Here I was preparing another post for DT when a message came through the net with this posting from my boy over at the Worldwide Standard , Mike Goldfarb, who gave us big props for the new editorial team here.
A longtime friend and colleague Pam Hess, who’s been one of Washington’s top defense reporters for as long as I’ve been in the business, just returned from six weeks in Iraq. I saw her the other day in the neighborhood and she looked a bit bedraggled from her trip – still fighting jetlag and the culture shock of returning to a much safer existence.
Let me first say that she is no apologist for the Bush administration or its justification for the invasion of Iraq. Watching her as I have at many a Pentagon briefing, she puts the screws to every defense official she’s questioning. But having been to Iraq myself, and having experienced many of the same things she’s seen and done, I can’t help but identify 100 percent with her impressions outlined below.
It’s real evil … I’m just not sure what other word you can use for people who are shooting kids in the face…
It’s a long clip, but it’s worth every second to watch.
Pam is one of those reporters that doesn't take day trips to the field from a secure compound in Baghdad. She lives the entire time embedded with U.S. troops. It takes that kind of day-to-day existence and contact with the danger and hope of the battlefield to really understand what's going on there. And that clip from C-Span shows it.
As the president said in this year's State of the Union address, it may not be the war we started, but it’s the war we’re in now.
Posted by: cars for sale at December 7, 2007 10:45 AM
Wembley
Trying to paint this as a morally relative issue is more than a bit silly.
There are at least four kinds of violence going on in Iraq. There are anti occupation forces fighting us. This is probably the least effective group and the second smallest. There are Al Qaeda type elements. Their m.o. is maximum civilian casualty suicide bombings. They are probably a good bit smaller then the anti occupation forces but have a much greater impact in Iraq. There are the ethnic cleansing forces in Iraq. This is probably the largest group with the largest impact, killing, often after torturing, thousands upon thousands. Then there are organized criminal elements that operate for their own sake. There are of course overlapping elements and marriages of convenience between these different forces.
Out of all of these Iraqi combatants only a few of the anti occupation forces could maybe have a somewhat justified cause for violence. Most of the leaders of this group were former perpetrators of violence under Saddam and are fighting more for self preservation than for a free Iraq. Unlike all of these groups we do not orchestrate campaigns of violence targeted at civilians. Regretably, we kill civilians inadvertently and in rare circumstances maliciously in an isolated incident, but surely you can see the difference.
As far as not getting to the peace table, well its not that kind of war. Its a process of co-opting a society riven with sectarian strife into a common structure of governance as opposed to forcing them into it. This is a tricky project and perhaps doomed from the start, but it is not a matter of defeating or wearing down an enemy and engaging in peace talks.
Posted by: JMD at March 16, 2007 09:01 AM
It's a pity we're not getting much of a view from the other side, as I suspect the message would be very much the same. They also believe they are fighting against a terrible evil and therefore 'must' win.
It's going to be a while before the peace talks get started at this rate.
Posted by: Wembley at March 16, 2007 06:10 AM
I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but the US has not faced an imminent threat in like 60 years. Every conflict after WW2 has been a war of choice.
Until China steps up to the plate, and relieves us of our current global responsibilities, the US will continue being in everyone's business, whether anyone deems it legitimate or not. As much as I would like to ignore developing countries, and tell everyone to F off, they always find a way to bite us if we do not give them guidance.
My opinion on Iraq, we either send in an extra 200 thousand combat troops into Baghdad, then pledge to stay there for another decade; or we get the hell out, let the place trifurcate, and come back in five years, Bosnia style, to pick up the pieces.
Treating the GWOT like some sort of US/Them Civilization threat is counter-productive, and will fail. Let SOF due the dirty work in the shadows. I do like the current Africa Model, something more likely to bring long term results.
I guarantee the next President will not change Bush's Policies. It may be sold, spun, or perceived better, but very little will be different.
Posted by: BT at March 15, 2007 03:43 PM
Dude said "i would rather come home to momma then be turned into a dusty wade of hamburger."
