A different take on Iraq

[Skip N]

These soldiers see progress, and warn against pulling out of Iraq before the job is done. And they would know more than us! They are there with the Iraqi's everyday. I don't think you'll see this side of the story in mainstream media.



By Josh White

FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq - For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.


Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

'A simple solution just isn't possible'
Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

Soldiers and officers had difficulty conveying what victory in Iraq would look like or exactly how to achieve it. In some ways, victory is a moving target, they said, one that relies heavily on the Iraqi people gaining trust in the Iraqi security forces and the ability of the Iraqi government to support essential services. In northern Iraq, officials said they expect to hand over major parts of the country to Iraqi forces within the next five months, but most agree that Baghdad will be far behind.

Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said.

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

'On the enemy's terms'
Numerous soldiers expressed frustration with the nature of the fight, which many said amounted to driving around and waiting for the enemy to engage them, often with roadside bombs, known within the military as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

"It's frustrating, because it's hard to get into the fight," said Staff Sgt. Robert Wyper, 26, of Riverside, Calif., a squad leader with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment. Wyper rides around the Mosul area in a Stryker armored vehicle. He has fired a total of four rounds from his weapon since he arrived in August, while several other soldiers said they had never pulled their trigger during their deployments. "The combat we have is on the enemy's terms," Wyper said. "You can shoot at the enemy, but how do you shoot at an IED?"

First Sgt. David Schumacher, 37, of Watertown, N.Y., is on his eighth deployment to a foreign battlefield since a tour in Somalia, and his third tour in Iraq.

"The insurgents are more strategic this time, they're smarter," he said. "We're trying to anticipate their next move, and they're trying to anticipate ours. There's still a lot to do."

In Rushdi Mullah, a small farming village near Baghdad, Capt. Chris Vitale, 29, of Washington, Pa., said his unit's recent moves to the edge of this insurgent safe haven have made a major difference for residents. "If my unit left town, the insurgents would come back in and use it to stage attacks on Baghdad," he said. "I'm sure of it."

In the north, where Iraqi army and police units have made strides toward controlling their own territory, U.S. soldiers said they were at a critical point in helping the Iraqi forces develop.

'An extreme betrayal for us to leave'
Capt. Mike Lingenfelter, 32, of Panhandle, Tex., said that U.S. troops have earned the trust of residents in Tall Afar over the past couple of years and that leaving now would send the wrong message. His Comanche Troop of the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment is working with Iraqi forces to give them control of the city.

"We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.

"It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here.

"If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week.

"I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[spence]

And yet, here it is as a top story at MSNBC, flag bearer of the evil liberal media

-spence

[spence]

I don't think you'll see this side of the story in mainstream media.

And the Washington Post

Oh wait, that's where you read the story!

-spence

[Nebe]

If only Bush Sr had pulled out early- 5 decades ago

[Skitterpop]

we aint gut no TVee

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

we aint gut no TVee

Skipper's family reunion?

-spence

[bart]

[Skip N]

Care to comment on the soldiers comments in that story?

[Skip N]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If only Bush Sr had pulled out early- 5 decades ago

Get some new material, you've only used that line a dozen times. I'm still waiting for your usual "sheeple" line.

Would you like to comment on what the soldiers are talking about in that article? Or does thier opinion not count in this Iraq debate?

Seems to me they want to finish what they started. And stay until Iraq can defend and govern itself. They know whats at stake if we pull put early.

[Nebe]

I know what is at stake and i would like to see things keep on keepin on over there. However, our current leadership base has proven time and time agian that they are inempt at proper decision making at so many different levels.

A democrat lead whitehouse will be much better at getting us out of this mess that has been created. Getting us out of this mess means not staying the course, but making INTELEGENT decisions and choices that hopefully will be based on the well being of the citizens of Iraq, and not based on which decisions will help US based contractors make the highest profits.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Seems to me they want to finish what they started. And stay until Iraq can defend and govern itself. They know whats at stake if we pull put early.

There certainly is some truth to what the troops are saying, but it needs to be put in a broader strategic context.

The simple presence of US troops appears to be exacerbating tension and in many instances, pretty much causing it. Unless we can find a way to still influence security while minimizing our footprint I'm not sure we'll see much improvement.

To date the Administration has refused to even promise the Iraqi's that at some time we really will leave, no permanent bases etc...

That would be a good start.

-spence

[Canalman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

If only Bush Sr had pulled out early- 5 decades ago

AMEN!

[Canalman]

Originally Posted by Canalman

AMEN!

Shoot! Now even I can't separate church and state... Damn you W!

[Canalman]

How many soldiers did they interview? It's nice of the whole army to elect a few to speak for the whole lot... just more "picture cropping" so that we see the "picture" they want us to see....... nonsense, bullshi+, worthless..... NEXT!

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I know what is at stake and i would like to see things keep on keepin on over there. However, our current leadership base has proven time and time agian that they are inempt at proper decision making at so many different levels.

A democrat lead whitehouse will be much better at getting us out of this mess that has been created. Getting us out of this mess means not staying the course, but making INTELEGENT decisions and choices that hopefully will be based on the well being of the citizens of Iraq, and not based on which decisions will help US based contractors make the highest profits.

I guess thats the difference. Some want "to get out of a mess" others want to win a War.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I guess thats the difference. Some want "to get out of a mess" others want to win a War.

Pfffttttt...just fluffy manipulative rhetoric from page 33 of the GOP talking points.

