Some Iraq Veteran

I was cruising the list of blogs Hope has listed on her site and came across this video over on A Soldier’s Perspective. The video was apparently created by something called the 545 Project (no clue). I usually hate those crappy YouTube videos put together with crappy music and ham-handedly designed to send some kind of political message with all the subtlety of a fart in church, but this one kinda grabbed me. Just make sure you turn your speakers off.

Cheers,
-Dacker

Oops!  I find this terribly funny.  I sent the below link to a friend of mine who thought I was serious:

Somali Cruises

Cheers!

-Dacker

What a difficult decision to have to make, to send Troops in harm’s way.

Sending more people means more U.S Troops will die.  That’s the cold, hard, blunt truth. It means more combat deaths and it means more non-combat related deaths.  Some of those people killed may be friends of mine. All of those people are brothers and sisters of mine.

But here’s the thing, folks: losing or giving up in that region will have a ripple effect that is likely to last a very long time and ultimately cost way more lives.  People who want to hurt us for no other reason than the beliefs we hold dear will be permitted to run amuck – recruiting, building, planning.  Those people have already demonstrated their capabilities and ruthlessness.  If we give up then we should go all the way and effectively remove ourselves from the world stage.  Isolate ourselves.  Because if the bad guys win in that region, God help us if we make a future foreign policy decision that rubs them the wrong way.  (That was sarcasm, folks – I’m not advocating it).

What a PR boon for militant islamists everywhere should the U.S. and its allies run away.  What will that cost us in American lives down the road, I wonder.  It’s not just a loss of face it’s a loss of power.  That power that the U.S. wields is what lets me go to sleep at night and only vaguely worry that bad guys from afar will blow up my family on the way to school tomorrow.  As a Soldier, I considered myself a protector of innocents, and, with the exception of one cowardly field grade officer, damn near everyone I served with felt the same way.  I didn’t want to die, and more importantly I didn’t want anyone I worked with to get hurt or die (that wish didn’t come true).  But even more than not wanting to die, I didn’t want to lose.  Not because of some silly notion of competitiveness, but because I could see the long-term results of loss.  To me the keys to loss included::

• leaving the region to fend for itself
• mistreating civilians so that they hated us
• failing to interact with the local populace with a human face, thus ensuring they perceived us as robotic invaders
• failing to learn as much of the local culture as possible so we could be sure and offend
• permitting bad guys to terrorize the locals
• failing to take swift action against government corruption
• refusing to shore up the local infrastructure so that the people would have no urgent care, law enforcement, clean water or electricity
• basically, anything that turned civilians away from us and on to the bad guys

You see, in my simple little mind a loss degrades the sacrifices my buddies have made.  It’s like “what was the fucking point?”  I know the decision to act on General McChrystal’s recommendations for more troops is a difficult one.  But dammit, small unit leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan are making tough decisions under very hostile and imminent conditions every single day, and many of those decisions by those kids are made knowing there’s a decent chance someone will die or be seriously hurt.

I’ve read and heard so many arguments about what we “should” do: “kill ‘em all,” “pull our ‘boys’ home,” “give everyone over there X-Boxes so they’ll have something else to do.”  (okay, that last one was my idea but I’ll have to explain its origin later).  If we want to win we have to make the people over there feel safe.  Not “American Safe,” but safe within the parameters of their own completely different culture.  Americanizing them isn’t going to work, but we can help.  It’s going to take more Troops, more civilian support, greater assistance from other countries and (most importantly) political will for the long haul.  This is not going to be a war we “win” and then bring everyone home.  This is going to be a commitment.  Deal with it, peeps, the face of the world has changed.

I haven’t been able to post lately for a few reasons, and I was really planning on writing something funny, or maybe tell another Army story where I was the butt of a joke.  But my concern about the decision making process over the future of Afghanistan has taken center-stage in my thoughts lately.  I am truly terrified the wrong decision will be made.  I’m concerned that if we begin to pull out there will be troops placed unnecessarily in danger (my short-term fear).  I’m concerned that my son, who is lying next to me in the bed with the flu as I type this, and his generation will inherit a horrible set of problems should we act short-sightedly (long-term fear).  I wish I was a better writer, more articulate, so I could more accurately express my worries.  I know I was just a peon junior Cav officer when I served, and that my service was in Iraq, but I’m telling you if we (the galactic we) screw this one up we and our kids will pay the price.

