An old friend of mine who is currently stationed in Iraq sent me an instant message tonight to catch up and chat. I was quite surprised, pleasantly so, of course, because I haven’t spoken to him in ages. We talked about this that and the other thing, and not knowing at all where he would stand on the issue, I asked him how he thought things were going over there. I was honestly entirely unsure of what his response would be, because I primarily remember his “let’s get ‘em!” attitude prior to basic training back in high school. What he did end up saying though, was both justifying to me but rather upsetting at the same time - the prototypical catch-22.
To start, he laughed, then cursed the place out. His next statement reminded me of something that Rudy Giuliani, who has never been to Iraq, would call “extraordinary” or “unbelievable”: “The only reason why things seem to be going well is because we pay the bad guys not to fight us anymore”. I responded with a sarcastic comment about how bribery is always fantastic and he added to his initial comment by saying, “The same guys that were attacking us and blowing us up everyday work for us now as ‘Iraqi Police’ - which is fine to me, as long as it lasts until after October when I come home, haha.” I in response of course commented on the whole scenario as being a bad idea in the long-term. He then explained the situation further in saying, “These people are horrible. We shouldn’t be here, cause we’re fighting Al Qaeda and this other terrorist group. Then the two groups started fighting, and then once the other started winning we ‘allied’ with them …. ”
….. Then came the statement that was extremely upsetting to me: “It’s real nice working with people who you know have killed your friends and blown you up and shot at you. I hate them all. I just want to go home.” As I manifested feelings of sympathy, sadness, then anger, remembering how passionate this friend of mine was about fighting for his country, honor and all those ideals entailed before being sent to Iraq, I realized then and there how infinitely and personally offended I was by comments made by the neo-conservatives in the September 5th debate. I became especially aware of my disgust in relation to Mike Huckabee’s statements about honor in his exchange with Ron Paul.
Huckabee, as well as the other neo-conservatives, are presidential candidates running on OTHER people’s sacrificed honor, not on the symbolic honor of the Republican party, and certainly not on an honor they personally possess. The neo-conservative candidates are basing their platforms on their individual egos and an inability to admit that they were, first off, acting illegally, and secondly were wrong. These men say that it’s about “finishing what we started” and about “honor”, but I invite someone to please explain to me where the honor lies in forcing American troops to fight side by side with terrorists disguised as mercenaries further disguised as allies who have killed the dearest friends of our brave soldiers?
Another interesting point my friend made was about the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. We were discussing another friend of ours who was recently sent to Afghanistan. I said that I assumed based on what I know that it must not be as bad there as it is in Iraq. He responded by saying that Afghanistan is supposed to be a lot better. “The people hate us here (in Iraq) but are semi-indifferent over there.” Interesting point - perhaps because the presence of troops in Afghanistan actually relate to September 11th whereas in Iraq, nothing positive is being achieved.
In a country where the police are simply a terrorist group themselves, and we have been reduced to aiding them as our only legitimate course of action so that things “look good”, we have no business there. It seems to me that everything occuring in Iraq is merely a temporary “fix” to an endless problem. It’s just the U.S. government supporting another terrorist group disguised as an ally. What will be next? There is no long-term solution that the U.S. can possibly provide. Whenever our government provides a political group or country with weapons (Iran-Contra Affair), or aids them in the overthrow of elected leaders (1953 Coup D’Etat in Iran), nothing good comes of it. The only result is what the CIA calls BLOWBACK - a concept apparently foreign to the neo-conservatives although the term simply means that there are consequences to our actions; consequences ranging from deep-seated hatred of the United States of America by countries we intervened in to actual aggression from groups using such actions as components of the reason they attacked.
I know that I can keep dreaming, but I’d like to see even the smallest bit of accountability on the part of the neo-conservatives who pretend so fervently that they are Republicans. As Ron Paul points out quite often, Reagan, a man the party idolizes, was smart enough to recognize the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics, and pulled out of Lebanon. No incoherent, backward ramblings where a perverse version of honor is used to justify an obvious mistake - he just did what needed to be done. The neo-conservatives could learn from their supposed idol. They’d also probably better themselves if they took a couple of history classes; especially on foreign policy.
Share This Sphere: Related Content
(Amazon)
Posts
Good article and right on!
Great post Corie. It’s important to have a soldier’s perspective because in the end they pay the price for our leaders’ decisions. A Marine friend of mine who recently completed several tours of duty in Iraq wrote a short book about his experiences there, and also posted a piece over at Slate which I highly recommend. Reading his words is both sad and insightful, especially so because he is a friend. I spoke with him recently about politics and he told me he doesn’t care if a Democrat or a Republican wins the elections, he just hopes that whoever wins has the good sense to either send in enough troops to finish the job (which I’ve read might require as many as 400,000 men and women in Iraq alone) or pull out altogether. The most dangerous thing, he continued, is gradual troop withdrawals, because that’s how people die. He told me about people he’d seen die because there weren’t enough soldiers in their patrol. Having to go on a patrol with 5 instead of 7 people can be the difference between life and death. He ought to know, and our politicians ought to take note of that fact.
Peter
This is a Zionest Jewish war, and the Zionest are using our boys for cannon fodder. It is bad enough that washington is completely run and taken over by Zionest, but we are furnishing them with the Money, bullets, guns, airplanes, armoured bulldosiers and every thing else it takes to help the Zionests take the land of Palistine that never in history belonged to them. The last I heard they had bombed and buldozed the homes of three million of thoes poor Palistinians and now force them into living in concintration camps in pup tents. Where is Justice any place is the world the Zionests have taken over?
Have you noticed that the U.S. has finagled and bought armys from most of the countrys of the world to help them in this unjust war, but Israel has not sent the first troop to help out? Why??
Robert - Your contention that the war in Iraq is a Jewish, Zionist one doesn’t seem to hold up. It is true that Washington is overrun by lobbyists attempting to push their personal agendas, but simply because the U.S. currently supports Israel as an ally and supplies them with weapons doesn’t mean the war we are fighting is FOR them specifically. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not for the U.S. giving weapons to any other country, because that’s the definition of the entangling alliances history has shown are worth avoiding. As I mentioned in my post, it’s been a problem in the past when we’ve provided various countries, whether in Central America or the Middle East with arms, but to say that the war in Iraq is occurring because the U.S. is overrun by Zionists has no factual backing whatsoever. Another point I wanted to address was your belief the U.S. has bought armies to help fight this war yet you find it interesting that Israel hasn’t sent a troop. You then ask why. I would say the fact that Israel hasn’t gotten involved actually invalidates your argument. If it were their war, they would, by definition, be participating.
Well said, Corie.
Robert, it is the unofficial policy of this site not to indulge in conspiracy theories, Zionist or otherwise. While I respect your right to free speech, language such as yours will drive away potential Ron Paul supporters rather attract them, which is our primary goal.
I will refrain from addressing the merits of your argument directly, as I feel Corie has done an excellent job.
Peter
There is no honor for any country to use whatever reason they can conjure to attack another and kill its people to control its wealth.
For such countries honor is just a tool for peddle…