Strategic Disconnection
I flew into my second combat zone on board a New Jersey National Guard C-130. (My first combat zone was El Salvador, during their civil war in 1988, but that’s a story for another time.) The Marine platoon marched resolutely off the plane’s back ramp and was replaced by a mixed group of civilians and Army personnel. A female Colonel (US Army) settled into the sling seat across me and promptly fell asleep. The ramp closed, the plane taxied, and, in short order we were airborne.
The gravitational force generated by the plane making sharp precautionary turns (to help ward off a possible surface to air missile) churned my stomach and pressed me down into the seat. It felt like a roller coaster but this wasn’t about laughs at an amusement park. This was all about survival.
An hour later we touched down, once again cork screwing our way to the tarmac, at the base where I would spend the next week working. I won’t reveal the name of the base nor the security measures involved nor the specific military units working there. I am not trying to be secret squirrel of suggest that I was on some life and death mission. Rather, I want to be sure I do not divulge any information that could be used operationally by our enemies to attack or target these bases.
After a day or two on the base I began to grasp why the female Colonel conked out so quick on the flight in—the work pace is exhausting. The US soldiers, Marines, Navy, and Air Force personnel working on these bases are busting ass 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I slept in a 12 man wooden cabin outfitted with bunk beds. During the week I was in Iraq the lights in that building were turned on only twice. They were left off because someone was almost always sleeping. I felt like a hooker on spring break—I spent the week sleeping with men I did not know (but we were in separate bunks). I was going to bed around 2 in the morning and waking up around 0730 hours. Adrenaline in new surroundings can keep one moving.
There was a constant roar of aircraft—helicopters revving, C-17s thundering into the sky, and F-16s creating a auditory earthquake as they streaked into the sky. The F-16s flight path was almost directly over our sleeping quarters. But, despite the deafening roar of the engines, I grew accustomed to the sound.
I checked the internet on Thursday, June 1st, and was surprised to read news accounts describing the horrific violence in Iraq. Within the confines of the US military base, we were quite safe. There were scars on the base bearing witness to a time when that was not the case. While walking from my sleeping quarters to the work area adjacent to the airfield, I spied several softball size craters in the concrete road surface. Mortars fired by Iraqi insurgents left their indelible mark. Around the crater, spreading out like a wave from a rock dropped in a pond, were the shrapnel marks.
Fortunately, the military has done an excellent job of pushing the perimeter of the camp outward and making it more difficult for insurgents to launch effective attacks. During my week in Iraq there was only one mortar attack, and that was on a far distant portion of the base.
But the safety I felt on the base is not the experience of the average Iraqi or the US soldier sent to move among the Iraqi people. Outside the security of the US military bases the civil war is raging. While we do not see the conventional armies we normally associate with our own Civil War, the fact is that Shias and Sunnis are locked in a death match.
Our ability to influence and contain this violence is limited. Coalition forces are doing an excellent job of interdicting foreign fighters and other jihadists. While I was in Iraq there were several successful “vehicle interdictions”, i.e. stopping a vehicle with a suspected improvised explosive device inside. The drivers of these cars, when challenged by coalition forces, opted to detonate the vehicles rather than surrender. In every case only the occupants of the cars died. Our soldiers carrying out the operation were unharmed.
What I discovered is that the level of violence in Iraq, were it not for these coalition missions, would be double or triple what we have seen so far. One can make the argument that we must keep US and British forces in place in order to contain the violence. In some respect, our military forces are acting like guys stacking sandbags in the French Quarter of New Orleans after the levees broke. We cannot do much about the flood but we can try to limit the damage.
Our success at the tactical level is not being matched at the strategic level. Despite repeated operations that result in the death and capture of would be terrorists, the attacks continue to expand and the bad guys are flush with cash. As noted in a recent New York Times article, a substantial amount of the money funding the insurgents and terrorists comes from stolen oil.