Someone more articulate than me put together a good post over at BlackFive.  I know it’s kinda old, but it’s worth the quick read.  Here it is.

Thanks.

-Dacker

A New Mexico judge issued a warrant for the arrest of a National Guard Soldier for a charge of driving under the influence (DUI or DWI – driving while intoxicated).  The National Guardsman, Jordan Pratz, missed a court date on September 14, 2009 which resulted in the arrest warrant.

The problem is the Soldier is, and was at the time of his court date, deployed to Iraq.  The Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office asked the judge for the warrant, claiming it was necessary to ensure the statute of limitations did not elapse.  The DA was gracious enough (and I’m being sarcastic here) to permit Pratz to turn himself in upon his return, else he faces arrest.  So, as this National Guardsman gets nearer to completing his year or fifteen months, or whatever amount of time he is deployed – assuming he makes it home - he can look forward to getting off the plane, hugging his family, and then going to jail.  That’s just wonderful.

People who drink and drive really piss me off, because they put other people’s families in danger for an extraordinarily selfish act.  The deaths that occur due to DUI are preventable, pure and simple.  But honestly, you can’t compare the case of Bob Imadrunk who blows off a trial date with that of a National Guardsman deployed to Iraq.  It was impossible for Pratz to make his court date, what with the war on and everything.

I have no idea if Pratz is guilty of the crime,  (and a quick Google search will show you that not everyone arrested for DUI is guilty), but let’s assume he is.  Deployed troops have a tremendous amount of stress on their minds as it is.  Everything from worrying about getting killed/maimed or getting others killed/maimed, to stressing about problems that occur at home that the deployed fighter can’t do anything about.  The idea of having to fight next to the guy whose head is not in the game scares the bejesus out of me.  Plus, you all know how everyone gets kinda crazy as they get closer to redeployment, imagine how’d you’d feel if you knew your CHU-mate was stressing about going to jail at the end of the deployment.

I have a hard time swallowing the argument that an arrest warrant was the only way to handle this situation.  This smells to me more like it was the “easier” course of action for the DA – and we all know how government-types prefer easy over practical.

If Pratz is guilty of the crime then after his day in court he needs to pay the price just like anyone else.  My problem is he is having to pay a bigger price solely because of his status as a deployed Soldier.

Anyway, here’s the video of the news story:

And the article is here:

Judge Issues Arrest Warrant for National Guardsman

If you feel like letting the DA know how you feel, here’s the e-mail.

-Dacker

A bill has been introduced in Canadian Parliament by Liberal Party member Gerard Kennedy that would authorize granting refuge to Afghanistan and Iraq war deserters from other countries, including the U.S.  Apparently, if approved this bill would permit these war deserters to remain in Canada despite their crime, provided it was based on “sincere moral, political or religious objections” to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Presumably, “I’m a chicken-shit  who gladly took the pay, benefits and prestige of the uniform, but am too scared to actually deploy” would not constitute sufficient grounds.

There are over 200 U.S. military deserters in Canada right now – that is, if you start counting since the war in Iraq began.  I have no idea how many deserters from the Viet Nam era remain in Canada, particularly since President Carter pardoned them.

I’m not going to express an opinion on Viet Nam era deserters (not publicly, anyway) because I was a child during that war, and we did not have an all-volunteer force at the time (yes, I know some feel that the current stop-loss is a backdoor draft).  But I can’t come up with any plausible reason for deserting in today’s times other than pure cowardice.  Everyone who signs on the dotted line for the military today, Active, Guard or Reserve, either knows they may have to deploy to a combat zone where bad people might try and kill them (and vice-versa), or they are a complete dumbass.  No way in hell I’m going to buy that a deserter suddenly had a moral, political or religious epiphany after the fact.

Now, part of me says “meh, let the deserters stay in Canada – we won’t have to warehouse them in our expensive prisons, and won’t have to dole out social services to them when they can’t find jobs due to their criminal convictions.”  Further, our real troops won’t have to worry about getting stuck on a roof in Ar Ramadi with one of these shitbags.  But then on the other hand, someone over there has to clean the shitters, and who better than a captured deserter.

