From CNN correspondent Arwa Damon in Baghdad:
“Baghdad is dying, we are all just waiting in line.” Khaled — not his real name to protect his life — one of our Iraqi employees, said the words softy, his eyes glossing over.
It was during a conversation with our Bureau Chief Cal Perry, talking about work in the bureau, and I was helping out translating. But the conversation had quickly shifted from business to life.
“It’s so hard for me Arwa. This skull won¹t absorb English,” he said, smacking both palms against his head. “I just have too much on my mind. I’m supporting three families, most of them women, each time my phone rings my heart sinks thinking that one of them was killed.”
Khaled is a well-built man, proud and softly spoken. But like too many others, utterly broken by the hardship of life in the capital. Helpless in the face of the violence. Moving mechanically through each day, just hoping to reach tomorrow.
There absolutely nothing to say. Reassuring words ring hollow. And so I just said “I know.” And his eyes glossed over even more.
Iraqis are strong and proud. You won’t often see their suffering in their actions or in their voices. You see it in their eyes. Baghdad is dying.
There was so much on TV today, beginning with a searing examination of Iraq on “Meet the Press” (Stephen Hadley was spine chilling, Senator Chuck Hagel stood tall but Joe Lieberman showed why he doesn’t deserve to be a senator). Then there was Chairman Murtha’s answer to George Stephanopoulos that he was serious about cutting the funding for Iraq– and Guantanamo, too (no transcript, but that’s what he said). The day ended with the President Bush interview on “60 Minutes.” “You’ve made terrible choices for your people. You’ve isolated your nation. You’ve taken a nation of proud and honorable people, and you’ve made your country the pariah of the world…” (Sadly, that was Bush talking about the Iranian president.) “I fully understand they could try to stop me,” Bush said of new Democratic-run Congress. “But I’ve made my decision. And we’re going forward.” Yet Arwa Damon’s blog post was the thing that hit me the hardest.
12.35.158.212#1 by PJ on January 15, 2007 - 2:43 am
Richard, as usual a wonderfully written piece. Too bad it’s so biased as to be unbelievable. Richard, I’m not trying to aggravate you at all. I admire your writing.
4.228.249.115#2 by Richard Warnick on January 15, 2007 - 9:40 am
If I hadn’t watched TV yesterday I too would say this stuff was unbelievable. A U.S. president saying try and stop me? A national security adviser so out of touch with what’s happening that he referred to the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra as “the golden temple”? A senator so simple minded he says “there are two exit strategies: one is called victory and the other is called defeat”? Meanwhile, the dying goes on.
207.69.137.24#3 by glenn on January 15, 2007 - 1:56 pm
I saw it also Richard, and realized with a certainty that it will get worse before it gets better. It is terrible for those over there to be involved in something so chaotic.
Yesterday Bush admitted that his “bring it on” comment was foolish, and then he turns around and dares Congress to stop him. Same s***, different day. The guy is definately a self inflicted mental defective.
12.35.158.212#4 by PJ on January 18, 2007 - 3:04 am
Richard—I find myself agreeing with many of your premises. I am not a Bush fan. I’m only a guy who believes that while the troops are in Iraq we owe it to them to give them as much home support as possible. Many of my fellow supporters feel the same way. I don’t want ANYONE dying. I cannot bring myself to fully support any temporary occupant of the White House or the Congress, but why should we proclaim to the world that we support the troops not the war. That’s a cop out to me and a way to avoid taking a stand. I truly believe that every time someone in this country says that, it puts another fine young American soldier and another Iraqi in jeopardy. It undermines their confidence in this country and it’s people. Sorry if I can’t go along with the Bush haters who would pull it all down, but in good conscience, I cannot agree with them. Once again, I want to compliment you on the high quality of your writing and the sincere reasonable way you present your arguments.
72.11.73.245#5 by Nephi on January 18, 2007 - 9:35 am
PJ asks: “… but why should we proclaim to the world that we support the troops not the war?”
The answer is, of course, because that is exactly the point! We support our troops fully, but not the war. These are not mutually exclusive positions, and to those that argue otherwise, I say bullcrap.
166.2.126.20#6 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2007 - 10:35 am
“…why should we proclaim to the world that we support the troops not the war. That’s a cop out to me and a way to avoid taking a stand.”
As a former Army soldier, let me say that if I were ordered to Iraq I’d go. But I’d be counting on the Congress and the American people to get me and the other troops out of there ASAP. No one knows better than those who are deployed in Iraq that the occupation is mis-conceived and not winnable. However in our system of government, the troops have no say. Supporting the troops means redeployment out of Iraq. Congressman Murtha stated that clearly 14 months ago.
128.187.0.164#7 by Frank Staheli on January 18, 2007 - 11:34 am
It’s getting to the point that a lot of the troops currently in Iraq are wondering what their future holds. It’s got to be disheartening to feel like a pawn in a power struggle.
