Cliff LyonI Send People Into Combat Almost Daily
In the few remaining months before CJ’s deployment back to Iraq, we hope to continue to engage him in an effort to better understand the complexity of the situation with Iraq, in Iraq and the American consciousness.
As I reminded an interlocutor from ASP, we appreciate CJ as an archetype of the kind of otherwise earnest, patriotic and decent man who will not question authority nor break form to stand up for peace.
Last night, CJ was drawn out by Nephi on another blog. Keep in mind, it is now official that the majority of troops in Iraq disapprove of the conduct of the war putting CJ is a more tenuous position than during his last deployment.
Nephi, I don’t need a new perspective that my upcoming deployment will afford me. I send people into combat almost daily. I also process soldiers returning from combat almost daily. I KNOW what’s going on over there and I don’t need the media to tell me, unlike you and your friends. In just the past two weeks, I’ve spoken to no less than nine Soldiers returning from Iraq and not one of them feel the same way you do. These aren’t support soldiers either. These are door-kickers, MPs, MI, and infantry.
So, who do you think I should believe about the realities in Iraq? You and your Bush-hating rants and kool-aid stained news print, or the people who are physically there? I’ll pick the troops, thanks. You can’t change what I’ve seen with my own eyes, heard with my own ears, and smelled with my own mouth.
“I send people into combat almost dailyâ€
I assume when CJ says he ‘sends people into combat,’ that means ‘kicking in doors’ if not flushing out an enemy. Is the enemy defined as someone who is a risk to US troops or a security risk to another Iraqi? In the former case, then NOT sending out troops would eliminate that risk, unless the mission is to create long term security for the long term presence of US troops. If the latter is true, we are a third party exacerbating the situation and putting our troops and mission at greater risk.
Wow, that gave me a headache. Maybe I’m not getting something, but I haven’t heard anyone of authority can explain it either (Abizaid, Casey)
“I’ve spoken to no less than nine Soldiers returning from Iraq and not one of them feel the same way you do.â€
Soldiers speaking with an officer and an officer listening to soldiers is at best conducive to mutual validation and unlikely to tread upon the greater issues of the misguided, politically motivated, illegality of the war much less the interests of the Iraqis being terrorized daily. It is unfortunate that CJ would equate that experience with the broader concept of ‘knowing what’s going on over there.’
Does CJ really ‘KNOW’?
Before his deployment, did CJ have any cultural knowledge or experience of Iraq in a friendly civilian capacity? Did CJ have any Iraqi friends? Could CJ pass a simple test on Iraqi history? Do CJ and his ‘door kicker’ know the story behind this photo? Does CJ ‘know’ what the Carlyle Group is?
Does CJ ‘know’ first hand how an Iraqi father decides whether or not to house or hide and insurgent? Does CJ ‘know’ of the complexities of kin, village, tribal obligations, not mention long-term implications, for a father or widowed mother making a decision that will affect her the safety of his/her family in this city and the next one over tomorrow and possibly for years to come?
If CJ were an expert in even recent Iraqi culture and history, he would ‘know’ why his very presence in Iraq adds a third unpredictable especially complicating factor that has existed in some form in every war.
Loyalty to the occupier means safe today, pay tomorrow. It’s an ancient dilemma - as old as war. The ‘door kickers’ are likely not participating in that thought process as they evaluate friend or foe in the split second they and the soldier at the door have to decide.
CJ’s mission appears to be to direct soldiers to break into Iraqi homes. Does CJ ‘know’ that his mission is illegal under international law?
“So, who do you think I should believe about the realities in Iraq?”
What I hear is, CJ ‘knows’ just enough to feel OK about going along with this war. I fear people like CJ are told they ‘know’ as much as they need to ‘know’ and that the knowledge they are given is sufficient to protect themselves and their families. For too many Americans, this is ‘good enough for me’. But is it really enough? Is knowledge no longer valued by some Americans? Is truth really just a semi-inflated football to be kicked around by the power brokers, out of reach of the common man? I do not think so. I do not accept that. Why does CJ?
I refer you to the reflections of a Viet Nam Vet who understands a Soldiers Dilemma.
Reminder: CJ is an archetype. I invite any and all CJ’s to help us understand.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:40 am
Cliff, this is turning into either good journalism, or a good Soap. Do
Caveats thing is very powerful.
I hope he will expand on it.
December 30th, 2006 at 11:57 am
[...] Rather, WavesofFear’s only concern is for our fellow countrymen who have been slaughtered or seriously injured in this incredibly absurd war. And more soldiers will be slaughtered and injured, in large part because of the groupthink mentality prevalent in various circles and ranks of our military and the administration who runs the military. This war belongs to you, George W. Bush, and the death or injury of every serviceman or woman as a means to achieve this sweet revenge falls squarely on your and your minions’ shoulders. [...]
December 30th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
Cliff,
I appreciate your effort “to better understand the complexity of the situation with Iraq, in Iraq and the American consciousness.” I for one think the picture of Rumsfeld indicates some very difficult questions that America ultimately has to ask itself.
As I learn from you and others on this site, I am also grappling with the questions of what the Bush Administration did to mislead and to get us into the Iraq War in the first place.
***Kumbaya Warning! *** Someday we should all get together at a conference and get to know each other better. Blog rage can be like road rage. When we’re safely ensconced behind our keyboard, we write things to each other that are easily misinterpreted and that we would never say if we were face to face.
But if we say them in a courteous manner, we are much more likely to get the other person to at least think our point of view is valid.
December 30th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Yes, Kumbaya,
Until then PLEASE know that I am a REALLY nice person, just ask around. And all my life I have been told I can come off a bit strong AND over the top, blah, blah blah, and it is true and I have finally come to terms with it.
