Washblog || General Petraeus testimony; 8 in our Sgt H. Styker Brigade killed in Iraq; An Irresponsible Plan

General Petraeus testimony; 8 in our Sgt H. Styker Brigade killed in Iraq; An Irresponsible Plan

By Lietta Ruger
Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:39:17 PM PST
Section: Stories In Progress Topic: Legislative performance

Dear Readers, those of you who have been following along since 2003, the saga in our military family, know that my daughter's husband is in his second deployment to Iraq. He left for Iraq in Dec 07, and since only December, eight in his brigade have been killed in Iraq.

I'd say the violence in Iraq is in no way on the decline, and clearly the Surge is not clearing up the violence. You heard of the recent attacks on the 'safe' Green Zone in Baghdad and the attack on Basra even while General Petraeus was giving his testimony to Congress last week? My son-in-law was on convoy two weeks ago when an IED exploded near his vehicle - violence already was escalating.

Military peacekeeping is not keeping the peace. That should come as no surprise, since the military are not peacekeepers. Lacking a vigorous diplomatic process in Iraq, it is similarly not surprising that reconciliation is making seemingly little progress. But what remains a constant is that our troops continue to be killed or so devastatingly wounded as to be unable to return to anything resembling normalcy.

And of course,even while our troops die or are damaged, it goes without saying that the daily carnage of Iraqi lives snuffed out continues. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd - under the umbrella of Iraq, a nation forced into democracy whether they want it or not - it is nonetheless Iraqi lives by the tens and hundreds daily that are snuffed out in Iraq.

As our military is squandered mercilessly in the 'mission accomplished' in Iraq, trouble is brewing in Afghanistan along the Pakistan border. As pointed out by more than one Senator at the Petraeus testimony last week,Iraq welcomes Iran emissary, knowing Iran is a dangerous neighbor to be respected and in close proximity, while the President of the United States seems only to be able to sneak into Iraq for tentative visits, under cover of night and certainly with little welcome fanfare. This Administration has the audacity to believe it can navigate and mitigate with a simplistic cowboy mentality the complex relationships in the countries that make up the Middle East.

But General Petraeus did define his sense of our military mission in Iraq = 'for our national security interests of economic stability in the region'. Read that again - security interests of economic stablity means what? Did you guess oil? Their oil, our economic stability.

While General Petraeus is trying to define for Congress the impossible - stating the ever changing mission in Iraq, Admiral Mullen recently 'retired' after making it known to the President that he would not lead an invasion into Iran. Earlier there was the retirement of General Casey whom General Petraeus replaced after General Casey began to hint that the impossible mission in Iraq was depleting our U.S. military beyond its limits.

Even while General Petraeus was giving his testimony to the Senate last Tuesday, Basra was under attack. In a telling message that would be wise to heed, note that 1,000 trained Iraqi military and police personnel abandoned their stations in recent attacks, some even turning over U.S. provided vehicles and weapons to the attackers. I can't help but wonder what that does to the U.S. troops that General Petraeus says are serving more in advisory roles than carrying out the military maneuvers. I'd say it leaves the U.S. troops to be unnecessary and handy targets, subject to their very own equipment and weapons being used against them.

This isn't the first time the 'trained' Iraqi military and/or police have fled. Do you remember hearing the news in 2005 and 2006 that there were six Iraqi battalions trained and ready, and then we heard, no make that four, no make that two, no make that none.

There is a pattern to my mind that is a telling message. It does not matter how long U.S. troops remain in Iraq, pulling them out now, 5 years, 10 years, or even 100 years from now, the pattern of the culture of what comprises the Iraqi nation was long habitual before this country and it's democracy was even a glint or hint of an idea.

I would further remind readers that our military demands of an 18 year old in the United States, fresh out of high school, that he or she be trained and ready for combat in Iraq in 6-8 weeks, depending on branch of military service. I would think it reasonable to expect no less of Iraqis training for military, and certainly five years is an adequate time. It does seem the Iraqi message is not unclear to the U.S. forces - we are not a welcome or wanted presence there and our young service men and women are dying from our continuing to ignore the message. Ignorance is NOT bliss, my friends.