On Meet the Press yesterday Sen. Dole actually had the stones to say that "Democrats were content with defeat" in Iraq.

I thought Russert was going to toss her out of the studio for insulting his debate with that BS. It's a crock and the American people are the loosers.


-spence

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Skip N

Get some new material, you've only used that line a dozen times. I'm still waiting for your usual "sheeple" line.

Would you like to comment on what the soldiers are talking about in that article? Or does thier opinion not count in this Iraq debate?

Seems to me they want to finish what they started. And stay until Iraq can defend and govern itself. They know whats at stake if we pull put early.

Skip: do you seriously believe that the Iraqi people wanted us to bomb the piss out of them and then fight them into a state of democracy?

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

Pfffttttt...just fluffy manipulative rhetoric from page 33 of the GOP talking points.

-spence

Yeah, kind of like: "Blood for Oil", "Bush Lied Troops Died", "Paid RNC Posters", "Hurricane conspiracies", "9/11 Conspiracies", Haliburton Conspiracies, :Big Oil Conspiracies", and all the rest of the Soros Mantra you guys provide us with. But it does provide normal people with some laughs.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

Yeah, kind of like: "Blood for Oil", "Bush Lied Troops Died", "Paid RNC Posters", "Hurricane conspiracies", "9/11 Conspiracies", Haliburton Conspiracies, :Big Oil Conspiracies", and all the rest of the Soros Mantra you guys provide us with. But it does provide normal people with some laughs.

You guys? Don't think I've been pushing those slogans.

Sounds like you've been had by the GOP and various shock-jock punditry. You see, not everyone who's critical of the Bush Administration is a radical liberal...

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by Skitterpop

Skip: do you seriously believe that the Iraqi people wanted us to bomb the piss out of them and then fight them into a state of democracy?

I think had we had a real coalition, a plan for stability and treated the Iraqi's with respect we may have been able to pull this off.

Instead we have certainly succedded in validating most anti-US stereotypes used to incite the moderates into supporting terrorisim.

This works against our troops in so many ways. Our men and women mean well, and they're working their asses off, but they are being given a nearly impossible task...because of arrogance and incompetence.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

You see, not everyone who's critical of the Bush Administration is a radical liberal...

-spence

Spence your absolutely right. The big fallacy Radical Liberals are banking on right now is their mistaken belief that if someone is critical of Bush they are in support of the far Left Wing ideology. Far from it. Moderate voters determine the outcome of all elections. The voice of moderate Democrats has been muffled by the high pitched screech of that far Left minority and its kind of a shame. And to deny that a portion of the "New" Democratic party would not be extremely satisified with a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq despite any potential consequences is just silly.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

The big fallacy Radical Liberals are banking on right now is their mistaken belief that if someone is critical of Bush they are in support of the far Left Wing ideology.

You just made that up didn't you.

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

You just made that up didn't you.

-spence

I'll take that as an aknowledgement of agreement.

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

I'll take that as an aknowledgement of agreement.

You would be taking my comment the wrong way then. I think that's an absurd notion. Where did you get it?

-spence

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by spence

You would be taking my comment the wrong way then. I think that's an absurd notion. Where did you get it?

-spence

From a couple of the few wingnuts I consider friends. In their skewed view of the world Bushs Approval Ratings are validation to them that Americans in general share their beliefs. I think that explains their shock and outrage when their candidate never wins. Dont forget we are not talking about the sharpest tools in the shed here.

[Canalman]

I just don't like W and know that he's done an AWFUL job... where'd all this conspiracy jibber jabber (sorry for the Mr. T reference I couldn't help it ) come from

[stripersnipr]

Originally Posted by Canalman

I just don't like W and know that he's done an AWFUL job... where'd all this conspiracy jibber jabber (sorry for the Mr. T reference I couldn't help it ) come from

The George Soros cult.

[Bronko]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

From a couple of the few wingnuts I consider friends. In their skewed view of the world Bushs Approval Ratings are validation to them that Americans in general share their beliefs. I think that explains their shock and outrage when their candidate never wins. Dont forget we are not talking about the sharpest tools in the shed here.

This is an extremely valid point made by Striprsniper. I honestly do think that radical liberals see those plummeting approval ratings for GW to mean the country must be "coming around" to their line of thinking. IMO the truth couldn't be further from the point.

[Skitterpop]

Originally Posted by Bronko

This is an extremely valid point made by Striprsniper. I honestly do think that radical liberals see those plummeting approval ratings for GW to mean the country must be "coming around" to their line of thinking. IMO the truth couldn't be further from the point.

Interesting....what do you and S sniper think the average American thinks about George Bush (in a abbreviated statement).

Or more concisely what is the truth, as you perceive it, regarding your last sentence above?

[spence]

Originally Posted by stripersnipr

From a couple of the few wingnuts I consider friends. In their skewed view of the world Bushs Approval Ratings are validation to them that Americans in general share their beliefs. I think that explains their shock and outrage when their candidate never wins. Dont forget we are not talking about the sharpest tools in the shed here.

Yes, your 2 friends represent the liberal faction in the USA

What's the margin of error on your poll, +/- 98%

I've never seen this point made by liberal thinkers on a broad scale. On individual issues there's some truth. When 50+% of the American people think they were misled into Iraq, it certainly does validate that line of thinking does it not?

As an aside, if it wern't for Bill O'Riley and Sean "jackass: Hannity, the vast majority of Americans wouldn't have a clue as to who George Soros even is, nor would they care.

-spence