The sad truth is that we are not fighting an effective counter insurgency campaign. We treat the threat as simply a terrorist threat and hope that if we kill enough of Zarqawi’s leaders and followers that the violence will subside. That was the belief 15 months ago. Since then our forces have carried out many dramatic and effective counter terrorist operations. Yet, as of June 2006, the number of attacks continue to increase. The trend line is up and the victims tend to be the average Iraqis that healthy communities rely on to rebuild public order.
The death of Zarqawi, if true, is welcome news. However, as with the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, his death is not likely to bring a fundamental change in the violence now unleashed in Iraq.
Here is our dilemma. We need more troops, a lot more, in order to carry out an effective counter insurgent campaign. We need to protect the average Iraqis. But, we do not have the troops available to carry out this mission. Even if we wanted to, the opportunity to pursue this option has come and gone. Most of our forces live in isolation from the average Iraqi citizen. When Americans and Iraqis do meet, it usually involves someone pointing a gun, shooting a gun, or cleaning up in the aftermath of an improvised explosive device.
In previous wars and insurgencies, US soldiers have interacted with the local culture. They have married some of the women. Some have developed a deep appreciation for the culture. Not so in Iraq. We live in different, separate worlds. Most of our soldiers do not socialize with nor have regular contact with Iraqis. Most of our soldiers still do not speak the language. When you have so infrequent and violent contact with “alien” people it is no wonder that some soldiers will view the locals as something other than human beings. There is no easy nor quick solution to bridge this gap.
Closing the strategic gap in Iraq requires that our military and civilian leaders come to grip with the harsh realities on the ground. The hope for a secular, democratic society is at present a pipe dream. Sectarian power is the rule of law in Iraq and it is a law enforced through violence, torture, and intimidation. At this juncture, our military is dutifully, bravely, and tirelessly stacking sand bags to try to hold back the surging flood waters of sectarian violence. Unfortunately, there is no sign that the rain of intolerance is easing or that the waters of hatred are receding.
I believe our best course of action, at this juncture, is to step out of the way and let the shias and sunnis fight it out. That is a harsh solution, but our presence in Iraq appears to be providing aspiring jihadists the motive and means to pursue their ambition. If left to themselves, we might have more flexibility in working behind intermediaries and thru cutouts in order to get Iraq back on its feet. What we have right now are US bases that are little more than feudal castles. We provide safety to those inside but cannot provide the security and services required for normal political life.
Comments (43)
Thanks for the report Mr. Johnson, stay safe.
Yes that johnny come lately to Al Queada is "officially" dead, and I agree it doesn't make a whit of difference to the actual Al Queada organization which exists outside Iraq.
We may have made things harder for them, but not by being in Iraq, it was the real (and forgotten) war in Afghanistan that did that.
I salute you for your service and all the brave Americans selflessly serving in an impossible situation. I'll do my best to bring them all home.
Terrorism is a law enforcement problem--not an excuse to line the pockets of G. W. Bush's defense contracting friends, and not at the cost of one droop of American blood.
I hope they all get charged for crimes against humanity when we finally get rid of them.
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
June 8, 2006 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry
Thanks for your reports from Iraq.
What if any difference do you think it will make that apparently Zarqawi and a number of his associates was killed today?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
June 8, 2006 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I believe he's already answered:
"The death of Zarqawi, if true, is welcome news. However, as with the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, his death is not likely to bring a fundamental change in the violence now unleashed in Iraq."
CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com
June 8, 2006 4:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the cold hard facts Larry. Your summation is directly in-line with that of Nir Rosen* who has written a book (In the Belly of the Green Bird) about his experiences while undercover with the Iraqi people.
Many of us who spoke out against the invasion of Iraq have sadly seen most of our prophecies come about. We all need to continue to make public the truth about the current situation and continue to demand that this tragic chapter in our history end.
Stay safe Larry we'll all be looking forward to your reports.
*Side note anyone else notice that Mr Rosen seems to be able to get on both PBS and NPR but is seldom seen on any of the networks?