Even if it isn't directly impacting you with loved ones deployed, it is costing you a robust economy in your homeland, and it is costing you the loss of a valuable commodity in having a well-trained military, at the ready and able to defend your homeland. It is not a good idea to deplete and exhaust the only military we have when we have potential threats in more than one direction.

This all-volunteer military has been pushed beyond exhaustion, with repeat deployments in futile combat in a now sovereign nation intent on building it's own nation the way it sees fit, and if that includes civil war between factions, so be it. Who told the U.S. it could not have a civil war at a time when we were defining our own sovereign nation?

This morning I read a brief article online from a Middle East publication that indicates that Prime Minister Malaki is turning out to be a worse dictator than Saddam Hussein, and has killed more of his own people in his short rule than in ten years of Saddam in power. I can't say if that is or isn't true, and may be it is propaganda, but it is getting difficult to sort through all the propaganda, since that seems to be mostly what we get here in the U.S. as well. What is truth on the ground in Iraq - as I understand it, we have no media reporters in Iraq to give us up close reporting.

As the mission in Iraq has changed and evolved much since the 2003 invasion, and the declared mission accomplished, the talking points have evolved little and remain grounded in the concept of fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. And most recently the added pride factor of 'victory' - undefined, but we are to have victory nonetheless. How smart is that strategy - an undefined and impermeable victory undefined by the basic whom, when, what, how, why questions?

Meanwhile, Presidential contender, a military man himself, Senator John McCain doesn't seem to be sure where Al Quaeda is -- where the 'terrorists' are which instills in me no comfort that our troops are fighting them there so they don't have to fight them here, and assuredly no comfort that said troops should be led by another Commander-in-Chief who does not have a basis in the reality of what or who is the enemy or why they are an enemy, much less where they are in the Middle East.

Think about that for a moment though, if 'they' (terrorists) did come here, we have no ready troops to be fighting them here, and if we use up, exhaust and deplete our troops over there (which we have pretty much done already) so we don't have to fight them here, what do we do when there are no U.S. troops left to fight them over there and 'they' (the terrorists), which continue to reconstitute, are still out there. It is not a well reasoned thought process. I appreciated how Senator Obama attempted to ask General Petraeus what would constitute a satisfactory resolution - (paraphrasing here) -- what would be the defining meaning of victory - when there are no more terrorists left or x number of terrorist left? What if, although acknowledging it is messy now, if where we are at now with Iraq, is victory - would we know it if we saw it?

This week Congress will be voting on whether to give President Bush another round of huge millions to sustain our troops in Iraq. This back door budget of asking for a supplemental budget for the 'sake of our troops' is a political maneuver, not unfamiliar to our Congress. Since General Petraeus has done his duty and given his report to Congress with two days of testimony last week, now it falls to Congress to do their job and make decisions on what General Petraeus had to report. Is there strong enough reason to continue to keep our troops in Iraq? Is there strong enough reason to employ another strategy, bring them home and rather than fear the worst in Iraq, give them (Iraq) the opportunity they have asked for to work it out themselves.

We well know that the President has made his decision to continue to keep troops in Iraq with no changes in the Iraq war, to dump this live war into the next President's lap; and should that future President pull troops out with all the touted catastrophic results come to pass, it would be blame for the next President and his/her party.

There are two things wrong with that reasoning:

1) It assumes there would be catastrophic results, which, as of yet, no one seems able to define for me - what that means - what exactly would be catastrophic or what would that look like and how would it be different than what is already catastrophic genocide in Iraq because of U.S. actions to invade and occupy?

2) Is partisan politics more relevant and important than the lives and dollars it is costing to keep us in Iraq? I don't give a hang about supposedly 'smart political strategies or tactics' , as thus far those citing them as smart don't seem to know just how smart or flat out dumb said strategies and tactics are. So far the strategies and tactics used by either party have served only to perpetuate the war in Iraq. I care deeply about the politicians we elect and pay doing the jobs we entrust them to do - especially with the treasure and lives of our young.

