, than our form of democracy. We have been quite successful showing that other forms of government don't work, but we have very little evidence that we know anything about how to 'install' our form of government. That would say to me that what does work is much more dependent on culture, than ideal. And, at best, the most we can hope for is an amalgamation of what is culturally acceptable to those that are governed, and the ideal of how those that are governed should be respected.
In Part 2 of this post I will discuss some specifics of how other's portray our strategy and how they predict that strategy will affect our ability to extricate ourselves from this debacle.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
Contractor Soldiers-For-Hire
A recent posting on Military.com was headlined "Slideshow: A Bloody Business". I viewed the slideshow and descriptions, and two thoughts hit me immediately. First, I could see that they were doing dangerous work, providing services to our own military forces. The second thought was based on a picture of a contractor holding a pistol to the head of a supposed Iraqi insurgent, with the comment that he was trying to obtain information regarding other contractors that had been kidnapped.
The slide show was presented in regard to a book written by Col. Gerald Schumacher, titled "A Bloody Business". Not understanding the point-of-view of the slideshow, I entered the forum to see what people were saying about the slideshow. What I found totally supprised me. Most of the comments were directed against Col. Schumacher (as an informed source of the job of the contractors) or critical of the private contractor Crescent Securities (unprofessional thugs).
I have always been critical of the cronyism attached to Vice President Richard Cheney's association with Halliburton, parent company of KBR (Kellog, Brown, & Root) according to Wikipedia. KBR is, by far the largest private contractor serving US interest in Iraq. They are the major contractor providing services to our troops (most visually, they are in charge of most food services for our soldiers in all Operating Bases), as well as transportation of many goods and fuel from Kuwait to all parts of Iraq. Halliburton is widely known as the largest contractor of private oil field services, in the world. Crescent Security is one of the sub-companies of KBR, employed to protect their transportation network.
Halliburton, and all of its iterations operate under 'sole-source' contracts that are never put up for bid by the US government. How much influence did Cheney's previous employement and position on the Board of Directors of Halliburton have on our contracting decisions? How much does George W. Bush's previous ownership and director positions, with the oil industry, have to do with Halliburton having no-bid contracts to provide services to the oil interests and military supply interests in Iraq.
As I followed the thread of discussion regarding the job and quality of work regarding Crescent Security, it became obvious that the whole concept of this security force undermines the job our brave soldiers do. (one of the posts had to do with one of the senior security operatives being killed, a later post described that he was killed by coalition forces as their convoy approached a checkpoint at near to 100 MPH without headlights). My position is that if I was the soldier seeing a convoy approaching in this manner I would have 'shot first and asked questions never'.
I will attempt to get all of the links to Military.com, the slideshow "Slideshow: A Bloody Business", and the forum thread forum: A Bloody Business (my comments are near the bottom), included in this post in the appropriate places. But, if I miss, or you would like more info, please send me a comment, and if you send your email, I will send it direct.
I find Military.com to be a valuable source of information. They are most definitely an advocate of all who are currently or previously served in any branch of the military. They are not afraid to tell it like it is, good or bad. This issue just hit my hot button.
Additonal Refererences: (1) Washington Post.com, "Audit of KBR Iraq Contract Faults Records For Fuel, Food", (2) ,USA Today, "Largest Iraq contract rife with errors".
The slide show was presented in regard to a book written by Col. Gerald Schumacher, titled "A Bloody Business". Not understanding the point-of-view of the slideshow, I entered the forum to see what people were saying about the slideshow. What I found totally supprised me. Most of the comments were directed against Col. Schumacher (as an informed source of the job of the contractors) or critical of the private contractor Crescent Securities (unprofessional thugs).
I have always been critical of the cronyism attached to Vice President Richard Cheney's association with Halliburton, parent company of KBR (Kellog, Brown, & Root) according to Wikipedia. KBR is, by far the largest private contractor serving US interest in Iraq. They are the major contractor providing services to our troops (most visually, they are in charge of most food services for our soldiers in all Operating Bases), as well as transportation of many goods and fuel from Kuwait to all parts of Iraq. Halliburton is widely known as the largest contractor of private oil field services, in the world. Crescent Security is one of the sub-companies of KBR, employed to protect their transportation network.
Halliburton, and all of its iterations operate under 'sole-source' contracts that are never put up for bid by the US government. How much influence did Cheney's previous employement and position on the Board of Directors of Halliburton have on our contracting decisions? How much does George W. Bush's previous ownership and director positions, with the oil industry, have to do with Halliburton having no-bid contracts to provide services to the oil interests and military supply interests in Iraq.
As I followed the thread of discussion regarding the job and quality of work regarding Crescent Security, it became obvious that the whole concept of this security force undermines the job our brave soldiers do. (one of the posts had to do with one of the senior security operatives being killed, a later post described that he was killed by coalition forces as their convoy approached a checkpoint at near to 100 MPH without headlights). My position is that if I was the soldier seeing a convoy approaching in this manner I would have 'shot first and asked questions never'.
I will attempt to get all of the links to Military.com, the slideshow "Slideshow: A Bloody Business", and the forum thread forum: A Bloody Business (my comments are near the bottom), included in this post in the appropriate places. But, if I miss, or you would like more info, please send me a comment, and if you send your email, I will send it direct.
I find Military.com to be a valuable source of information. They are most definitely an advocate of all who are currently or previously served in any branch of the military. They are not afraid to tell it like it is, good or bad. This issue just hit my hot button.
Additonal Refererences: (1) Washington Post.com, "Audit of KBR Iraq Contract Faults Records For Fuel, Food", (2) ,USA Today, "Largest Iraq contract rife with errors".
Friday, August 3, 2007
What is the Mental Health of our Soldiers
It has been termed everything from 'Soldier's Heart', 'Shell Shock', 'Combat Fatigue', but now it is best known as 'Post Traumatic Stress Disorder'. As described by WIKIPEDIA PTSD is the term used to describe a severe and on-going emotional reaction that results from exposure to extreme stress and/or trauma. Clinically, such events involve actual or threatened death, serious physical injury, or a threat to physical and/or psychological integrity, to a degree that usual psychological defenses are incapable of coping with the impact. It is occasionally called post-traumatic stress reaction to emphasize that it is a result of traumatic experience rather than a manifestation of a pre-existing psychological condition.