Well that certainly would be everyone's first instinct, but if that governed every individual's decisions then it would be impossible to field an army. As a soldier you are a tool of the state. The up shot of that is that in a citizen based and not conscript based army the state must do a decent job of taking care of its soldiers. And in a democracy the state has to do a decent job of picking its fights.
Now I think we failed miserably in that last regard in 2003. At that time Iraq was not a clear and present danger. Thanks to our war that has since changed. From the state's point of view a modicum of success in Iraq resulting in at least a stable if not friendly state is worth quite a bit. As a citizen I want whats best for my country. As a human being I want what is best for other human beings. I feel for our troops in harm's way, but I also feel for Iraqis in harm's way. The human calculus leads me inevitably to the conclusion that we should stay. From my friends that are there and from reports such as the one at the top of this post it would appear that many of our soldiers and marines agree.
Posted by: JMD at March 15, 2007 01:21 PM
Look dude:: -"Your post also seems to beg the question, are a few thousand more American lives and much treasure worth a fighting chance at saving hundreds of thousands from a violent death?"- Just to let you in on somthin. when your talkin about violent deaths, yeah thats been going on for EONS!
its because the media is getting to evryones brain and warping the view of how a persons Ideal should be concieved as realism. Morality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to who you decide to stand by, we could all presume the worst after a pull out, but to tell you the truth i would rather come home to momma then be turned into a dusty wade of hamburger. Those people want freedom then all of them will fight for it, instead of watching us do it.
Posted by: Dude at March 15, 2007 01:07 PM
RB
Would you prefer that W's quoatations be prefaced with some rabid criticism? This isn't the KOS (thank goodness) and someone's quotations need not necessarily be used for criticism or praise. They can be used objectively.
Your post also seems to beg the question, are a few thousand more American lives and much treasure worth a fighting chance at saving hundreds of thousands from a violent death? Its bad now but it can get a whole lot worse. Nevermind mind the dangers to our national security that a failed state in Iraq would pose. Is the human cost alone worth it, or is one American worth more than one hundred Iraqis?
Posted by: JMD at March 15, 2007 12:22 PM
Thank you Matt Z, I couldn't agree more.
Posted by: JMD at March 15, 2007 12:10 PM
Who cares what you think you suck
Posted by: Rich at March 15, 2007 10:55 AM
To all those who are complaining now, I say pipe down. DefenseTech has always included partisan political ramblings in its news. In the years I've read this site, it's gotten more and more common. NOW you notice?
I think it's not the fact that there is a political message, and more the content of that message that has some of you so upset.
Posted by: Brian #2 at March 15, 2007 09:32 AM
I'm missing your point, RB. Are you saying the Marines fighting in Fallujah are not worthy of our support? And by "dwindling" do you mean fewer as time goes on? Funny, that's not the metrics we're seeing . . .
Anyone who says, "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in" reveals that he has learned nothing in four years. Of course, it IS the fight we entered in Iraq; we were just too stupid, ignorant, or blinded by ideology to realize it.
And the fact that this blog's new editors quote Bush uncritically do themselves, the troops, and their dwindling readership no favors.
Posted by: RB at March 14, 2007 11:10 PM
Cambell wrote:
".... It is not a "war", or even a "civil war"....it is sectarian criminal violence...but it is an INTERNAL affair. We have no business there.
...How about those in Darfur? We should ship 100,000 plus there, ...Or Congo? Or Chechnya? ....."
the difference between Iraq and these other trouble spots is that we are directly responsible for the situation in Iraq but have no direct responsibility for the situation in Darfur, Congo,etc.
i believe that invading Iraq was a huge mistake. Iraq had no WMD, no ties to 9-11, and posed no eminent danger to the US. we compounded that mistake by disolving the Iraqi military and the Baath party and failing to deploy enough troops to provide security. call me a liberal if you like.
because of these mistakes we now have an obligation to stay. to leave now would open the floodgates to far more violence and bloodshed. the potential for that violence to grow into a more widespread is very real and ultimately far more dangerous for the US. we an even larger troop surge than what the president has proposed (call me a conservative if you like) combined with an aggressive and effective reconstruction plan that keeps the reconstruction money in Iraq to jump start their economy. we need a president and administration at home with the competence to execute such a plan and we need the american public to put their support behind it. sadly, i doubt either of the last two conditions will be met.