-Dacker

According to Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, the more troops we send to Afghanistan the more Taliban there will be.  Here’s a link to the article.  I suppose the thinking is the more troops we send the more the locals will be pushed into joining the bad guys.

-Dacker

I saw this article today and thought it was pretty good.  In a nutshell, some lady was held up in traffic during a funeral procession for SFC William “Brian” Woods and decided to complain to the local sheriff about it.  He responded to her complaint, but not quite in the way she expected.  Here’s the article

Sheriff Responds to Complaint Over Soldier’s Funeral Procession

-Dacker

I want to start out by saying I debated writing this post because I have some pretty mixed feelings on the subject.  After some thought, however, I realized the very fact that I have such conflicted feelings pretty much demands I write about it.

As anyone who follows the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan (as opposed to those who simply skip past the statistics of KIA in the news) knows, AP photographer Julie Jacobsen snapped a photo of Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard, a 21 year-old Marine, after he was hit with an RPG (rocket propelled grenade).  Bernard’s platoon came under attack in southern Afghanistan and during the course of the firefight he was struck in the legs with the RPG.  He was tended to by fellow Marines, medevac’d out, and died from his wounds.

The photo is grainy, and was taken from a distance, but is still powerful.  It captures horror and bravery at the same time.  I don’t see the need to post the photograph here as it can be found via Google, and frankly, posting it would make me feel scummy.

The publication of the photograph incited the anger of military leaders, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates who not only requested the AP not release the photograph, but publicly condemned it for doing so.  The Associated Press claimed journalistic duty.

Looking at the matter through the lens of integrity, both sides of this issue have merit.  Giving the benefit of the doubt to the military as to its true intent, it clearly has an interest in protecting the privacy of its fallen and their families, as well as the sanctity of the moment.  Assuming a noble intent on the part of the AP, it clearly has a journalistic obligation to bring the truth to the world no matter how unpleasant that truth is.  The dirty reality of the basis for each side’s position is a little different, however.  The U.S. Government and military is frightened by the prospect of the world in general and Americans in particular being exposed to the harsh cost of war.  The AP is in the business of making money, and news, especially controversial news, sells.

Despite the parties’ true intent, when it comes to articles and photographs of war I’m going to have to come down on the side of journalism.  I do believe the U.S. and its military should be allowed to safeguard its tactical and strategic secrets - I think it takes a real nutjob with absolutely no grounding in reality to think otherwise.  I do not believe the military should be permitted to deceive Americans, via act or omission, as to the cost of war.  Candidly, we need to see the images and hear the reports so that we can draw our own conclusions, and those images and reports should not be limited to those that high-ranking military and government personnel believe tell their version of the story.  In other words, I don’t want my news filtered through military cheerleaders.

I know what it’s like to have the irritating journalist in one’s unit, asking obnoxious questions, demanding to be taken to various locations, and I’d probably have flipped out if I was caught in a firefight and looked over to see a photographer taking pictures of one of my wounded buddies.  But I can’t judge this issue rationally by assuming the role of an interested party any more than a judge in a lawsuit can assume the role of a plaintiff or defendant when he decides a case.  We should know the truth of what’s happening over there, even if it’s ugly – no, especially when it’s ugly.

I want to know so I can judge whether it’s right, wrong, or worth my continued vote.  If you’re the kind of person who just checks the little proxy box when your electricity co-op sends you an absentee ballot for board of utilities, and you don’t bother reading the materials provided because you trust what the incumbents have to say, well you are probably going to disagree with me on this one, too.  I don’t trust our politicians, high ranking officers and other government employees enough to make a moral decision on what we’re allowed to see.  The opportunity for abuse of that power is too great and has historically been used to manipulate the public through the press in order to advance a particular agenda.

Yes, the press makes money and that’s what guides its decision making.  If you think the government’s and the military’s sole basis for coming down on the side of censoring these types of photographs and reports is purely altruistic, you are quite naive.  They have their own agenda to push and protect.

Regardless, as I said this is a subject that hits some sore parts on me.  What are your thoughts on the subject? 

-Dacker