Richard WarnickMosul: ‘People think the war is over, but they don’t realize the amount of contact that we receive out here’
Amid all the excitement of recently-minted Bush administration fiascoes, let’s not forget about Iraq. We still have 144,000 troops stuck there, not accomplishing anything positive for U.S. national security –but they’re working very hard and still getting shot at.
Combat outpost in Mosul, Iraq
Phillip Robertson of the Associated Press reports from Mosul, where the U.S. Army 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is battling Sunni Arab insurgents.
“Since the start of Ramadan, it’s been crazy. We’ve been mortared; we’ve had fire come at the guard towers; we’ve had IEDs,” said Spc. Erich Hellwig…
“It’s getting to the point where people are leaving their boots on when they sleep. You get worried that someone would come in and take out our gate,” said Hellwig, who survived a recent ambush. In that attack, a rocket-propelled grenade exploded near a U.S. military vehicle but inflicted no casualties.
… “Honestly, I don’t know who we are fighting,” said Staff Sgt. Tim Carter, who has survived six roadside bomb attacks. “If I see them placing a roadside bomb or firing at us, then that’s who we are fighting, but otherwise there is no way to tell if he is a civilian or al Qaeda. Here, a kid can run up to shake your hand and then later throw a grenade at you.”
…”I think the (American) people think the war is over,” Carter said. “But they don’t realize the amount of contact that we receive out here.”
Senator John McCain, speaking yesterday to the National Guard Association in Baltimore:
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight…
The achievement of our troops in Iraq is even greater because they had to press on even as some politicians back home were telling America and the world that our cause was too hard, and all was lost, and retreat was our only option…
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Richard,
Great piece. You give sharp focus to disconnect here at home.
The idea that John McCain has been saying for 5 years, “victory is finally in sight”, and that about half of America support him for president, is inexplicable.
Our soldiers sit stoically, quietly dodging bullets in Iraq, cut off by and from the media, while the Republicans do work to steal another election.
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:45 pm
What a tired old saw Cliff.
Is there no responsibility from the Democrat controlled Congress by now? I know you are intent on getting Obama elected, but things are not going to change just because he could be president.
Fiscal events are going to transcend the election, now all we need is a false flag and the whole thing turns to dust. Watch it, Obama is in no way prepared for what could come. He is a noob and has nothing on the criminals that have put him up, or the criminals he supposedly opposes.
It is laughable by now. Prepare for dictatorship, no matter who is elected, we are walking the German path, the hole created is so deep, there is no out but for war or ruse. Watch, it is now upon us. Obama will not respond in the manner you hope. He can’t. His ass is owned.
September 22nd, 2008 at 6:48 pm
There has seldom been a time in this war when victory was seen as more than six months away. At one point the mission was accomplished. At another point the insurgency was on its last legs. Our troops are doing a very good job of keeping a lid on a boiling pot, but we can’t keep them there forever. No Arab and no Islamic country will allow us to permanently occupy their land. The best we can hope for is that we leave with bands playing and flags flying and relatively soon.
September 22nd, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Maybe we need a democrat like Truman to “solve” the problem for us.
Ala KA BOOM BYE BYE, and beware the fallout.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
Tired old saws: unite against nameless monikers!
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:06 am
For those of you that like to classify the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as quagmires, I have recently updated the casualty charts for all US wars. While there are certainly different measures of success in wartime, the one that matters to most in the military is the casualty rates. I notice that even here at OneUtah, a casualty counter is installed at the top right of the main page. Unfortunately, that counter doesn’t tell the whole story.
Currently, Afghanistan has the lowest casualty rates and Iraq has the third lowest in the history of this country. It is obvious that even in a difficult situation where politicians continue to undermine success as they did in Vietnam, our soldier are by far the most effective fighting force in history.
You can view the updated charts at my new site UtahFreePress.com, Iraq & Afghanistan Still Among Lowest in Casualties.
