Re: No place safe in Iraq

mg wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:14 pm, Justine <wherethereistr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 03:47:22 -0700, mg <mgkel...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 17, 3:19 pm, Islander <nos...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On CNN this morning...

An army chaplain interviewed by Michael Ware describing the stress on
American soldiers in Iraq, says that a major problem is the continual
stress caused by having nowhere that is safe.

Boy, does that bring back bad memories of another war in another place!

I suspect most Americans think of Iraq as a small side show, effecting
a small number of troops and not really a war in the traditional
sense. My guess, though, is that we would all be surprised if we knew
the statistics from the soldiers and marines point of view. In fact, I
wouldn't be surprised if an individual trooper's chance of getting
killed or wounded in Iraq might be as great or greater than in
Vietnam.

The thing I hate most about this war is that sending the troops back
again and again is like them playing Russian roulette with 3 bullets
in the chamber instead of one. I don't know how they do it.
Justine

I couldn't agree more. Americans should be ashamed of themselves for
letting Bush abuse our troops like this. If Iraq really is all that
important, then let's get the draft back and do the job right. If it's
not, let's get them out of the middle of the civil war and develop a
plan for containing the damage.

The price of this poorly planned, ill conceived military adventure has been
what amounts to the effective destruction of our ground forces, not by an
enemy but rather by the fools in Washington who insisted on doing it "on the
cheap". Hindsight may be cheap, but there were professionals around at the
time who had a more realistic view of what it would take, foremost among
whom was the then Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki. Alas, his
counsel was rejected by smaller minds than his whose response to his
assessments was to push him out the door into retirement without even the
usual courtesies extended to career professionals who devoted the bulk of
their adult lives to serving their country.

Now our professional ground forces have been ground down by excessively
short rotations in and out of the combat zones and by the conversion of our
Reserve and National Guard troops into front line combat troops. Those
troops were never intended to be used on what amonnts to an equal basis with
the regular establishment, but rather were supposed to provide a reserve
force to back up the regular troops.

So, where we once considered ourselves of capable of conducting two widely
separated wars against two enemies at the same time, we now find ourselves
bogged down in a war with an elusive irregular enemy. Our ground troops are
being worn out by overuse, we no longer have a reserve force available to
take on any unforeseen contingencies since they've all been committed to the
existing conflict, the equipment both forces use are being worn out and/or
damaged or destroyed faster than it can be replaced, and the morale of our
combat forces are under constant stress as they realize that there is no
visible light at the end of their particular tunnel.

And throughout all of this, no one really knows what the real agenda in the
mind of he who pushes the buttons in the Oval Office is. It may not be what
Mr. Bush planned or hoped for, but I think that'll be a lot closer to his
legacy in our history books than what he'd like to see.

How sad for our country!

George Z.


.

Loading