Locally, here in Washington, a contender for U.S. Representative in 8th District, Darcy Burner, has come up with what she terms a responsible plan for getting troops out of Iraq. I had the opportunity to read it the day before it was published online to her website. This plan was put together with the help and advice of General Paul Eaton, and General Wesley Clark, and it is responsible - no question about that ... a responsible way to keep the war ongoing in Iraq until specifications cited in the plan have been met and no timeline or deadline has been set in the plan as to when the troops could come home.

I'm not so sure who it is responsible to, but it does seem to be a moral imperative to repair some of the damage done by sending U.S. troops into Iraq. I'm not sure it is the military troops who need now to do nation building, but yes, we do have some moral imperatives to rectify the damage - just not sure why or even if it is the troops who have the responsibility.

For us, for our family, for our daughter and grandchildren and for our son in law, Sgt H., home on leave and returning to Iraq to finish out his second extended, stop loss deployment, right to that 'hot spot' that is occurring now in Bagdhad area, this plan is no more responsible than any other plan that has been put forth to date inasmuch as it seems just more political posturing using the excuse of the Iraq war.

And closer to home, in our own 19th LD, our own U.S. Congressman Brian Baird, decided to support the Surge last summer,and when my husband asked him face to face, man to man, if our son's life was worth it, Congressman Baird, said that while we might not like his answer, 'yes, he did believe our son's life was worth it'. (In fairness, he added that he would give his life for it and that of his two sons -- who are only 2 yrs old).

I wonder if Congressman Baird is considering the lives lost since he made that statement to us. And I would call to his attention that eight (8) from our son-in-law's Stryker Brigade have been killed in Iraq since son-in-law deployed to Iraq in December 07. We do pray earnestly that Baird's faith in this surge and in a U.S. commitment to remain in Iraq will not be at the expense of our son's life. We assuredly wouldn't want it to be at the expense of his own sons' lives.

This month, April, our two U.S. Senators and our U.S. Representatives will have an opportunity to do the right thing, the courageous thing, an action of valor, and end this war right now. They can vote no to a supplemental budget to spend more money to keep our troops in Iraq. Our son-in-law along with all the troops have done their jobs, General Petraeus has done his, and the Commander-in-Chief has spoken his intent to continue as is the war in Iraq.

And now, once again, Congress has the opportunity to do it's job, to do the right thing, to make the decision that will bring and end to the war in Iraq now. General Petraeus is not in command of Congress and can only make recommendations. President Bush is not in command of Congress and has made his recommendations. Congress can now be in command of itself and step up to the plate with this vote. To do less is to abdicate the responsibilities to which they were elected .. it's been five years, and this argument takes on new meaning after five years in light of the cost of lives, dollars and the fate of our depleted military to our national security interests. .

I am told that there does remain funding already in the pipeline to get the troops out of Iraq - responsibly. Voting no on the supplemental permits that already established pipeline money to go to work to get the troops out and bring them home Now. Bringing the troops home now IS the responsible thing to do.

< Why Initiative 26 is Bad News | Field Repair of Diebold AccuVote TSx >

General Petraeus testimony; 8 in our Sgt H. Styker Brigade killed in Iraq; An Irresponsible Plan | 10 comments (10 topical)

National arousal in terms of an unlit fuse

I seriously doubt that voting America is on the same page with mere continuation of proposed responsible plans. I believe those Americans who can and will go to the polls in November are most likely going to vote what their gut has already told them.

Something is wrong ... very wrong ... and needs immediate fixing. No more promises, thank you! Immediate action please!

There is no need for restraint right now - as if the Iraq problem can be reduced to an exercise in political and foreign policy patience.

Many seem to think that civic patience somehow means you only speak once for ten minutes every four years. The rest of the time let someone else's magic be the civic consciousness of a nation.

"Hang in there citizens! When you vote Obama or Hillary into office, ONLY THEN can a responsible plan to stop the loss can be worked out and implemented."

Madness.

It will already be too late by then.

"Plans" that falsely justify a mean drunk staying in the house of the abused to wreak more havoc in the name of moral responsibility is political spin. It's a spin that attempts to prey on assumed electoral gullibility.

