What was it really like?
Surprising number of people are asking "What was it really like being in Iraq? Are we getting the right story in the news that we watch?"
Good question, because I asked myself the same thing while I was in Iraq. I would sit in the briefings in the mornings at the Strategic Operations Center and then listen to the Headline News later in the day. Not always the same story. What the coalition forces accomplish on a daily basis is not being reported. What the insurgents and criminals perpetuate seems to always be highlighted.
National News is competitive. The best stories are the ones that grab the listeners at an emotional level (hence the "yelling" shows of Sunday news and the No spin zone variety)...emotions sell advertising. "If it bleeds, it leads."
The hard work in Iraq is not emotional or leading-news-type stories. The hard work stories are the day in and day out slogging it out among the citizens helping to keep them safe and secure. Not a lot of glory and guys get blown up on a regular basis just doing their jobs. That is the high price of securing a dangerous country, but it is necessary and difficult; but not glorious.
Do the Iraqis want us there?
Overwhelmingly, YES. Scarcely a visit with an Iraqi that I had did not involve some part of the conversation centering around how grateful the citizens are that we are there and that Saddam is gone.
The insurgents and Former Regime elements that want Saddam back in power are basically thugs and criminals that preyed off of the citizenry. If lawlessless can be established and maintained, then their hope is that the coalition will leave and the vacuum of stability and power will allow them back into their positions of oppression. The plan is to provide enough continued stability in the country that their own forces can keep the peace...then we are out of there.
That is not always reported, but that is the way that it is.
Good question, because I asked myself the same thing while I was in Iraq. I would sit in the briefings in the mornings at the Strategic Operations Center and then listen to the Headline News later in the day. Not always the same story. What the coalition forces accomplish on a daily basis is not being reported. What the insurgents and criminals perpetuate seems to always be highlighted.
National News is competitive. The best stories are the ones that grab the listeners at an emotional level (hence the "yelling" shows of Sunday news and the No spin zone variety)...emotions sell advertising. "If it bleeds, it leads."
The hard work in Iraq is not emotional or leading-news-type stories. The hard work stories are the day in and day out slogging it out among the citizens helping to keep them safe and secure. Not a lot of glory and guys get blown up on a regular basis just doing their jobs. That is the high price of securing a dangerous country, but it is necessary and difficult; but not glorious.
Do the Iraqis want us there?
Overwhelmingly, YES. Scarcely a visit with an Iraqi that I had did not involve some part of the conversation centering around how grateful the citizens are that we are there and that Saddam is gone.
The insurgents and Former Regime elements that want Saddam back in power are basically thugs and criminals that preyed off of the citizenry. If lawlessless can be established and maintained, then their hope is that the coalition will leave and the vacuum of stability and power will allow them back into their positions of oppression. The plan is to provide enough continued stability in the country that their own forces can keep the peace...then we are out of there.
That is not always reported, but that is the way that it is.
posted by greenzone at
5:01 PM
4 Comments:
A story in the 11/23/05 Sunday Seattle Times quotes US Maj Gen William Webster, Jr. as saying it will be 2 years before the Iraqi army is able to stand on its own. That would seem to be a very depressing scenario given the casualty rate in Iraq for US forces (1-3 deaths per day).
Here is the text of the article:
WASHINGTON — It will take up to two years for the Iraqi army to have the military leadership and supplies it needs to operate on its own, the commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad said yesterday.
Maj. Gen. William Webster Jr. told Pentagon reporters that the Iraqi security forces are continuing to grow but their major need is for support systems such as fuel and replacement parts.
"If we're talking about an army that can pick up and move and go out to the borders to defend the country and be able to sustain operations out in the open for a long period of time, it's probably going to be a year and a half, two years before that system is mature enough to operate on its own," Webster said from Baghdad.
Earlier this year, U.S. military officials said they thought they could begin fairly substantial troop withdrawals next spring. But amid ongoing questions about the Iraqi army's training, they have since scaled back that prediction.
Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, raised some eyebrows in Congress recently when he disclosed that only one Iraqi army battalion was ready to go into combat without U.S. support. A few months ago, three battalions were thought to have that capability.
By
Jacks_college_friend, at 6:26 PM
What's the hurry in leaving Iraq. It is to our benefit to keep several thousand troops there in secure bases. We need at least three large bases with three large airbases.
We still have to protect our interests even after Iraq is able to protect itself.
I see us having a large presence there just as long, if not longer than we have had in [e]urope.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By
Papa Ray, at 5:36 PM
It appears that Iraq will become the next staging/training area now that we are drawing down in Germany and Korea. Two major air bases have been designated as the hubs for our military. The concern is that we move out too many folks too quickly and leave a security vacuum that cannot be filled by the Iraqi forces. That would lead to anarchy and a reinsertion of more coalition troops to reestablish order. C.Rice says "10 years" accd to paper today may be in the cards. I think at least a generation will be required, not unlike both Korea and Germany.
By
greenzone, at 5:50 PM
Jack, my boy, you obviously live in an age of instant gratification. Never before has the world seen so much change in such a short period of time—but some how, people like you, see this as taking too long. In the space of a little more than two years, Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship to voting on a democratic constitution. The death of a soldier should and needs to be mourned. Their value is far more than anything that could be expressed by mere words. They are not to be minimized. However, we are talking about war here—and while at no time do I want to diminish the loss troops, in terms of the larger picture---the loss of life has been small, as any war historian will tell you. Again, I need to stress that this does not devalue any of the lives lost. I do not consider human life a commodity.
But it’s important to also focus on the value of this tremendous sacrifice given in the name of freedom. Do not minimize the lives of these soldiers who gave their lives by dismissing what they have tried to accomplish. Think also of the lives they are trying to save here in the United States by trying to root out these terrorists’ cells. Remember it took only one cell to destroy nearly 3000 American lives. It has cost us the lives of 2000 honorable service men, but show them honor by considering the number of cells they have thwarted—all the fewer to destroy us.
Think also upon the larger plan to bring democracy to the Middle East—in the hopes that it will spread and eventually prevent strong-holds for other Islamic fanatics bent on, not only harming Americans, but everyone else who does not adhere to their beliefs. Think too of the people who were oppressed by Saddam, now having a right to vote and the right to a say in their government. Not to do so only cheapens the loss of life of our troops. We must consider what their deaths meant.
Some would like to argue that our “invasion” of Iraq will result in a civil war. This is very misleading because what cannot be dismissed are the conditions that existed prior to the war. The same hatred between the sects existed before—the difference was that one group was in control and oppressing the other. We can’t forget how many lost their lives at the hands of Saddam and his henchmen. In other words—how much different is a civil war than what existed before—where one group had dominion over the other which resulted in the taking of lives? At least to date—there has not been a civil war.
It is a very noble cause to be concerned for the loss of lives of our troops. But to truly honor them, one must also take into account what it was they were trying to do—to consider their objective--what it was they were trying to do, what they gave their lives for. And then the heavy question is—do we stop and withdraw, which would make their deaths all in vain—or do we finish what was started, giving their sacrifice meaning?
By
DOGKEES, at 10:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home