I know my friends like it, once they get over the initial shock. I don’t think they would have me any other way.
No matter how provocative I get, there is always a smile of self conscious embarrassment to follow. I am no gift to this planet but just doing my best (to prove atheist are very good people).
Lord grace me with patience! :)
December 30th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I’m only stepping in here because of the Carlyle reference. Michael Moore made this famous but unfortunately, FH 9/11 is a fact- poor source, as is the Carlyle link in the above post.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, but Wikipedia has a much more clear eyed look at Carlyle and exactly who they are (It’s kind of full of Clinton’s old people right now).
Sooo, check it out.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
The last time I used a wikipedia link, someone from ASP said wikipedia is junk written volunteers or something like that.
I used that link because it has pictures. Reading is hard.
December 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Cliff,
I’ve seen both sides, and although we haven’t yet met, I feel like I understand you and your excellent passion.
I think you’re cool!
BTW, (I hope the jest is taken in the spirit it is intended, but) I have a new poll just up in the right margin on Serving Iraq that asks “Who is MilMom anyway?”
December 30th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Here’s a post I just put up at ASP. It needs approval, so just to be certain that it sees the light of day, I’ll post it here (maybe they moderate to keep spam down like I do- I hope this is the only reason).
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/?p=1566
While Saddam was 100% evil, his death ought to be a time to reflect upon the occupation- specifically where the occupation is relative to where it was in March 2003.
Certainly Saddam’s tyrannical rule was not desirable and denied basic human rights to milllions. At the same time, however, Saddam’s tyranny was non-unique relative to other tyranny’s across the world which the U.S. not only does not invade, but tolerates and in many cases maintains working alliances and relationships with (much like we did with Saddam in the 1980’s when he was committing many of the very crimes against humanity he was prosecuted for). So, this raises serious questions- If the Saddam regime’s tyranny was non-unique relative to other worldwide tyrannys, why did the U.S. invade and occupy the country? Why did the U.S. tolerate Saddam’s egregious misbehavior in the 1980’s, but when far less deviant behavior occured 20 years later we invaded the country? I have yet to hear good answers to these questions.
And, while tyranny is deplorable, it is still preferable to anarchy. While George Bush claimed the noble intent of democratization of Iraq, the truth of the matter is that that tyranny was replaced with anarchy. Where stability and predictability as well as basic needs were generally provided for even in the absence of human rights, now Iraq has no secure human rights and has lost its stability.
The ultimate question for our reflection is this- what has been gained by the U.S. occcupation in Iraq and the deposition and execution of Saddam? The Iraqi’s only have rights on paper, but not in practice. They lack stability. They are engaged in a civil war which will last for years and years, long after our next president resolves our role in the occuption. Thousands of American soldiers are dead. Tens of thousands are wounded. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi’s have died in collatoral damage, and in some cases blood lust rampages like Haditha. America’s credibility in the world is at an all time low. Billions and billions of tax dollars are gone forever.
High costs with absolutely no gains and serious losses and deterioration. Iraq was better of with Saddam and tyranny than Occupation and anarchy.
December 31st, 2006 at 10:04 am
Tom, thoughtful post, thanks. I would suggest that tyranny simply changed hands. Anarchy, as I understand it, is a rejection of ‘the tyrant’, and assumption of our God-given rights, responsibilities and freedoms. In other words, I would like to salvage ‘anarchy’ from those authoritarian types who usually rise to positions of power by virtue of thier cunning, cruelty, and corporate connections.
December 31st, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Congrats on getting through the censors at ASP Tom. If you’re wondering why I don’t respond to the incessant discussion about me over there, it’s because I’ve been banned and I am really pissed about that. Mad as hell AND feeling really sorry for myself.
They’ve launched a full-scale investigation to prove that I am also ‘MilMom’. Apparently there is a law against posting anonymously with more than one pseudonym. A bit hypocritical if you ask me given the fact that I am perhaps the most transparent blogger in their world.
It’s kind of ironic that of the six of us who’ve gone over there to engage, four of us use our real FULL names; you, me, Richard, and Frank. By contrast, no one uses their real names over there, or on any right-wing blog I’ve seen.
I think CJ just needed a reason to ban me. At first it was because MilMom told someone, “Eat Me”, which I thought was a suspiciously benign justification. Then I am told by Nephi that CJ was pissed at me for insulting his and Cpl M’s wives, which I thought was also overly sensitive (I said his wife was ‘cowed-looking’ and Cpl M’s wife ‘cherubic’). So I posted a very sincere apology because I really did feel badly. I mis-applied the unwritten ‘fair game’ rule which I assumed covered all blogs. Lets face it, The Internet is a public thing. I would think if you were willing to post a video of with your wife in it while taking shots at another blogger…
But the apology didn’t work, so then I guess the rationale is the dual posting personality thing. The whole thing reminds me of how Bush keeps changing the rationale for invading Iraq.
I think the real reason is to protect their little community of mutual, self-validating, right to my own opinion truth dodgers from the discomfort of being called out for their indefensible often blatantly false statements.
It kinda narrows the comfort zone or I should say, the delusion zone.
So I’m banned, unable to defend myself while they just pile on me with their insulting little quips. I’m just so mad at them I could just spit. Shit, shit, shit.
Anyway, Tom, tread lightly over there as I know you will. You are far more patient than I. Keep the reality down to small subtle doses.
December 31st, 2006 at 5:11 pm
a rapildy narrowing delusion zone = a bursting bubble.
Cliff, you’re kool. Now, having infected thier mental world, it’s only a matter of time till reality sets in. I’d give em .5 Freildman Units.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:46 pm
“Truth dodgers” is very apt. I might borrow it sometime, but I’m not going to post replies at ASP since it’s total fantasyland over there.