At its manipulative best it only gets worse especially when never lessened by a media in need of money-generating pseudo-campaign issues.

Even now we are not being guided to the moral or ethical high ground. Rather the sound bite nonsense-mongers lead us up mere sand dunes where candidacies are too caught up in unnecessary strategy.

Voters in America are ready to rumble right now.

They are ready to generate harmonic tremors that will not fail to get the attention of those yearning to be the chosen one.

What is needed now is not more patience with the primary and presidental campaign process.

What is possible right here is not the mindless marching, chanting and banner-carrying protests that cause most to tune out.

There is in fact - right now - national arousal in terms of an unlit fuse is just waiting for ignition. It is palpable in this country and you can feel it. Dissatisfaction and a sense of something being seriously wrong and rotten permeates the mood of most whenever politics comes into discussion.

It would be much better if all candidates were campaigning fully aware of the magnitude of voters fed up with Iraq and our economy.

What can you do right now?

If you get polled, stick to those talking points the politicos are most nervous about. Express and emphasize unleashed and unbridled indignation that reflects RIGHT NOW - not frustration, but genuine anger.

Delay is poor decision-making. Rather than waiting for a Tuesday in November to finally get mad, speak out now if you are polled. And immediately start letter-writing and phone calls to those who are most nervous.

A national growl is sticking in our craws and begging release.

Don't send lazy emails that tempt your politicians to respond with cookie-cutter form letters. Write a real letter and buy a stamp. Then pay a little more for a notification that the letter was received.

I did so recently and it cost me 65 cents. Is your feeling for your country worth a letter, a stamp and an exra 65 cents?

Or call them up.

If you'd ever heard Lietta Ruger call her Senator or Representative you'd have heard her demand a specific response.

No form letter thank you!
No aide calling back with vague promises.
I have in fact listened while she demanded a personal response from her representative.

Why not? What have you got to lose by communicating just how fed up you are?

The key is to reveal right away that we are an electorate genuinely pissed off enough to repudiate any candidate who proposes a "plan" rather than vows to change things the very moment he/she is sworn in.

Repudiation is precisely the buzz-saw waiting for McCain and his self-absorbed assumption that America is pining away for nothing more than another military president with no domestic or foreign policy agenda.

Newly-elected presidents need to arrive at inauguration scared, worried and nervous. They need to be sworn in fully aware that something is expected NOW; that conditions are such that there is not going to be a 100-day honeymoon. There is no other choice.

They will be motivated to take their hand off the Bible and immediately start giving orders to reflect a clear mandate forced on them.

If the electorate can communicate that kind of impatience right now, a lot of muck and nonsense can be most easily swept aside. We can narrow the range of focus in this election.

Iraq, the economy and the Bill of Rights pretty well covers it.

If whoever is elected is also running scared because the electorate has legitimately convinced the winner that now means NOW, why would we listen to planners and political schemers and leave the door open to stall, delay and political manipulation?.

... tempting those we endorse to say to hell with what we expect.

... believing they can take just a little bit longer so they can have what they want?

Is that what you want?

Arthur
You sure you ain't staking too much on yer theories? Not enough common sense?

by Arthur Ruger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

THanks for these two posts...

Lietta and Arthur, you continue to insist that we read the painful truth that you are forced to deal with daily. It's very hard to read it and realize that nothing less than a change of administration will make a damn bit of difference, and not even then until we keep up the pressure.

Politicians always have been able to sacrifice others while posing as keepers of a higher cause:

our own U.S. Congressman Brian Baird, decided to support the Surge last summer,and when my husband asked him face to face, man to man, if our son's life was worth it, Congressman Baird, said that while we might not like his answer, 'yes, he did believe our son's life was worth it'. (In fairness, he added that he would give his life for it and that of his two sons -- who are only 2 yrs old.

Baird sickens me! How glibly he offers up his own life in support of his decision, and that of his innocent children, knowing there's exactly ZERO chance that the offer will EVER become reality.

His family doesn't even have to be exposed to PICTURES of the ugly realities in Iraq, much less experience that cruelty.