Recently, there have been reports that the DoD has had a record of classifying clinical diagnosis of PTSD as being cases of Pre-existing conditions. This allows the DoD to release soldiers, at the end of their enlistments, without the appropriate treatment for mental disorders attributed to the combat duty they have experienced. This attempt by the military to undermine the mental affects of combat stress, then prevents returning soldiers from receivng appropriate treatment from the Veterans Administration due to an inaccuacurate documentation of their mental state in their militay records.
As reported by Military.com, the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, in releasing its final report Wednesday, recommended getting “DoD completely out of the disability business” by giving VA sole responsibility for setting disability ratings and awarding compensation. Disabled service members would see the current “confusing, parallel systems of ratings and compensation” replaced by a single, simple and more generous system.
The history of the DoD's responsibility for treating our wounded soldiers has been well documented, in regard to the lack of care and the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. The worst evaluations of the system were aimed at the wards that dealt with soldiers suffering from mental health issues. In my own state of Washington, the senior Senator on the committee that administers the Veterans Administration was appalled by the conditions of facilities available for veterans being treated for mental health issues.
When we send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, to fight a battle for the preservation of our American ideals, by the directive of our Supreme Commander, shouldn't our government protect these brave soldiers just as well, after their return, as when they are under fire by enemy combatants?
As I have talked to my son over the nearly twelve months of his deployment, I have noticed changes in his demeanor and he has talked about some of the issues he has, such as sleep depravation and the fact that it seems that he is constantly on a mission or needs to sleep, and has been much less communicative with family of late. I am sure that he is no better or worse off than most of his fellow soldiers, and as time goes by during their deployment these issues could become prevalent and/or serious. I only hope that all of the efforts that are discussed above are realistic and available to our service men and women as they are redied to return home.
Our president obviously disagrees, as he has vetoed funding to provide those services, and his party has refused to back measures submitted, that would provide increased funding for the treatment of our returning soldiers.
We, as the loved ones of our dedicated soldiers, can only hope that the legislation, as reported above is reality. I believe that the military is genuinely concerned with the issue of PTSD. Several months ago I received a link to a podcast regarding the mental health issues our servicemen are facing and what the DoD is doing to address these issues. Col. Robert Ireland recently spoke with Dr. Ellen Frank, host of The Down & Up Show, about mental health programs for returning veterans and their families. Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) also discussed pending legislation that would benefit veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. For more information on depression, including resources for coping with depression, visit the DepressionIsReal.org website. The podcast is no longer available, but Col. Ireland spoke extensively about how platoon level leadership has received extensive training in personnel evaluation and motivation and establishment of extensive pre-deployment (for returning soldiers) screening at multiple levels starting with councelors, and if necessary mental health experts. Finally, upon arrival at their home base, continued evaluation and availability of long-term support. Perhaps, with the additional protection of the legislation discussed above, Our soldiers will not be precluded from receiving the medical services that are required to assure their ability to re-adapt to productive, healthy civilian lives.
Dennis
Recently, there have been reports that the DoD has had a record of classifying clinical diagnosis of PTSD as being cases of Pre-existing conditions. This allows the DoD to release soldiers, at the end of their enlistments, without the appropriate treatment for mental disorders attributed to the combat duty they have experienced. This attempt by the military to undermine the mental affects of combat stress, then prevents returning soldiers from receivng appropriate treatment from the Veterans Administration due to an inaccuacurate documentation of their mental state in their militay records.
As reported by Military.com, the President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors, in releasing its final report Wednesday, recommended getting “DoD completely out of the disability business” by giving VA sole responsibility for setting disability ratings and awarding compensation. Disabled service members would see the current “confusing, parallel systems of ratings and compensation” replaced by a single, simple and more generous system.
The history of the DoD's responsibility for treating our wounded soldiers has been well documented, in regard to the lack of care and the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital. The worst evaluations of the system were aimed at the wards that dealt with soldiers suffering from mental health issues. In my own state of Washington, the senior Senator on the committee that administers the Veterans Administration was appalled by the conditions of facilities available for veterans being treated for mental health issues.
When we send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, to fight a battle for the preservation of our American ideals, by the directive of our Supreme Commander, shouldn't our government protect these brave soldiers just as well, after their return, as when they are under fire by enemy combatants?
As I have talked to my son over the nearly twelve months of his deployment, I have noticed changes in his demeanor and he has talked about some of the issues he has, such as sleep depravation and the fact that it seems that he is constantly on a mission or needs to sleep, and has been much less communicative with family of late. I am sure that he is no better or worse off than most of his fellow soldiers, and as time goes by during their deployment these issues could become prevalent and/or serious. I only hope that all of the efforts that are discussed above are realistic and available to our service men and women as they are redied to return home.
Our president obviously disagrees, as he has vetoed funding to provide those services, and his party has refused to back measures submitted, that would provide increased funding for the treatment of our returning soldiers.
We, as the loved ones of our dedicated soldiers, can only hope that the legislation, as reported above is reality. I believe that the military is genuinely concerned with the issue of PTSD. Several months ago I received a link to a podcast regarding the mental health issues our servicemen are facing and what the DoD is doing to address these issues. Col. Robert Ireland recently spoke with Dr. Ellen Frank, host of The Down & Up Show, about mental health programs for returning veterans and their families. Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) also discussed pending legislation that would benefit veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder. For more information on depression, including resources for coping with depression, visit the DepressionIsReal.org website. The podcast is no longer available, but Col. Ireland spoke extensively about how platoon level leadership has received extensive training in personnel evaluation and motivation and establishment of extensive pre-deployment (for returning soldiers) screening at multiple levels starting with councelors, and if necessary mental health experts. Finally, upon arrival at their home base, continued evaluation and availability of long-term support. Perhaps, with the additional protection of the legislation discussed above, Our soldiers will not be precluded from receiving the medical services that are required to assure their ability to re-adapt to productive, healthy civilian lives.