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 am
R.O.– If the goal of the Iraq occupation and the definition of victory is zero U.S. casualties, then never invading Iraq would have been the ideal way to accomplish that, don’t you agree? It would also have saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. If you have another definition, please tell us.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:41 am
I knew that last post was going to get you going Richard W…
Yes, I do have another definition of success. Unlike most that supported the war, I did not buy the WMD reasoning that too many, especially Dems, needed to justify the war. For me freeing the people of Iraq from the brutal grips of a dictator that promoted and funded international terrorism was enough.
While it is true that your, emulation of the pre WWII do-nothing isolationistic attitude, would have saved more U.S. soldiers, it showed a complete disregard for the suffering of others around the world and historical perspective. It is because of people like you that politicians fear committing to ending similar tyranny in parts of Africa. Instead, people like you would rather impose useless embargos designed to starve the poor in repressed regions into submission. While I am also sure that you support similar brutal dictators like Chavez, most of the free world doesn’t.
We have given a great opportunity to the Iraqi people to now govern themselves. Unless of course people like you who truly only oppose these reforms as a way to express hatred for Bush get in the way and require our troops to surrender. Even Obama after lying to you in the primary about pulling troops out early has conceeded showing how idiotic his stance was. It was a lie and it earned him your vote… SUCKER!
Now let me guess… you are going to argue that Saddam was not sponsoring terrorism, right? You might want to do some research before going there… Or are you going to argue that our fight against terrorism should only be against al Qaeda? Ignoring threats before they do us harm is the exact thing you criticize Bush for.
Also, don’t you find it ironic that the very people who were saying before the war that it was all about oil are now clambering to get some of that oil now? Do I have to start listing Democrats in Congress?
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:59 am
R.O.– I’m happy for you that you were not fooled by the Bush administration’s lies about Iraqi WMD. I didn’t buy that crap either. Sure, I figured that Saddam might have some leftover chemical munitions but nothing that could possibly threaten the USA.
By your logic, we should immediately launch wars of aggression against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. None of them had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks, either. Is it any wonder that the U.S. is frequently cited as the biggest threat to peace in the world? Crimes against peace were the principal charges at Nuremberg.
Tell me, when will the Iraqi provincial elections be held? When will the militias be disarmed? When will the Iraqis de-nationalize their oil sector? All stated goals of the so-called “surge,” which according to some Republicans “succeeded.”
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:20 am
Is it a quagmire if that is precisely where you WISH and PLANNED to be?
It is always shocking to me to hear someone suppose that the people of this region or that, after having the shit bombed out of them are better off for it. The dead, perhaps.
September 23rd, 2008 at 8:49 am
RO:
Tell me, just why was it that you jerked and flailed so wildly when accused of being a right-winger? After all, your comments really do not leave much for the imagination.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:19 am
Okelberries has stated his position clearly (see next post). Apparently, he thinks our Military should be used to enforce his personal morals.
This of course would make the Iraq war a Crusade and puts Richard squarely in line with radical Islam except for some minor doctrinal differences.
In an post last March, Richard says about those of us who disagree with killing innocent women and children:
http://lincolnsblog.com/Articles/World/IraqWar/IraqWar.htm
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Richard W.
I never said that Bush lied about WMD. I believe that the Bush administration truly believed as did most of congress, who also saw the evidence, that there was a strong case for it. I do however blame Cheney and Rumsfeld for exaggerating claims, but that is far from a lie. I would suggest that anyone who wants to know the mindset of the administration lead up to the war watch the PBS documentary Frontline: Bush’s War.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/
You love to use the term “wars of aggression,” against anyone that would dare to oppose fascism or totalitarian regimes that regularly violate international proclamations of human rights. While I do not rule out the use of force against any of those mentioned nations, I certainly don’t believe that it would always be necessary. Unfortunately history has shown that sanctions NEVER work. Only when brutal dictators face the real prospect of losing power will they comply. They have no care for the welfare of their people and actually invite sanctions the way that Saddam did so that they can use the suffering of their people to gain international sympathies. I believe that we would only need to topple a few radical regimes before others would fall into compliance the way Libya did following the invasion of Iraq.
