The Soldiers Speak

From the New York Times:

Op-Ed Contributors
The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY
Published: August 19, 2007

Baghdad

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The writers of this op-ed remain on active duty in the US Army. Airing their opinions publicly required a great deal of courage. I commend them for their bravery. We must pay attention. Please go read the entire op-ed. They know what they're talking about.

Thanks to Juan Cole at Informed Comment for calling my attention to this piece.

Then, if you have the stamina, go back to Juan Cole's site to read the an op-ed by Jerry Eagan, a Vietnam veteran. He begins with the story of what happened to him after he was wounded in Viet Nam:

In July, 1967, while back home in Indiana on "convalescent leave" from an Army hospital, I wrote a similar, albeit, shorter letter to my hometown newspaper. As these men are, I was a "grunt," an infantryman 11B -- light weapons infantryman. I'd been seriously wounded on 3 November, 1966, and was still recuperating until roughly the end of August, 1967. When I returned from convalescent leave, therefore, in August, 1967, the doctor who "ran" the hospital informed me that since I "liked to write letters, about the war, and how we're losing the war," that I had "too much time on my hands." I was being returned to duty. He said he wished he could return me to an infantry unit, but that wasn't possible because my right arm, which had been severely damaged by an AK-47 round, was too weak to even slide the bolt back on an M-16 rifle.

Apparently, Eagan follows the situation in Iraq very closely. That Cole gives him space for a guest op-ed at his site speaks volumes. The whole piece is thought-provoking and worth a read. Eagan presents us with a possible future scenario which widens the conflict in the Middle East by intensifying the conflict between the US and Iran. Here's a paragraph:

I'd contend, we've already begun our war against Iran. Arming Sunni tribal sheiks and Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf nations, are the opening rounds of our war with Iran. Bush will do all he can to instigate an Iranian military response. I'd guess, in the near future, sometime this year, if Sunnis begin battling Shia in open militia combat, al-Maliki will ask Iran for Quds Brigade support in the south. Bush won't allow that. He'll intervene, hoping -- hoping -- he can finally precipitate an open military strike against Iran.

I'm giving y'all a lot of work today, because I'm coming out of my August doldrums, and I'm all fired up. If he can do it, Bush will get us in a war with Iran to attempt to distract us from his massive failures in Iraq. Of course, this idea is insane, but that, in itself, won't stop him.

Where is the leadership in the military on this? Will they stand up and say, "Mr. President, we cannot do this." I don't know.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.