Dennis
Thursday, August 2, 2007
The voice of reason, who can ask the tough questions?
In the recent past I have become a devoted viewer of Charlie Rose, appearing on PBS television daily, Monday through Friday. He has interviewed, in the recent past, President Bush (3 times that I have seen), and every major political candidate including Barack Obama, Rudy Guiliani (last night for an hour), Hillary Clinton, McClain, Gore etc. Mr. Rose will ask the hard question regardless of who his guest is. I will give just one example of one his interviews featured on YouTube, of Zbigniew Brzezinski (the hawkish National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter)and his credentials as listed in Wikipedia
Please go to Charlie Rose and listen to some of his less edited interviews with some of the candidates I mentioned above. One interview I would definitely listen to is an interview with three Iraqi journalists (aired 05/14/2007) Ali Fadhil, Zeyad Kasim, and Ayub Nuri (two of the three were trained in other fields such as medicine, and gave up their practice to report the war).
Much as I would like to be able to scoop the news media, with information relating to our soldiers, the fact is that very little of what is reported, by mainstream media is either factual nor timely. Sometimes the most difficult job is to find sources of information that never makes the front page or 5 o'clock news. Charlie Rose doesn't just tell you what others want us to hear, he interviews the people that are or have been the movers and shakers of the world.
Oh by the way, a great portion of his interviews are with people in the entertainment industry, the great thinkers and writers, and anyone else that is in a position to make a mark on the world. Please join the voice of reason, and check out Charlie Rose.
Dennis
Please go to Charlie Rose and listen to some of his less edited interviews with some of the candidates I mentioned above. One interview I would definitely listen to is an interview with three Iraqi journalists (aired 05/14/2007) Ali Fadhil, Zeyad Kasim, and Ayub Nuri (two of the three were trained in other fields such as medicine, and gave up their practice to report the war).
Much as I would like to be able to scoop the news media, with information relating to our soldiers, the fact is that very little of what is reported, by mainstream media is either factual nor timely. Sometimes the most difficult job is to find sources of information that never makes the front page or 5 o'clock news. Charlie Rose doesn't just tell you what others want us to hear, he interviews the people that are or have been the movers and shakers of the world.
Oh by the way, a great portion of his interviews are with people in the entertainment industry, the great thinkers and writers, and anyone else that is in a position to make a mark on the world. Please join the voice of reason, and check out Charlie Rose.
Dennis
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
On the Lighter Side
This is some artwork from members units related to my son. The first is an older piece titled "3 BCT", the second, looking like a movie handbill was penned for TF300 (a task force that C-Troop Recon was a part of).
Too bad that we have to focus the talent, that can create these images, on having to search and destroy enemies like Al Qaeda.
God help our soldiers to each find a way to be great and productive human beings when this conflict is over.
These imagages are courtesy of a great FRG support staff at Ft Bragg, NC, home of the 82nd Airborne.
Dennis
News From the Front
Since Operation Ithaca, there has been very little news regarding the actions of C-Troop Recon, 5/73rd Cav. I only know that I spoke to my son on July 22nd after his return from the last operation. I did receive through my FRG contacts, a link to Black Anthem News Service regarding an Operation Woodshed, in the Balad Ruz area (east, southeast of Baqubah, closer to Camp Caldwell than the current position of the 5/73rd, C-Troop, at FOB Warhorse). I cannot find any corroborating evidence that my son's platoon/team was involved in this action.
As always, it is very hard to tell exactly who is involved in various conflicts. In operation Ithaca, most of the posts were attributed to the 1st Cav division, with support from B-Troop, 5/73rd, Cav, 3rd BCT, 82nd Abn, but also supported by C-troop Recon. This group was called TF300. I cannot tell from any of the postings or discussions with my son (and things may change daily) what portion of C-Troop operates as a recon unit in support of B-Troop, in support of the 1st Cav.
Is it a conspiricy by the Military to change the functions and support alliances, so the loved ones and the press cannot figure out who is doing what, or doesn't the army really know what type of force is required and be able to organize and train a specific unit that can cover all functional needs of an operational unit. Or, in all fairness, it may be to the commands strength that they are able to mix and match whatever type of force is required to accomplish the mission. Whatever the purpose, it frustrates the soldier's families and loved ones trying to figure out why we haven't heard from our soldier for a week or more, especially in the age of vastly improved communication.
Regardless, it is obvious that major conflicts are going on, as it was reported that 11 terrorists were killed and 13 suspected terrorists were detained in an effort to secure the Turki Village region and provide stability to the local population.
No injuries or kia's were reported as a result of Operation Woodshed.
Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of Coalition Forces in Diyala province,was quoted to say: “As I’ve said before, the terrorists have no where to hide. In our eyes, there is no such thing as a safe haven,”.
As I have no confirmation that the 5/73rd, C-Troop Recon was involved I will leave further details to my source, Black Anthem News.
I am too small in the news reporting scheme of things, to try to be a force in reporting the war for all the families who crave news of their loved ones. But the process of listening and researching often requires viewing references to units outside of my sphere of interest. The links I provide, in many cases, have additional information that may be useful to the info-search of others that are concerned enough to try to get to the truth.
Dennis
As always, it is very hard to tell exactly who is involved in various conflicts. In operation Ithaca, most of the posts were attributed to the 1st Cav division, with support from B-Troop, 5/73rd, Cav, 3rd BCT, 82nd Abn, but also supported by C-troop Recon. This group was called TF300. I cannot tell from any of the postings or discussions with my son (and things may change daily) what portion of C-Troop operates as a recon unit in support of B-Troop, in support of the 1st Cav.