Cliff is right, I do want to impose my person moral convictions on the world. Those convictions are a belief that every person can live free from tyranny and enjoy the basics of human rights and self determination. I still stand behind the out of context quote used above by the great deceiver, Cliff Lyon. I believe that when people protest wars like those in Afghanistan, Iraq and even Bosnia, where people are being liberated from awful oppression, they become compliant in the suffering and deaths of those people. They might as well be the ones holding the guns to their heads themselves. I also believe the same thing about those that support abortion and capitol punishment.
Unlike Cliff who joins a phony human rights group that is truly purposed to oppose Pres. Bush. I believe in real action to save the lives of the innocent. While it is true that civilians do die when caught in the crossfire of war, it is remarkable that the vast majority of those deaths have not been at the hands of our soldiers but at the hands of terrorists that use the deaths of civilians to demoralize their enemy. In your case, I must say they have succeeded.
I have now given you the OKELBERRY Doctrine for world peace. Tell me Richard W., how would you deal with the suffering in the countries you have mentioned? Or perhaps you don’t believe there was anything wrong with Saddam. I imagine you feel his Iraq was one of Utopia. Before you answer, can you name one dictator who ever treated his people better because of the threat or implication of sanctions? Just one? What other option would you suggest, the “turn away” method?
Cliff, interesting to hear that you support the way the Taliban treated women. I wonder if when you were protesting the Afghanistan invasion you included those views in your chants.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
RO:
You said:
Just what “evidence” do you refer?
If you are going to try and apologize for the W administration, you may as well back up your attempt with some substance.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
R.O.– Your foreign policy views are profoundly dangerous and un-American. I am with President John Quincy Adams:
By the way, you can’t get away with telling people President Bush didn’t know full well that Iraq was not a threat. He knew. On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, even if Iraq was a potential threat to the USA there existed no justification for attacking them absent a U.N. Security Council authorization.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Balsa-wood drones from IKEA, Bitches!
I was ascared then and I’m ascared now.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:39 am
Richard W. (part 1)
Interesting that you chose Adams to make your point since Adams was instrumental in establishing a Federal Army and tried to turn the Presidency into a new form of aristocracy (a king). Also, I believe that the final part of your quote illustrates the two different ways that you and I see the world.
You read the word domination from the quote and immediately visions of U.S. imperialism come to your mind. I read the words Liberty, Freedom, Independence and Peace and think that all people of the world are deserving of these and it is our duty to provide it when possible.
Also, I imagine since you quoted Adams that you also support the fact that during his Presidency he not only built up the armed forces but signed the Alien and Sedition Acts as an emergency national security measure.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Richard W. (part 2)
I am not talking about forcing democracy or capitalism on anyone. I am talking about giving people a chance at a life without living under repression and in fear. Much like I would use the police to enforce civil rights here in the U.S., I would use the military and hopefully just the threat of the military to enforce Human rights world wide. I believe that such a cause could be a rallying point for the majority of nations, whose unity would require very future little intervention.
I am not talking about toppling dictators simply because I don’t like they. If a dictator or other regime provides their people with the protections of basic human rights then I say leave them alone and let their people decide their own governance. If however, a dictatorship regularly abuses it’s people, I say lop of the head as a warning to other sadistic leaders. Do you disagree with that?
Finally, your assertion as fact that Bush knew Saddam had no WMDs is a slant on the truth because it fails to address the FACT that he truly believed that Iraq did have WMDs. It may sound like semantics but please listen. Bush had everyone throwing information about the possibility of stockpiles of WMDs, then one small report from one of Saddam’s minister’s, and we know how much we can trust Saddam’s ministers, comes forward and he is supposed to believe that one piece over all the others?
The final piece of evidence that supports my case is in the fact that after the invasion was well under way, Bush each day was surprised that they hadn’t found any WMDs. This is widely known and attested to. If you know there are no WMD’s then why did he keep re-doubling efforts to find them. He wanted them found and fast. I hate to sound repetitious, but I really want everyone to watch all of the PBS Special Frontline Bush’s War. It may take a bit of time in front of your computer, but it is the most exhaustive documentary yet about what lead us into war.
