flere-imsaho
12-02-2005, 10:33 AM
Recently (say in the past month or so), I've made a conscious effort to tone down my rhetoric here on Iraq. By now I think everyone knows where I stand, and so I didn't think further railing on about it by me was in anyone's interest here.
However, today I came across four letters to the editor published in Stars & Stripes (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305), the quasi-independent periodical for U.S. Troops. I think these four are worth a read because they bring up issues a number of soldiers are facing on the ground.
War based on a lie
Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.
This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.
I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.
Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.
Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq
Less is better in Iraq
After finally breaking away from the Powell Doctrine, it seems that we are still unable to break away from the mind-set of overwhelming power. We still have multimillion dollar bases glutted with vast numbers of support troops, and we are still employing large unit “search and destroy” missions.
In order to pacify Iraq and make it a model in the Middle East for other radical Islamic states, we need to commit long term. Such a commitment under the current mind-set involves large numbers of Reserve and National Guard troops. The reservists, though they are doing a superb job, are not ambitious, career-driven soldiers — they have other priorities in life. If we are so terrified of guerrilla warfare, why are we bringing more “sheep to the wolves?” History has taught us that highly trained, volunteer soldiers can perform incredibly well in much smaller numbers, suffering much fewer casualties, and thus attracting less media attention. Why do we, then, stray from strategies that have proved effective in previous conflicts such as the Banana Wars, Boxer uprising, and in some cases, even in Vietnam?
We need to remove a considerable number of support troops and all KBR and Army and Air Force Exchange Service civilians. That’s right, no more ice cream. Maintain only hard-charging, highly trained and supple combat troops who can aggressively and ubiquitously patrol the Iraqi streets with Iraqi augmentees. Most combat arms troops join the combat arms to fight (though some of them quixotically) and possess a sense of duty, patriotism and proud heritage. Let’s give them the same chance that Marine Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler and his Marines had.
Sgt. Eros Kopliku
Balad, Iraq
Guard faces extra problems
Because the writer of the Sept. 28 letter “Military has it backward” presented himself poorly, and because my active-duty brethren, it seems, have not taken time to research their facts, I fear that many people have the wrong idea about the National Guard.
We know that we signed up. We also know what we did not sign up for, and that was to face equal dangers and hardships without equal consideration and benefits. While deployment enhances the career of active-duty soldiers, it harms the livelihood of Guard soldiers. Even more galling, the Department of Defense and Department of the Army deny deployed Guardsmen promotions that they would be entitled to if in a nondeployed status, thereby setting back their military as well as civilian careers. At the same time active-duty officers are sent home after only six months in theater, in order to accept positions leading to promotion.
Active-duty soldiers are entitled to numerous bonuses while deployed, while bonuses for Army Guard soldiers who re-enlist while deployed are eliminated. Where is the equity, the “one team, one fight,” in such a policy?
We all leave families behind, but while U.S. Army Europe commander Gen. B.B. Bell and others appear in AFN commercials touting the many programs available to the families of active-duty soldiers, Guard families are left to fend for themselves. While active-duty soldiers send their children to schools where trained personnel understand and help them get through deployment, Guard children go to community schools where teachers and staff, not trained to deal with deployments, handle them quite differently.
I could list a dozen inequities, but I would hope our active-duty friends would at least have the moral character to agree that Guard soldiers, while deployed and sharing equal dangers, are deserving of equal benefits. Treat your Guardsmen with respect.
Capt. Patrick Sampsell
Bagram, Afghanistan
Troops need Harvey’s help
To Francis Harvey, secretary of the Army (“Army secretary: Patriotism, pride, not money, motivate U.S. soldiers,” article, Nov. 10, Okinawa edition): Money isn’t everything but …
Mr. Secretary, I agree that service to your country should be paramount and you should be serving with honor. However, when many junior enlisted soldiers qualify for welfare, when a garbage truck driver in Chicago makes $75,000 a year and up, when many of the civilian contractors working side by side with the soldiers are making more than $100,000 a year, then we start losing our balance and are not really looking out for the welfare of our soldiers. We must also consider the real cost of employment of those contractors, as they work for “cost plus” corporations — and we all know what that means, sir.