Is it a conspiricy by the Military to change the functions and support alliances, so the loved ones and the press cannot figure out who is doing what, or doesn't the army really know what type of force is required and be able to organize and train a specific unit that can cover all functional needs of an operational unit. Or, in all fairness, it may be to the commands strength that they are able to mix and match whatever type of force is required to accomplish the mission. Whatever the purpose, it frustrates the soldier's families and loved ones trying to figure out why we haven't heard from our soldier for a week or more, especially in the age of vastly improved communication.
Regardless, it is obvious that major conflicts are going on, as it was reported that 11 terrorists were killed and 13 suspected terrorists were detained in an effort to secure the Turki Village region and provide stability to the local population.
No injuries or kia's were reported as a result of Operation Woodshed.
Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of Coalition Forces in Diyala province,was quoted to say: “As I’ve said before, the terrorists have no where to hide. In our eyes, there is no such thing as a safe haven,”.
As I have no confirmation that the 5/73rd, C-Troop Recon was involved I will leave further details to my source, Black Anthem News.
I am too small in the news reporting scheme of things, to try to be a force in reporting the war for all the families who crave news of their loved ones. But the process of listening and researching often requires viewing references to units outside of my sphere of interest. The links I provide, in many cases, have additional information that may be useful to the info-search of others that are concerned enough to try to get to the truth.
Dennis
Sunday, July 29, 2007
To set the Record Straight
As my Blog is only approximately a week old, and because I took several leaps of faith that I understood the hierarchy of the military complex, I had asked for comments reflecting any inaccuracies I may have on my site. An anonymous contributor has brought forth several issues, for which I am grateful.
First is that the call sign for my son's unit is not 'Panther', but more specifically 'Headhunter'. As such, and because this interest of mine to tell what I know, is in tribute to my son, I will be renaming my Blog "Headhunter Watch'. For the sake of anyone who has bookmarked my site, and I hope there are a few, I won't change the URL of the site.
The second issue I have been made aware of, is being careful of proper or improper attribution of the sources of the information I publish. Most of what I have written, up to this point, is available in the public domain, or an opinion expressed by myself. In one case I paraphrased quotes from senior army officers in my son's chain of command. These quotes were all 'of a complimentary nature' and I neither disputed or was critical of their comments. However, as a family member of a deployed soldier I receive updates from an organization that exists to help family members with being able to stay in close touch to their soldier. It is due to the dedication, sincerity and concern of the FRG group at Ft. Bragg (for my son's unit) that I am honored to receive updates from the front in a more timely and specific manor than is normally reported on the news. I wish to do nothing to jeopardize that source of information about my son and his fellow soldiers. In this light I need to say specifically that any information that I publish from this source is not an official statement by the command for whom the official represents. The statements are made by the officers to whom they are attributed, but are intended only as information to buoy the troops and to allay the fears of the families whose soldiers they command. I am very grateful for the time and effort these officers expend to keep us up-to-date. And, I want to give proper praise to the FRG group that keeps me in the loop.
The one thing I must add to this discussion is that for a parent 3000 miles from their soldiers command and 10,000 from their loved one, the most difficult thing I have had to deal with is, who is responsible for what. Teams, platoons, companies, squads, divisions, battalions, regiments etc. once you think you understand the hierarchy you find out that Charlie company (C-Troop) is actually a special unit that performs a different function than Alpha or Bravo and does missions with a Cavalry command even though the 82nd Airborne is an infantry unit. How can anyone really be sure whether the comments are from a hierarchical or a functional responsibility.
In the future I will do my best to insure that the information I provide or discuss is both properly attributed and to provide disclaimers when I pass on information that was not necessarily provided for public consumption.
Last of all, I will be upfront when I say that I may express opinions that are critical of the administration, that I feel has totally botched the ideals for which we may have honorably inserted our self into Iraq. Additionally, using sources of non-military employees and reporting sources embedded in Iraq, I may relate information that may take the form dissension. But, as a father of a soldier, and a Viet Nam veteran you will never hear me belittle or criticize the job that our soldiers are doing or asked to do. (I however cannot condone any illegal or inhumane acts that are done even if they are committed in the name of patriotism, and I extend that to the President, as well)
So for my anonymous commenter, I hope I have dealt with your concerns and suggestions, and I thank you for the time you spent to set me straight. My aim in the blog is 'truth' and 'honesty' however the chips may fall. But, most of all I want to maybe make some minor impact on how others may feel about the reasons, actions, and effectiveness of our involvement in the 'situation' in Iraq.
I hope Anonymous will update their comments in the future, because that is the value of producing a Blog. At this point everyone that has read this blog knows me personally (or at least through email communications), and you are welcome to contact me directly if there are other issues that you wish to discuss outside of public venue.
Dennis
First is that the call sign for my son's unit is not 'Panther', but more specifically 'Headhunter'. As such, and because this interest of mine to tell what I know, is in tribute to my son, I will be renaming my Blog "Headhunter Watch'. For the sake of anyone who has bookmarked my site, and I hope there are a few, I won't change the URL of the site.
The second issue I have been made aware of, is being careful of proper or improper attribution of the sources of the information I publish. Most of what I have written, up to this point, is available in the public domain, or an opinion expressed by myself. In one case I paraphrased quotes from senior army officers in my son's chain of command. These quotes were all 'of a complimentary nature' and I neither disputed or was critical of their comments. However, as a family member of a deployed soldier I receive updates from an organization that exists to help family members with being able to stay in close touch to their soldier. It is due to the dedication, sincerity and concern of the FRG group at Ft. Bragg (for my son's unit) that I am honored to receive updates from the front in a more timely and specific manor than is normally reported on the news. I wish to do nothing to jeopardize that source of information about my son and his fellow soldiers. In this light I need to say specifically that any information that I publish from this source is not an official statement by the command for whom the official represents. The statements are made by the officers to whom they are attributed, but are intended only as information to buoy the troops and to allay the fears of the families whose soldiers they command. I am very grateful for the time and effort these officers expend to keep us up-to-date. And, I want to give proper praise to the FRG group that keeps me in the loop.