Posted by: Matt Z at March 14, 2007 08:41 PM
Let's be quite clear: This isn't about politics; it's about supporting the warfighter. Defense Tech is unwaivering in its support for those Americans who go into harm's way. If that bothers you, then by all means hit another site. Of course you won't be as informed . . .
"I totally agree with Bob Young's post above. I read this site for military/defense technology news only. I don't want or need political commentary; there are plenty of other sources for that.
Posted by: Mike at March 14, 2007 05:33 PM"
Then why are you guys shouting out now? This site has leveled tons of undeserved criticism on the administration for years now.
MeThinks you're just unhappy when people speak from their hearts and you diagree.
Posted by: Max at March 14, 2007 06:50 PM
I'm a veteran of the current war (Operation Iraqi Freedom III, 2005) and of the first Gulf War. Thank you for linking to this video. For every liberal reader who posted and said they will not come back to defensetech.org, I promise you I will bring a sympathetic reader to visit your site.
Thanks again.
Brian
Posted by: Brian at March 14, 2007 06:49 PM
I totally agree with Bob Young's post above. I read this site for military/defense technology news only. I don't want or need political commentary; there are plenty of other sources for that.
Posted by: Mike at March 14, 2007 05:33 PM
"Cops know that the most dangerous situ is a domestic quarrel....which is what we are involved with in Iraq. Period. "
Yeah a civil war. Iraqis vs. Iraqis..... vs Syrians.... vs Iranians..... If we leave the Saudis, Turks and Iranians are considering sending in troops?!?!?!?
Wow, I guess it isn't a civil war.
"All touchy-feely cause were saving Iraqi lives? How about those in Darfur? We should ship 100,000 plus there, as well, to pacify the place? Or Congo? Or Chechnya? Or Sri Lanka?"
Wow. So you agree with the Liberals who want us to go into Darfur and you agreed with Pres. Clinton when we entered the Serbian conflict without a UN mandate or even the support of Congress.... hmmm I'll remember that Campbell.
Posted by: sam at March 14, 2007 05:23 PM
@CHRISTIAN LOWE: I've worked for the DoD for 20+ years. I come to this site to get information about defense technology issues. I don't need your spin on how the war is going, I can watch that for myself. You are not gaining any credibility by linking to “The Weekly Standard”, any more that you would have credibility by linking to “The New Republic”.
If I wanted partisan political commentary I would go to those web sites. If this is where you are going to take this site, you have just lost a reader.
Posted by: Bob J Young at March 14, 2007 05:18 PM
Cops know that the most dangerous situ is a domestic quarrel....which is what we are involved with in Iraq. Period. It is not a "war", or even a "civil war"....it is sectarian criminal violence...but it is an INTERNAL affair. We have no business there.
All touchy-feely cause were saving Iraqi lives? How about those in Darfur? We should ship 100,000 plus there, as well, to pacify the place? Or Congo? Or Chechnya? Or Sri Lanka?
We do not belong there, we are ready targets for ALL sides and factions there. There is no "win" coming.....
Posted by: campbell at March 14, 2007 04:41 PM
That was a great clip. Now apologists and liberals know what I have known and learned from friends that have been there. The people the troops are fighting are pure evil.
P.S. No One Ever Said Iraq Had Anything To Do With 911. That Idea Was An Anti-War Construct.
Posted by: Walter Shields at March 14, 2007 04:34 PM
I knew I'd get some grief for putting the Bush speech paraphrase in the post. So here's the actual quote: "This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in."