What's he actually risking is something much less painful, his position as a congressman, and even there his odds are not bad, considering the difficulty of successfully challenging incumbents.

by dinazina on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:20:11 AM PST

* 2 none 0 *

TY Dina - it is a hard read and you did read it by Lietta Ruger, 04/14/2008 11:44:59 AM PST (none / 0)

What General Odom says about Iraq now

The week before Gen. Petreaus spoke to Congress, Gen. Odem spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He once again presents a very well informed assessment of the situation in Iraq with a clear imperative for the US to get out asap. There are few people better qualified to do this. His other articles are well worth reading : "Victory is not an Option" and "Cut and Run? - You Bet! Why American Must Get Out of Iraq Now".

William Odom is a retired US Army three-star general, and former Director of the National Security Agency, under President Ronald Reagan. He testified on April 2, 2008, before Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Iraq. His statements are devastating to Bush's failed war policy and the arguments for prolonging the war.

Link to the full text of his testimony

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE ON IRAQ
By William E. Odom, LT General, USA, Ret.
2 April 2008

"Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is an honor to appear before you again. The last occasion was in January 2007, when the topic was the troop surge. Today you are asking if it has worked. Last year I rejected the claim that it was a new strategy. Rather, I said, it is a new tactic used to achieve the same old strategic aim, political stability. And I foresaw no serious prospects for success.

I see no reason to change my judgment now. The surge is prolonging instability, not creating the conditions for unity as the president claims.

Please follow the link to the full text as General Odom gives an assessment you will not read or hear about in media. The factions at work in Iraq and their relationships to one another have enormous complexities. It's difficult to condense but here are some:

-- Prime Minister Maliki has initiated military action and then dragged in US forces to help his own troops destroy his Shiite competitors. This is a political setback, not a political solution. Such is the result of the
surge tactic.

-- steady violence in the Mosul area, and the tensions in Kirkuk between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkomen. A showdown over control of the oil fields there surely awaits us. And the idea that some kind of a federal solution can cut this Gordian knot strikes me as a wild fantasy, wholly out of touch with Kurdish realities.

-- Turkey's military incursion to destroy Kurdish PKK groups in the border region. That confronted the US government with a choice: either to support its NATO ally, or to make good on its commitment to Kurdish leaders to insure their security. It chose the former, and that makes it clear to the Kurds that the United States will sacrifice their security to its larger interests in Turkey.

-- Turning to the apparent success in Anbar province and a few other Sunni areas, this is not the positive situation it is purported to be. Certainly violence has declined as local Sunni sheiks have begun to cooperate with US forces. But the surge tactic cannot be given full credit. The decline started earlier on Sunni initiative. What are their motives? First, anger at al Qaeda operatives and second, their financial plight.Their break with al Qaeda should give us little comfort. The Sunnis welcomed anyone who would help them kill Americans, including al Qaeda.

-- The concern we hear the president and his aides express about a residual base left for al Qaeda if we withdraw is utter nonsense. The Sunnis will soon destroy al Qaeda if we leave Iraq. The Kurds do not allow them in their region, and the Shiites, like the Iranians, detest al Qaeda.

(more at the link, and General Odom provides worthwhile explanations of the complexities our military continues to face in Iraq)

On the Surge in Iraq "--we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." - Barack Obama

by Lietta Ruger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:08:14 PM PST

* 4 none 0 *

The only sensible strategy is to withdraw rapidly by Lietta Ruger, 04/14/2008 12:15:42 PM PST (none / 0)

General Cody says military out of balance

From the recent New Yorker:

Military Conflict
by Steve Coll
April 14, 2008
General Richard A. Cody graduated from West Point in 1972, flew helicopters, ascended to command the storied 101st Airborne Division, and then, toward the end of his career, settled into management; now, at fifty-seven, he wears four stars as the Army Vice-Chief of Staff. This summer, he will retire from military service.
In 2004, in a little-noted speech, Cody described the Army's efforts to adapt to its new commitments. (It was attempting to fight terrorism, quell the Taliban, invade and pacify Iraq, and, at the same time, prepare for future strategic challenges, whether in China or Korea or Africa.) The endeavor was, Cody said, like "building an airplane in flight."
Last week, (this month - April 2008) the General appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and testified that this method of engineering has failed. "Today's Army is out of balance," Cody said. He continued:
The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply, and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies. . . . Soldiers, families, support systems and equipment are stretched and stressed. . . . Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it. If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the all-volunteer force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies. bold is mine