The one thing I must add to this discussion is that for a parent 3000 miles from their soldiers command and 10,000 from their loved one, the most difficult thing I have had to deal with is, who is responsible for what. Teams, platoons, companies, squads, divisions, battalions, regiments etc. once you think you understand the hierarchy you find out that Charlie company (C-Troop) is actually a special unit that performs a different function than Alpha or Bravo and does missions with a Cavalry command even though the 82nd Airborne is an infantry unit. How can anyone really be sure whether the comments are from a hierarchical or a functional responsibility.
In the future I will do my best to insure that the information I provide or discuss is both properly attributed and to provide disclaimers when I pass on information that was not necessarily provided for public consumption.
Last of all, I will be upfront when I say that I may express opinions that are critical of the administration, that I feel has totally botched the ideals for which we may have honorably inserted our self into Iraq. Additionally, using sources of non-military employees and reporting sources embedded in Iraq, I may relate information that may take the form dissension. But, as a father of a soldier, and a Viet Nam veteran you will never hear me belittle or criticize the job that our soldiers are doing or asked to do. (I however cannot condone any illegal or inhumane acts that are done even if they are committed in the name of patriotism, and I extend that to the President, as well)
So for my anonymous commenter, I hope I have dealt with your concerns and suggestions, and I thank you for the time you spent to set me straight. My aim in the blog is 'truth' and 'honesty' however the chips may fall. But, most of all I want to maybe make some minor impact on how others may feel about the reasons, actions, and effectiveness of our involvement in the 'situation' in Iraq.
I hope Anonymous will update their comments in the future, because that is the value of producing a Blog. At this point everyone that has read this blog knows me personally (or at least through email communications), and you are welcome to contact me directly if there are other issues that you wish to discuss outside of public venue.
Dennis
Friday, July 27, 2007
Military Families Speak Out
I joined this organization, due to my deep desire that my Son, and the sons and daughters, wives and husbands, of the troops, serving in Iraq, do not have to give a single ‘unnecessary’ life. But I am conflicted, as I am sure many patriots are as well. Not to say that those that who believe we should bring all of our troops home tomorrow, are not patriots. We all have different perceptions, but by virtue of the fact that this site is oriented towards Military families, we all have in common the facts that our loved ones volunteered, whether it be for personal or altruistic purposes.
Our country is founded on the basis of fair and equal treatment of all of our citizens. And when our country has inserted itself in other countries’ political and socio-economic battles, we have done so in a fair and honorable manor (at least we would like to think so). With that said, our own megalomaniac leader contributed to the overthrow of another megalomaniac leader. The only difference is that we like to think that our leader is benevolent, where we know that Saddam Hussein was anything but. The fact remains, though, that we did what we did, and cannot in fairness, walk away, with honor.
With the change in power of our legislature, to a democratic majority in both the house and senate, and the great likelihood that a democrat will occupy the White House after the next election, it is still unlikely that we will have an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops in the immediate future. With MFSO's mission statement in mind (A safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops), the key to orderly withdrawal is the definition of orderly; and the definition of safe is dependent on what we do to react to the terrorists that have inserted themselves, in the absence of secular rule that was deposed by our invasion of Iraq.
In previous posts I have tried to profile some of the issues that we face in order achieve an honorable end to the conflict we have inserted ourselves in. I have also shown battles, successes and failures, and talked about the options for long term strategic success for both our troops and the Iraqi people.
I want my son home, safely and uninjured. But, he enlisted, and re-enlisted, not for my expectations, or lack of. He has his own objectives. I only want the purpose to be just, honorable, and egalitarian. I support the goals of the MFSO organization, please support mine and allow opinions to flow freely as to how we achieve those goals.
The organization 'Military Families Speak Out', I feel, is a good forum. The problem is that the forum is quickly becoming a forum for those that feel that there is no resolution to the conflict other than an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops. This I feel, dishonors our country and the brave troops that have given their lives, and the troops that are still putting their lives on the line.
It is not our presences in Iraq that we have to have an immediate end to. It our presence without any goals and objectives or strategic planning that we have to end. That will only happen when the Bush Oligarchy is deposed and sounder minds are installed in the White House.
Get you opinions heard, join Military Families Speak Out (MFSO, and let them know how you feel.
Dennis
Our country is founded on the basis of fair and equal treatment of all of our citizens. And when our country has inserted itself in other countries’ political and socio-economic battles, we have done so in a fair and honorable manor (at least we would like to think so). With that said, our own megalomaniac leader contributed to the overthrow of another megalomaniac leader. The only difference is that we like to think that our leader is benevolent, where we know that Saddam Hussein was anything but. The fact remains, though, that we did what we did, and cannot in fairness, walk away, with honor.
With the change in power of our legislature, to a democratic majority in both the house and senate, and the great likelihood that a democrat will occupy the White House after the next election, it is still unlikely that we will have an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops in the immediate future. With MFSO's mission statement in mind (A safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops), the key to orderly withdrawal is the definition of orderly; and the definition of safe is dependent on what we do to react to the terrorists that have inserted themselves, in the absence of secular rule that was deposed by our invasion of Iraq.
In previous posts I have tried to profile some of the issues that we face in order achieve an honorable end to the conflict we have inserted ourselves in. I have also shown battles, successes and failures, and talked about the options for long term strategic success for both our troops and the Iraqi people.
I want my son home, safely and uninjured. But, he enlisted, and re-enlisted, not for my expectations, or lack of. He has his own objectives. I only want the purpose to be just, honorable, and egalitarian. I support the goals of the MFSO organization, please support mine and allow opinions to flow freely as to how we achieve those goals.
The organization 'Military Families Speak Out', I feel, is a good forum. The problem is that the forum is quickly becoming a forum for those that feel that there is no resolution to the conflict other than an immediate and total withdrawal of all of our troops. This I feel, dishonors our country and the brave troops that have given their lives, and the troops that are still putting their lives on the line.