June 8, 2006 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
As probably everyone knows, on ongoing theme in the cross-chatter back here about Iraq among supporters of the war is that there's lots of "good" news there that never gets reported. I heard this very same assessment from the podium at my hometown's Memorial Day ceremonies, delivered by the keynote speaker, an Army officer who had just served an extensive tour of duty there. He said the American presence enjoys substantial support. (Jonah Goldberg made the same assumption in a column he wrote a while back suggesting the question of keeping or withdrawing U.S. troops be put to a vote of the Iraqi people.)
Larry, if there's an opportunity, I'd appreciate your candid assessment and commentary on this question. Is the picture over there more mixed than that provided by the media? What is the level of support in the street for the American presence? Are there positive things being accomplished that have gotten (perhaps understandably) overshadowed by roadside bombings and incidents like Haditha?
I write this as someone who thinks the war was a mistake, but also grudgingly buys the assertion that we have a responsibility to try to repair the damage we've caused, without really knowing what precise actions would best achieve that end.
June 8, 2006 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks for the view from the ground... i can't help but say, however, that talking about how to either improve the iraq situation or disengage, misses the entire point... the system that put us in iraq in the first place is seriously diseased and, while the bush administration is certainly the most egregious example of a disease out of control, the cancer has been spreading since ww2... the overused metaphor, re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic, nevertheless captures the current dynamics fairly well...
yes, our continuing presence in iraq is fueling the sunni-shiite obsession for blowing each other up and probably is producing new zarqawis by the day... but so is our continuing support of israel and our refusal to help structure an honest settlement with the palestinians who are now being punished for exercising their democratic rights... we fuel global outrage when a corrupt mafia don like dick cheney denounces russia in vilnius and then flies on to court a barbaric despot in kazakhstan because the despot controls oil and gas reserves... we earn enmity when we torture detainees in black-site prisons and funnel them via extraordinary rendition to other countries whose interrogation methods are worse than ours... ridicule and scorn are our just due when we persist in claiming that iran is mere months away from having a nuclear weapons capability when all available intelligence says it does not...
so, yes, iraq is an immediate problem to be solved but, relatively speaking, it is only a pimple on the ass of our much bigger problem... our country is a mess, our constitution and bill of rights are being fed daily into the shredder, and what are we going to do about it...
Visit my blog: And, yes, I DO take it personally
June 8, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry: thanks for the report. Stay safe.
These two sentences
[our soldiers] are busting ass 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
our military forces are acting like guys stacking sandbags
say all that needs to be said.
Or more succinctly: "Superpower in Iraq busy trying to stay alive."
June 8, 2006 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Johnson, would you talk a bit about the oil theft. Is it a commonly known fact, or just something generally believed?
…..and the bad guys are flush with cash. As noted in a recent New York Times article, a substantial amount of the money funding the insurgents and terrorists comes from stolen oil
Maybe the NY Times article answers my question and you can simply provide a link.
I picture oil being pumped from the ground into a pipeline or truck, transported to a refinery for future local sale, or to a tanker for sale abroad. At what point do the thieves steal the oil, how do they get it to a market that will buy it even though it seems that it could be easily identified as stolen oil, and who are those market makers that actually hand money to the thieves? Where does the oil end up and is the amount large enough to have any effect on world demand on other legitimate sources? Could cutting off this money significantly affect the insurgency? Are either the Sunnis or Shiites more in control of this black market crude? Do you see it as reasonably doable that this oil theft *could* be stopped? Thanks for any help in understanding this part of the problem.
June 8, 2006 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its on the front page of the NY Times Wednesday. Go to Google, enter Ny Times, follow link.
June 8, 2006 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have time to write a full response, but I did want to interject a couple of thoughts.
It's not that I disagree with Larry's description - afterall, he's there and I'm not. But I did want to note a couple of things that seemed odd to me. Perhaps someone else can offer enlightenment.
1) Mixing with Iraqis.
Wasn't this by design? It seems like about a year ago opponents of the US government strategy in Iraq were arguing that the best thing was to get U.S. troops out of Iraqi neighborhoods - to have them play more supportive roles, and to have their bases farther outside of the cities - in order to lessen the Iraqi feeling of occupation. Am I wrong?