When you look at the WMD fiasco, you see a conspiracy to purposely send us into an unjust war. When I look at it, I see people who truly believed what they were telling the people about WMDs and felt completely justified in exaggerating the evidence to make their case. The administration certainly had blinders on and Bush failed to relly enough on Powell in his decision making. Still, ultimately, the other justification of fighting tyranny and stamping out state sponsored terror was justification enough.
We see this same thing happening in the political campaigns where each side feels that what they have to bring to the country is so justified that they are willing to bend the truth here and there to make sure their party has the opportunity to protect this nation from what they see as a vital threat. Ironically in that case it is the opposing parties that each view as a threat to the country.
I want to ask you something Richard. If before the war, Iraq had invaded Israel, do you think we should have responded with our military under treaty to protect her? Also, I would be curious to hear whether or not you supported the war in Bosnia. Did you protest that war as well?
September 24th, 2008 at 8:53 am
R.O.– Recheck your history books, you have got the wrong President Adams.
In answer to your very hypothetical question, Israel can take care of itself. Interestingly enough, in the 1973 war the IDF did come up against an Iraqi armored brigade in Syria and beat them soundly. I’d like to know, why do the neocons think American foreign policy ought to be subservient to the Israeli national interest? FYI, we do not have a mutual defense treaty with Israel– that would be crazy.
From 1976-2004, Israel was the largest annual recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, having recently been supplanted by Iraq. Since 1985, the United States has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel. Isn’t that more than enough? See the CRS report on Foreign Aid to Israel (PDF).
Bosnia was a European problem that the Europeans ought to have taken care of. It had zero impact on U.S. national security. As a member of NATO, we are doing our part, and NATO is helping us in Afghanistan. BTW if you want a good laugh, check out what Republicans said about Bosnia and Kosovo. My favorite:
September 24th, 2008 at 9:45 am
RO:
This sound like a new level of apologetic rhetoric on behalf of the Bushies, yourself included. You, of all people, just moved the bar from true believers to complete justified exaggeration.
Why the concession so late in the game? Starting to feel betrayed?
September 24th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Richard W. said:
For a minute, it looked like Richard O. had you. It’s bad to get caught in a debate with someone who knows his stuff, isn’t it RO?
By the way: how can a documentary that starts out with the attacks on the trade centers leave out “The Pet Goat” non-action sequence. I stopped watching that piece of propaganda as soon as I saw they were going to follow the storyline that “mistakes were made” in Bush’s quest for democracy. The Frontline episode called “Cheney’s Law” is much closer to the evil truth.
September 25th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Larry,
You are right… I missed the Quincy in the name when I was scanning down… I should feel ashamed and defeated… I see how that incredibly idiotic mistake completely destroys my entire argument.
I am now changing me position to support Richard W. I now believe that we should abolish all treaties, especially those made with the Jews… I now see the logic of simply leaving brutal dictators and regimes alone to do with their people what they will. Still, I will make a loud noise when I hear about things like ethnic cleansing to make myself look good around my liberal friends. I may even join a pseudo human rights group. I now believe that not a single one of those pathetic lives is worth the life of a single American. The truth is; we are better and more deserving then them, RIGHT?
Can I now join your club, Richard, Larry & James? Maybe we can get together to make signs that say, “Let Iraqi Children DIE… Bring Our Troops Home.” I now see the error of my ways.
Isolationistic-Socialist UNITE!
(Sarcasm implied for those that would dishonestly take quotes out of context.)
September 25th, 2008 at 7:47 am
R.O.– What treaty with Israel do you keep referring to? Is there a secret treaty that only neocons know about?
September 25th, 2008 at 8:50 am
re: RO 6:43 a.m.
I love the smell of logical fallacies in the morning . . .
I think you must have set some sort of record for most strawmen in the least amount of words.