It is not our presences in Iraq that we have to have an immediate end to. It our presence without any goals and objectives or strategic planning that we have to end. That will only happen when the Bush Oligarchy is deposed and sounder minds are installed in the White House.
Get you opinions heard, join Military Families Speak Out (MFSO, and let them know how you feel.
Dennis
Thursday, July 26, 2007
82nd Airborne Shoutout
It is about time to give due props to the heroes of the 82nd Airborne, 3rd BCT, 5/73rd Cav, C Troop Recon. I'll pass on some comments of the leaders of this truly brave and committed unit.
A letter from Command Sergeant Major Edgar, 5-73:
Early on the morning of the 22d, we conducted Operation Olympus with B troop, C troop, and elements from the headquarters, conducting air assault operations on to two separate landing zones to eliminate enemy fighters and reduce three Suicide Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (SVBIED).
Our Paratroopers continue to set the example with their conduct on and off the battlefield. The Squadron is constantly recognized by senior leaders across Iraq for their discipline, tenacity and professionalism. I have served in twelve different units across the United States and Germany throughout my career and this is by far the best organization I have ever served in. Many of our Troopers will depart our Squadron as we return in search of greener grass but most will eventually return as they realize how special serving in the 82d Airborne Division is, and that we are truly America’s Guard of Honor. This division has always attracted the best Soldiers in the Army and that fact has not changed. The mere fact that we all volunteered to attend Airborne School knowing we could serve on jump status separates us from Soldiers who fill the ranks in other units.
From CPT Dobbins:
5-73 CAV (TF 300) deployed to Iraq in August 2006 to defeat the insurgency in eastern Diyala, Iraq. 5-73 CAV was formerly 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, but was chosen by the Department of the Army to be the first Airborne Reconnaissance Squadron. The members of the Squadron were hand selected by the Squadron Commander LTC Andrew Poppas. Commanders, Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and soldiers were competitively chosen to be members of this elite force of two time volunteers.
Once established, the members of 5-73 CAV were sent to specialty
schools: Ranger School, Recon Surveillance Leaders Course, Air Assault, and EMT to have the necessary skill sets to operate in an austere intelligence environment. Following the specialty schools the Squadron went into an intensive training cycle to prepare for deployment, which culminated in a successful rotation to the Joint Readiness Training Center.
Since deployed to Iraq the Squadron has achieved many successes and experienced some tragedy. Throughout the last twelve months we have conducted operations that have captured international headlines; Operation Turki Bowl I, Operation Turki Bowl II, and Operation Minotaur. 5-73 CAV, now referred to as Task Force 300 (for its 300
fighters) has consistently dominated the enemy through maneuver, saturating the area with patrol bases, patrols, and operations, and the application of Corps and Joint level assets.
From the 3rd Brigade Combat Team Commander, Col. Owens:
Our recon squadron, 5-73 Cav, has had a great fight on its hands in Diyala. Along with 3BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, these Paratroopers have been fighting some of the most extreme elements of Al-Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency. They have established several new Joint Security Stations to be closer to the Iraqi population and as a result have put themselves in a much more dangerous environment. Our Paratrooper’s tenacity and courage has come to be known throughout Diyala and among the members of the other American units they serve with.
Since my last report 5-73 Cavalry has paid a heavy price. They lost 17 great Paratroopers fighting some of the most ruthless terrorists in Iraq: PFC Orlando Gonzales, SPC Jason Nunez, SGT Jason Swiger, PV2 Anthony White, SPC Ebe Emolo, CPT Jonathon Grassbaugh, SPC Levi Hoover, PFC Rodney McCandless, 1LT Kevin Gaspers, SPC Jerry King, PFC Garrett Knoll, SSG Kenneth Locker, SGT Randell Marshall, SSG William Moore, SGT Brice Pearson, SPC Michael Rodriguez, SGT Michael Vaughn (5-73). 3-8, the Combined Arms Battalion, attached to us from 3rd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division lost two officers; 1LT Philip Neel and 1LT Andrew Bacevich. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the family and friends of these brave Warriors. These losses have only strengthened our resolve to accomplish our mission. We will continue to take the fight to the enemy and to provide security for the Iraqi people,
The comments above, are just a few of the kudos from officers commanding our loved ones in the 5/73rd C-Trp Recon. These comments were mostly relayed via the 3rd BCT FRG at Ft. Bragg assigned to keep the families, of our loved ones, aware and informed. Thanks for all your input.
Dennis
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Iraq Exit Strategies
No matter how you feel about why or whether we should be in Iraq, the fact remains that we are. Now what are we going to do? Cut and run, orderly downsizing, long term occupation, or expansion of current boundries (Iran or Syria)? Your view is probably colored by your justification of why we went into Iraq in the first place.
Mr. Bush said it was to unseat a tyranical dictator who had WMD that were a threat to the American people. When that was proven false, it was changed to fighting Al Qaeda on their ground. But it has been well documented that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq during the reign of Sadam Hussein, his iron fisted regime would not allow it.
So everyone recognizes that Saddam was a meglomaniac, but he did have one advantage that no one else could provide. His governement was a secular rule that put the fear in the hearts of every dissenting group that existed within Iraqs borders and to some extent outside of the border (Iran originally requested the help of the US during a protracted war that killed maybe millions of Iranians). Although Hussein himself was a Sunni (with his stronghold in the north, north of Baghdad), the predominant religion from Baghdad south, and generally throughout the country was Shii'.
What did we accomplish by over throwing Saddam. We put the minority Sunni people in fear of the predominant Shii' led by the despot leader Al Sadr, who had a army of his own bigger than the country of Iraq (after the overthrow of Saddam's army).
If we did not create the civil unrest between one sect against the other, our short-sighted President (and his defense advisors) certainly created the void by which sectarian violence and war could exist. If one knows anything about what happens when a vacuum is created, they would know that when no force is predominant any manor of forces will rush in to fill the void. This is the cause of infiltration by Al Qaeda, and the effect is that we spent the next three years chasing one battle after the next. Put down the Sunni insurgency in the north, then run south and deal with Al Sadr's militia blowing up Sunni mosques in the south, and then battle Al Qaeda everywhere blowing up everyones markets and mosques to foment anger by the other religious sect.