Soldiers are not only responsible for the lives of the soldiers they charge into battle with, but also for millions of dollars of high-tech equipment during peacetime and while serving on the battlefield. Most soldiers are charged with a far greater responsibility than most politicians and certainly more than a garbage truck operator. Pay raises should be on a progressive scale from the bottom to the top. Instead of token 3 percent pay raises across the board, pay raises should be progressive with rank. Progressive raises at 5 percent to 6 percent are more appropriate and should be written into the budget with relative ease since “all politicians” claim to be supporting the troops.
Pride in service to your nation and to the world is in the hearts of all good soldiers, Mr. Secretary, but as a soldier leaves his family in the rear and puts his life on the line, he must know that he is also serving his family financially. As our leader, you are the one person we are counting on to help us maintain that balance: serving our country with honor while providing honor to our families. As you count on us on the battlefield, we count on you in the Pentagon.
Staff Sgt. R.W. Shirley
Camp Cedar, Iraq
However, today I came across four letters to the editor published in Stars & Stripes (http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=33305), the quasi-independent periodical for U.S. Troops. I think these four are worth a read because they bring up issues a number of soldiers are facing on the ground.
War based on a lie
Weapons of mass destruction? I’m still looking for them, and if you find any give me a call so we can justify our presence in Iraq. We started the war based on a lie, and we’ll finish it based on a lie. I say this because I am currently serving with a logistics headquarters in the Anbar province, between the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi. I am not fooled by the constant fabrication of “democracy” and “freedom” touted by our leadership at home and overseas.
This deception is furthered by our armed forces’ belief that we can just enter ancient Mesopotamia and tell the locals about the benefits of a legislative assembly. While our European ancestors were hanging from trees, these ancient people were writing algebra and solving quadratic equations. Now we feel compelled to strong-arm them into accepting the spoils of capitalism and “laissez-faire” society. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy watching Britney Spears on MTV and driving to McDonald’s, but do you honestly believe that Sunnis, Shias and Kurds want our Western ideas of entertainment and freedom imposed on them? Think again.
I’m not being negative, I’m being realistic. The reality in Iraq is that the United States created a nightmare situation where one didn’t exist. Yes, Saddam Hussein was an evil man who lied, cheated and pillaged his own nation. But how was he different from dictators in Africa who commit massive crimes again humanity with little repercussion and sometimes support from the West? The bottom line up front (BLUF to use a military acronym) is that Saddam was different because we used him as an excuse to go to war to make Americans “feel good” about the “War on Terrorism.” The BLUF is that our ultimate goal in 2003 was the security of Israel and the lucrative oil fields in northern and southern Iraq.
Weapons of mass destruction? Call me when you find them. In the meantime, “bring ’em on” so we can get our “mission accomplished” and get out of this mess.
Capt. Jeff Pirozzi
Camp Taqaddum, Iraq
Less is better in Iraq
After finally breaking away from the Powell Doctrine, it seems that we are still unable to break away from the mind-set of overwhelming power. We still have multimillion dollar bases glutted with vast numbers of support troops, and we are still employing large unit “search and destroy” missions.
In order to pacify Iraq and make it a model in the Middle East for other radical Islamic states, we need to commit long term. Such a commitment under the current mind-set involves large numbers of Reserve and National Guard troops. The reservists, though they are doing a superb job, are not ambitious, career-driven soldiers — they have other priorities in life. If we are so terrified of guerrilla warfare, why are we bringing more “sheep to the wolves?” History has taught us that highly trained, volunteer soldiers can perform incredibly well in much smaller numbers, suffering much fewer casualties, and thus attracting less media attention. Why do we, then, stray from strategies that have proved effective in previous conflicts such as the Banana Wars, Boxer uprising, and in some cases, even in Vietnam?