>"As the president said in this year's State of the Union address, it may not be the war we
>started, but it’s the war we’re in now."
I guess you are misunderstanding the context of the phrase. The "war" that appears in the phrase probably means the war against Islamist elements and the war to restore peace by removing these Islamist elements, instead of "war" to prevent Iraq from WMD threats, which was the original reason of the war. In fact, I would also want to mention we are not fighting a war, war with the definition of combat between two official force operated by each government. The Iraq War was over when the Iraqi force operated by Saddam fade.
Posted by: pedestrian at March 14, 2007 02:11 PM
We often hear voices to bring back troops home and Vietnamization of Iraq, but what about the Iraqis that will be left behind if the coalition force leaves? Who will take care of them? Who will protect them? When I see poll results with majority of Americans having a negative view on the Iraq War, I ask myself why have people become ignorant about Iraqi lives while demanding the troops home? Are Iraqis' lives less valuable than Americans, as well as Vietnamese in Vietnam War that suffered communism afterward? Let UN take care? Tell them what happened to Somalia and that UN is no dream team, and that Somali fell under Islamists years ago. If you were an Iraqi, would you want the troops to be withdrawn, risking your life from Islamists wanting to overrun the state? We may not be seen as heroes by Iraqis but likely needed until the ISF can take over.
Posted by: pedestrian at March 14, 2007 01:58 PM
"As the president said in this year's State of the Union address, it may not be the war we started, but it’s the war we’re in now."
???
We. Did. Start. This. War.
Iraq. Had. No. Ties. To. 9-11. That. We. Know. Of.
It is *not* as Bush said. I support all just wars. I don't support this one.
Posted by: Christian Convey at March 14, 2007 01:32 PM
buyWOW Gold and
cheapwow gold
buyEVE ISK
EVE Online ISKcheap
sellCheap EVE ISK
buyAO Creditssell
Archlord Goldcheap
Auto Assault Scripbuy
City of Heroes Influencecheap
COV Infamybuy
Dofus Kamasand cheap
Dofus moneybuy
Gaia Online Goldcheap
Gaia Goldbuy cheap
RF Online CP, Dalant, Disenasell
Vanguard Goldbuy
DDO Platnice
DDO Goldbset
EQ2 Goldcheap
Cheap EQ2 Goldbuy
EQ2 platsell
Cheap EQ2 platcheap
everquest 2 goldbuy
FFXI Gilbest
Cheap FFXI Gilcheap
Guild Wars Goldbuy
Cheap Guild Wars Goldbuy
L2 Adenasell
Cheap Adenabuy
MapleStory Mesosnice
Cheap Mesoscheap
Runescape Moneybuy
Runescape Moneybest
Runescape Goldwant
runescape itemsneed
runescape accountsbuy
SilkRoad Gold
Cheap SilkRoad Goldcheap
world of warcraft goldbest
LOTRO Goldgood
Cheap LOTRO Goldnice
wow power levelingcheap
wow power levelingbest
world of warcraft power levelingsell
wow power levelingservice
wow power levelingsell
Final Fantasy XI Gilnice
ro Zenybuy
lotro power levelingsell
swg creditscheap
Warhammer Goldbuy
Cheap Warhammer Goldnew
eq2 Goldhot
lotro Goldcheap
ffxi gilfast
ro Zenybuy
cheap wow goldbuy
swg credits
需要定制论文
和英文作业
英文论文
请找毕业论文网
这里有论文写作
论文还有
毕业论文
以及定制毕业论文
英语毕业论文如果你需要
留学论文请访问论文网
出国留学论文非常好
留学申请论文很全面
出国留学文书很简单
留学申请文书写作非常容易写
留学生作业也可以找到
留学文书总之你要找
留学论文写作和
毕业论文写作
英语论文写作这些
出国留学文书写作那就去
美国留学博客
assignment哪里有
PHP培训
PHP培训请找
高云峰
Posted by: runescapeitems at April 13, 2008 07:37 PM