So what is the alternative to the strategy of 'putting out bonfires'? Do we say that there seems to be no resoulution to sectariean violence, in the absence of Saddam, and therfore just cut and run? Do we accept the fact that we created the mess and so we are obligated to clean it up? Can we accomplish that, short term, and then plan for an orderly exit? Or do we develop a strategy that will allow the Iraqi people to develop a secular alternative to the Al Qaeda fomented version of setting one sect against another. Remember, under Saddam, all sects learned to live amongst the other (whether they wanted to or not).
I believe that if peace among the indigent Iraqi people is still their desire, and if at this time they get to play a part in the development and form of peace, that a stronger union can be developed. I am pragmatic, but hopeful. My son is there fighting, and will be back if nothing changes. I want change so he doesn't have to go back.
In answer to my own question of what to do now, I offer that the only way to absolve our responsibilty for creating the mess, is provide the Iraqi people with the means and security to be able to form a secular government of their own making.
The means for creating such an environment is to recruit and train national, provincial, and local police forces to deal with the sectarian disagreements of the diverse residents of each region, and furthermore to gain their trust that a peaceful co-existance is preferable to daily bombings at the markets they need to trade at. Further, a strong well-trained national Iraqi army must me trained to deal with threats from the outside (other countries as well as international terrorists, read Al Qaeda).
Regardless of how you feel about what we should do next, keep in mind that whoever replaces George Bush in the Whitehouse (Democrat or Republican) will very likely plan on keeping a significant force in Iraq, reqardless of whether we are in a war mode, recovery mode, or maintenance mode. There are only one or two Democratic candidates who advocate a total and immediate withdrawl from Iraq (and it is unlikely that they will be the party nominee).
Do I want the war in Iraq to end? Yes. Do I want my son home safely, and not have to return? Yes. Did Bush get us involved for valid reasons? No. Are we closer to obtaining valid objectives to end the war and establish an atmosphere that the Iraqi people can define and obtain a peaceful existance? I think so.
What do you think?
Dennis
Note: Hopefully, in future postings I will be able to provide some references and direct quotes from people, in Iraq, that have provided me background and understanding of what our mission is and needs to be.
Mr. Bush said it was to unseat a tyranical dictator who had WMD that were a threat to the American people. When that was proven false, it was changed to fighting Al Qaeda on their ground. But it has been well documented that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq during the reign of Sadam Hussein, his iron fisted regime would not allow it.
So everyone recognizes that Saddam was a meglomaniac, but he did have one advantage that no one else could provide. His governement was a secular rule that put the fear in the hearts of every dissenting group that existed within Iraqs borders and to some extent outside of the border (Iran originally requested the help of the US during a protracted war that killed maybe millions of Iranians). Although Hussein himself was a Sunni (with his stronghold in the north, north of Baghdad), the predominant religion from Baghdad south, and generally throughout the country was Shii'.
What did we accomplish by over throwing Saddam. We put the minority Sunni people in fear of the predominant Shii' led by the despot leader Al Sadr, who had a army of his own bigger than the country of Iraq (after the overthrow of Saddam's army).
If we did not create the civil unrest between one sect against the other, our short-sighted President (and his defense advisors) certainly created the void by which sectarian violence and war could exist. If one knows anything about what happens when a vacuum is created, they would know that when no force is predominant any manor of forces will rush in to fill the void. This is the cause of infiltration by Al Qaeda, and the effect is that we spent the next three years chasing one battle after the next. Put down the Sunni insurgency in the north, then run south and deal with Al Sadr's militia blowing up Sunni mosques in the south, and then battle Al Qaeda everywhere blowing up everyones markets and mosques to foment anger by the other religious sect.
So what is the alternative to the strategy of 'putting out bonfires'? Do we say that there seems to be no resoulution to sectariean violence, in the absence of Saddam, and therfore just cut and run? Do we accept the fact that we created the mess and so we are obligated to clean it up? Can we accomplish that, short term, and then plan for an orderly exit? Or do we develop a strategy that will allow the Iraqi people to develop a secular alternative to the Al Qaeda fomented version of setting one sect against another. Remember, under Saddam, all sects learned to live amongst the other (whether they wanted to or not).
I believe that if peace among the indigent Iraqi people is still their desire, and if at this time they get to play a part in the development and form of peace, that a stronger union can be developed. I am pragmatic, but hopeful. My son is there fighting, and will be back if nothing changes. I want change so he doesn't have to go back.
In answer to my own question of what to do now, I offer that the only way to absolve our responsibilty for creating the mess, is provide the Iraqi people with the means and security to be able to form a secular government of their own making.
The means for creating such an environment is to recruit and train national, provincial, and local police forces to deal with the sectarian disagreements of the diverse residents of each region, and furthermore to gain their trust that a peaceful co-existance is preferable to daily bombings at the markets they need to trade at. Further, a strong well-trained national Iraqi army must me trained to deal with threats from the outside (other countries as well as international terrorists, read Al Qaeda).
Regardless of how you feel about what we should do next, keep in mind that whoever replaces George Bush in the Whitehouse (Democrat or Republican) will very likely plan on keeping a significant force in Iraq, reqardless of whether we are in a war mode, recovery mode, or maintenance mode. There are only one or two Democratic candidates who advocate a total and immediate withdrawl from Iraq (and it is unlikely that they will be the party nominee).
Do I want the war in Iraq to end? Yes. Do I want my son home safely, and not have to return? Yes. Did Bush get us involved for valid reasons? No. Are we closer to obtaining valid objectives to end the war and establish an atmosphere that the Iraqi people can define and obtain a peaceful existance? I think so.
What do you think?
Dennis
Note: Hopefully, in future postings I will be able to provide some references and direct quotes from people, in Iraq, that have provided me background and understanding of what our mission is and needs to be.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Operation Ithaca - See Al Qaeda Go Down
I think I have figured out how to link the YouTube video of Operation Ithaca. Approximately at 1:05 (time shown is time remaining) of the feed is a closeup of a soldier, that I believe to be my Son.