166.2.126.20#8 by Richard Warnick on January 18, 2007 - 12:00 pm
Frank, that’s an intersting article. Most telling was the attitude of Sergeant Major Morris, who seemed ready to blame the Iraqis for the failure of the occupation. Apparently, the Pottery Barn Rule no longer applies, if it ever did.
Did you see “Meet the Press” last Sunday? National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley implied that our soldiers in Iraq were going to be held hostage until Congress supported Bush’s policy.
MR. RUSSERT: If Congress decides to cut off funds for the new troops being deployed to Iraq, will the president accept that decision by Congress and abide by it?
MR. HADLEY: Tim, we’re not there yet. We have funds in the ‘07 appropriations bill to deploy these troops. I think once they get in harm’s way, Congress’ tradition is to support those troops.
72.11.73.245#9 by Outraged [former] Repug on January 18, 2007 - 12:10 pm
Frank,
With all due respect, troops of all varieties have always been, and likely will always be, mere pawns in a power struggle.
72.174.75.66#10 by glenn on January 18, 2007 - 1:57 pm
Frank; Pawns only move forward, and cannot reverse course. Occasionally they can kill enemies, but only when they are right on top of them. If they make it to the last rank without being killed, they can become any piece they want.
Sure sounds like a soldier in the military.
128.187.0.164#11 by Frank Staheli on January 18, 2007 - 2:45 pm
Yes. According to wikipedia, Woodward and Bernstein’s book The Final Days says that, Kissinger referred to that military as “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.
216.190.11.87#12 by Caveat on January 18, 2007 - 7:11 pm
I’d say our take on protecting the troops is slightly different than Kissinger’s. That doesn’t change the fact that he was Sec o’ State for Nixon and to this day, consul to the present Commander in Chief.
72.174.75.66#13 by cassandra on January 19, 2007 - 1:49 am
Yes Frank; know kissassers sentiments well, I was being sarcastic. I would like to see the military to be able to have independent decision making on tactics, and full partnership in strategic planning once we drop them off in country.
Having untrained politicos make military decisons is retarded, the military should REVOLT under the current political leadership. Our military should be so well trained at all levels that once the decision is made, and the order of battle defined, with clear concise goals, the military should operate like a fire and forget weapon, with regards to mission review. We are fighting a wiley, assymetric, counter-punching enemy, decisions at the tactical level will define victory.
Daily goals, Daily objectives, or no come out and play.
205.208.222.245#14 by Frank Staheli on January 19, 2007 - 7:27 am
Cassandra (i.e. Outraged?):
Interesting perspective. I’d need to research it more, but it seems to me that from the beginning of the United States that the pols have had control of the military, but micromanagement maybe started during the Lyndon Johnson administration during the Vietnam War.
No matter how we feel about the invasion of Iraq, I think most (nearly all?) would agree that Iraq would be in a lot better situation today if the military had made more decisions and the Bush administration had made less.
72.174.75.66#15 by cassandra on January 19, 2007 - 10:17 am
No one controlled the Constitution class ships built after the War of 1812, except the Captain. They were given their orders and sailed independent to destroy the Barbary Coast pirates, and were successful. You do not know how pleased I am that a navy man has taken over operations in Iraq. The sea makes men of different qualities, it is the taskmaster every moment, every day, and makes for a vigilant leader
We built 4 ships,44 guns, the Ironsides, built of Live Oak and Lignum Vitae. The Constitution is the only one left. She’s tied up in Boston Haba, in the North end. A must see is you ever go. The expedition put an end to these pirates, and the news of it was all the politcos ever heard.
http://hnn.us/articles/287.html
72.174.75.66#16 by cassandra on January 19, 2007 - 10:25 am
As the article shows, we HAVE been down this “terrorist” road before. i find it interesting that Adams viewed pirates as a “force of nature” better paid off than warred with. In this history lies the key of what to do in Iraq.
72.11.73.245#17 by Outraged [former] Repug on January 19, 2007 - 10:52 am
Frank,
Please don’t confuse me with Cassandra.
72.174.75.66#18 by cassandra on January 19, 2007 - 11:19 am
Cassandra was King Priam of Troys Daughter, that had visions of her civilizations destruction at the hands of the Greeks.
She recommended burning the Trojan Horse. No one listened. No one is listening now, on either side, left, right, and insurgent.
Cassandra’s doom, was to predict what others refused to believe. She was thought to be crazy, I guess she would have had the last laugh, if her culture wasn’t destroyed, and she wasn’t raped after the crowd of morons, including her father, let the Trojan Horse in.
an outraged former republican is a very confused person. You can switch, but the outrage part is a blinder, stupid is as stupid does, ya sock puppet.