On the Surge in Iraq "--we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." - Barack Obama

by Lietta Ruger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:25:24 PM PST

* 6 none 0 *

You ask a great question

what does the catastrophic failure we're all warned will happen if we pull out of Iraq -- what does that look like? And how is it worse than what we're doing now which is so profoundly harming Iraq and our military, leaving us ever more vulnerable and with fewer options.

It is amazing to me that McCain has so much support. Congress fail to authorize the next supplemental? Hmmm... that would sure surprise everyone.

by noemie maxwell on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:08:16 PM PST

* 7 none 0 *

TY Noemie; What is worse case scenario? by Lietta Ruger, 04/16/2008 10:52:11 AM PST (none / 0)

Worst case ? by noemie maxwell, 04/16/2008 12:47:35 PM PST (none / 0)

Iraqi Unit Flees Post, Despite American's Plea

(at Styker Brigade News)

An embedded report with the 1-14 INF, 2/25 SBCT in Sadr City.

by Michael Gordon The New York Times

BAGHDAD -- A company of Iraqi soldiers abandoned their positions on Tuesday night in Sadr City, defying American soldiers who implored them to hold the line against Shiite militias.
The retreat left a crucial stretch of road on the front lines undefended for hours and led to a tense series of exchanges between American soldiers and about 50 Iraqi troops who were fleeing.
Capt. Logan Veath, a company commander in the 25th Infantry Division, pleaded with the Iraqi major who was leading his troops away from the Sadr City fight, urging him to return to the front.
"If you turn around and go back up the street those soldiers will follow you," Captain Veath said. "If you tuck tail and cowardly run away they will follow up that way, too."
Captain Veath's pleas failed, and senior American and Iraqi commanders mounted an urgent effort to regain the lost ground. An elite Iraqi unit was rushed in and with the support of the Americans began to fight its way north.
This episode was a blow to the American effort to push the Iraqis into the lead in the struggle to wrest control of parts of Sadr City from the Mahdi Army militia and what Americans and Iraqis say are Iranian-backed groups.
That approach was intended to build up the Iraqi military's fighting capacity and put an Iraqi face on the operation in Sadr City, which is occurring in a Baghdad bastion of support for Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric. Two weeks ago, more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers deserted their posts during the fight against militias in Basra.
Tuesday's desertions in Sadr City, although involving a particularly hesitant Iraqi unit, left many of the Americans soldiers wondering about the tenacity of their Iraqi allies.

On the Surge in Iraq "--we have set the bar so low it's buried in the sand at this point." - Barack Obama

by Lietta Ruger on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:58:29 AM PST

* 9 none 0 *

General Petraeus testimony; 8 in our Sgt H. Styker Brigade killed in Iraq; An Irresponsible Plan | 10 comments (10 topical)

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login


Make a new account
Username:
Password:

HELP

Recommended Diaries

On How The State Gave Me MRSA (Part II), Or, What, Me Worry?
We began a story this week that describes how poor clinical practice in a State-operated healthcare facility holds the potential to
By fake consultant (11 comments)
Dina Johnson for Obama Delegate!
I want to go the National Convention as an Obama delegate, and I understand the competition to be elected state delegate
By dinazina (47 comments)
Winter Soldier Hearings and More
OP-ED sent to Walla Walla Union Bulletin
By buddy georgia (8 comments)
Caucus and Convention Locations
I'm collecting information on when and where the rest of the caucus cycle events are going to be held. Please see
By chadlupkes (20 comments)
Advocating for a split decision and a conversation
Dear DNC members, I am involved in a lot of discussions, and one that is making the rounds right now is
By chadlupkes (17 comments)
Astonishing conversation with pro-Hillary elitist!
I just had an amicable long-distance phone chat with my aunt in Pennsylvania that left my head spinning! She's a big
By dinazina (16 comments)