I will include further links and pictures of the joint 1st Cav / 5/73 Cav Recon(known as Task Force 300) operations in the future.
Dennis
I will include further links and pictures of the joint 1st Cav / 5/73 Cav Recon(known as Task Force 300) operations in the future.
Dennis
Operation Ithaca
On July 1th, 2007 Rob's unit (82nd Airborne, 3rd BCT, 5/73rd Cav, C Troop) participated as a recon unit with Task Force 300 in Operation Ithaca. Below are some comments about the mission and a description of some of the successes of TF300.
For those who know me, contact me and I will forward video of the battle, which may contain a clip showing Rob.
As described by Captain Dobbins:
Execution:
As soon as we hit the ground we began clearing the three separate objectives simultaneously, locating the enemy quickly through various sensors; Paratroopers on the ground, Paratroopers in two Black Hawk Helicopters flying overhead as the Aerial Reaction Force (ARF), Aerial Weapons Team (AH-64 Apaches), F-16 fighters, and Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (TUAVs).
We cleared from house to house, chicken coops, canals, and palm groves rooting out the enemy. Along the way we discovered three large caches of RPGs, Heavy Machine Guns, AK-47's, AQIZ propaganda, Iraqi Army/ police radio's, military uniforms and over 17 IEDs. The significance of the IED cache is that they are unable to put them on the street, which equals saving coalition and Iraqi lives.
Through the night into the early morning we fought the enemy, dominating them with impunity. The end result was we saved eight severely tortured civilians being held captive. The hostages told us that they had been sentenced by the Islamic State of Iraq to be executed later that day, and we saved them from certain death. All eight hostages who were from all over Iraq are now safely at home with their loved ones.
Our Paratroopers with all of their heavy gear and body armor covered four sq km of ground, clearing over 250 homes, many canals, and palm groves non-stop for eight hours, all while taking fire from a disciplined and determined enemy.
No civilians were killed or injured during this operation, nor any of our Paratroopers. As we were preparing to extract on our helicopters the hostages broke out in tears thanking us over and over. Security was given back to this region, allowing the repatriation of hundreds of families that had been threatened daily, lost family members, and lost the homes that had been in their families for over a hundred years.
STRIKE FORCE 300 (Bravo/ 5-73 CAV, 82nd ABN DIV)
Operation Ithaca is just one of many operations conducted by TF 300 on a regular basis. The determination and aggressiveness of this Squadron would make the original Paratroopers of WWII pleased that today's Paratroopers continue to uphold the standards and traditions of the 82nd Airborne Division.
For those who know me, contact me and I will forward video of the battle, which may contain a clip showing Rob.
As described by Captain Dobbins:
Execution:
As soon as we hit the ground we began clearing the three separate objectives simultaneously, locating the enemy quickly through various sensors; Paratroopers on the ground, Paratroopers in two Black Hawk Helicopters flying overhead as the Aerial Reaction Force (ARF), Aerial Weapons Team (AH-64 Apaches), F-16 fighters, and Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (TUAVs).
We cleared from house to house, chicken coops, canals, and palm groves rooting out the enemy. Along the way we discovered three large caches of RPGs, Heavy Machine Guns, AK-47's, AQIZ propaganda, Iraqi Army/ police radio's, military uniforms and over 17 IEDs. The significance of the IED cache is that they are unable to put them on the street, which equals saving coalition and Iraqi lives.
Through the night into the early morning we fought the enemy, dominating them with impunity. The end result was we saved eight severely tortured civilians being held captive. The hostages told us that they had been sentenced by the Islamic State of Iraq to be executed later that day, and we saved them from certain death. All eight hostages who were from all over Iraq are now safely at home with their loved ones.
Our Paratroopers with all of their heavy gear and body armor covered four sq km of ground, clearing over 250 homes, many canals, and palm groves non-stop for eight hours, all while taking fire from a disciplined and determined enemy.
No civilians were killed or injured during this operation, nor any of our Paratroopers. As we were preparing to extract on our helicopters the hostages broke out in tears thanking us over and over. Security was given back to this region, allowing the repatriation of hundreds of families that had been threatened daily, lost family members, and lost the homes that had been in their families for over a hundred years.
STRIKE FORCE 300 (Bravo/ 5-73 CAV, 82nd ABN DIV)
Operation Ithaca is just one of many operations conducted by TF 300 on a regular basis. The determination and aggressiveness of this Squadron would make the original Paratroopers of WWII pleased that today's Paratroopers continue to uphold the standards and traditions of the 82nd Airborne Division.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Does GDubaya Have a Strategy?
This my first posting. Future postings will include references, quotes, pictures and videos. Please be patient while I familiarize myself with this medium.
Is it enough to have a strategy for entering a war, or should we also have a strategy for what to do when the war ends. Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and announced 'Mission Accomplished'. So if the war was won what was his strategy for post-war Iraq? But, obviously the President has no memory of history. If he even knew where Viet Nam is or what the significance of our experience in that country was, he shows no inclination.
Did he think we would just topple Saddam Hussein, his sectarian government and hundreds of years of history of the Baath Party, insert an U.S. type of democracy, steal their oil, dust off our hands and walk out... 'Mission Accomplished'.
We reap what we sow. What next.
Is it enough to have a strategy for entering a war, or should we also have a strategy for what to do when the war ends. Mr. Bush stood on an aircraft carrier and announced 'Mission Accomplished'. So if the war was won what was his strategy for post-war Iraq? But, obviously the President has no memory of history. If he even knew where Viet Nam is or what the significance of our experience in that country was, he shows no inclination.
Did he think we would just topple Saddam Hussein, his sectarian government and hundreds of years of history of the Baath Party, insert an U.S. type of democracy, steal their oil, dust off our hands and walk out... 'Mission Accomplished'.
We reap what we sow. What next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)