We need to remove a considerable number of support troops and all KBR and Army and Air Force Exchange Service civilians. That’s right, no more ice cream. Maintain only hard-charging, highly trained and supple combat troops who can aggressively and ubiquitously patrol the Iraqi streets with Iraqi augmentees. Most combat arms troops join the combat arms to fight (though some of them quixotically) and possess a sense of duty, patriotism and proud heritage. Let’s give them the same chance that Marine Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler and his Marines had.
Sgt. Eros Kopliku
Balad, Iraq
Guard faces extra problems
Because the writer of the Sept. 28 letter “Military has it backward” presented himself poorly, and because my active-duty brethren, it seems, have not taken time to research their facts, I fear that many people have the wrong idea about the National Guard.
We know that we signed up. We also know what we did not sign up for, and that was to face equal dangers and hardships without equal consideration and benefits. While deployment enhances the career of active-duty soldiers, it harms the livelihood of Guard soldiers. Even more galling, the Department of Defense and Department of the Army deny deployed Guardsmen promotions that they would be entitled to if in a nondeployed status, thereby setting back their military as well as civilian careers. At the same time active-duty officers are sent home after only six months in theater, in order to accept positions leading to promotion.
Active-duty soldiers are entitled to numerous bonuses while deployed, while bonuses for Army Guard soldiers who re-enlist while deployed are eliminated. Where is the equity, the “one team, one fight,” in such a policy?
We all leave families behind, but while U.S. Army Europe commander Gen. B.B. Bell and others appear in AFN commercials touting the many programs available to the families of active-duty soldiers, Guard families are left to fend for themselves. While active-duty soldiers send their children to schools where trained personnel understand and help them get through deployment, Guard children go to community schools where teachers and staff, not trained to deal with deployments, handle them quite differently.
I could list a dozen inequities, but I would hope our active-duty friends would at least have the moral character to agree that Guard soldiers, while deployed and sharing equal dangers, are deserving of equal benefits. Treat your Guardsmen with respect.
Capt. Patrick Sampsell
Bagram, Afghanistan
Troops need Harvey’s help
To Francis Harvey, secretary of the Army (“Army secretary: Patriotism, pride, not money, motivate U.S. soldiers,” article, Nov. 10, Okinawa edition): Money isn’t everything but …
Mr. Secretary, I agree that service to your country should be paramount and you should be serving with honor. However, when many junior enlisted soldiers qualify for welfare, when a garbage truck driver in Chicago makes $75,000 a year and up, when many of the civilian contractors working side by side with the soldiers are making more than $100,000 a year, then we start losing our balance and are not really looking out for the welfare of our soldiers. We must also consider the real cost of employment of those contractors, as they work for “cost plus” corporations — and we all know what that means, sir.
Soldiers are not only responsible for the lives of the soldiers they charge into battle with, but also for millions of dollars of high-tech equipment during peacetime and while serving on the battlefield. Most soldiers are charged with a far greater responsibility than most politicians and certainly more than a garbage truck operator. Pay raises should be on a progressive scale from the bottom to the top. Instead of token 3 percent pay raises across the board, pay raises should be progressive with rank. Progressive raises at 5 percent to 6 percent are more appropriate and should be written into the budget with relative ease since “all politicians” claim to be supporting the troops.
Pride in service to your nation and to the world is in the hearts of all good soldiers, Mr. Secretary, but as a soldier leaves his family in the rear and puts his life on the line, he must know that he is also serving his family financially. As our leader, you are the one person we are counting on to help us maintain that balance: serving our country with honor while providing honor to our families. As you count on us on the battlefield, we count on you in the Pentagon.
Staff Sgt. R.W. Shirley
Camp Cedar, Iraq