2) US role: stopping the flood waters, or increasing provacation?
Larry suggests that U.S. forces are honorably fulfilling their mission as best they can in a bad situation. They are "holding back the flood waters of sectarian violence." I don't dispute that that may be true in many cases - such as those Larry listed (interdictions and such). But with reports of 'massacres', images of torture and abuse, arbitrary detention, etc. I'm not in any way convinced that Larry's experience matches Iraqi experience (or at least perception) on this one.
3) If we pulled out...
Larry suggests that the best course of action is to pull out and let them fight. That may well be the best solution - I don't feel qualified to say. But what makes me nervous is his reference to backing 'intermediaries' and 'cutouts'. Does that mean Larry's suggesting that the U.S. back some strongmen in Iraq to take control and stabilize the country? If so, could someone please explain how this is different that the other disastrous times (for human rights and morality at least) the U.S. has followed such a course in the past - especially during the Cold War.
I'm particularly concerned because of Larry's experience in El Salvador - which he's referred to in the past as a CIA 'success' story. He mentions El Savador again in this post and his proximity to that U.S. policy of overt support for a brutal and abusive government makes me nervous when he starts talking about supporting 'intermediaries' and 'cutouts' in Iraq.
Anyone else care to jump in on these issues?
Voteless In DC
June 8, 2006 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Attacks on Iraq Oil Industry Aid Vast Smuggling Scheme
By JAMES GLANZ and ROBERT F. WORTH
New York Times June 4, 2006
June 8, 2006 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, thanks from me too, for being in Iraq and letting us "share" the experience with you. It is a real relief to me to read about Iraq from someone whose political tendencies are familiar to me, and, therefore, whose comments I can keep in perspective.
I wonder if it will ever occur to the administration that continuing to do the same things, day after day, in the face of the failure of those things to accomplish what we seem to want to accomplish, is insane. The way to sanity in Iraq is to do something different - leave Iraq to the Iraqis, for example. They have certainly had adequate time to form a government and get it operating, but either we are obstructing that process or it isn't the process that they want. In either case, staying the present course isn't going to work.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 8, 2006 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw him interviewed live on CNN by the anchor about Zarqawi, about 10 min. ago. (He was standing outdoors with some lit signs behind and it was very dark; I didn't catch where it was, maybe Baghdad.) I put down a bit of what I heard him say here on another thread.
June 8, 2006 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
could someone please explain how this is different that the other disastrous times (for human rights and morality at least) the U.S. has followed such a course in the past - especially during the Cold War.
If the US pulls out without fixing what it broke, the blood of the ensuing long and bitter civil war will be on US hands. Not to mention whatever attrocities the victorious regime will inflict upon its subjects and neighbors.
Our moral imperative is to put Humpty back together . The only possible chance for success in this endeavor is through a strongman.
June 8, 2006 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be correct. But what about putting Iraqis to work? I mean on a big scale. For example, phase out all those fat KBR reconstruction contracts and award them to Iraqi contractors. Capitalize domestic companies, create job training programs, underwrite entrepreneural programs, and so on. US taxpayers money would then be well spent, rather than flushed down the toilet of foreign exploitation and futile military spending. It could be too late for that, but it also could still be doable.
Look at Iraqi culture - I mean across the ethic divides. It is extremely family oriented. The Iraqi man/woman in the street is inclined to do what he/she thinks is the best thing for the family. As it stands, it looks like the "many" see insurrection as the best course, whether actively or passively. Since material existence is worse since Saddam's fall, it is obvious why Iraqis may feel this way. In that battle, the battle for hearts and minds, the US has done nothing other than boast about how great freedom and democracy is. Why not at least attempt to make the abstract tangible?
Neoboho
June 8, 2006 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep thinking of how many key terror leaders Israel has killed over the last quarter century (including that old paralyzed guy in the wheelchair struck by a missile outside the mosque in Gaza a couple years ago), and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and occupation for twenty years, and the election of Hamas recently after 40 years of occupation, and knowing that Israeli's live in the Middle East and Americans do not. And that we subsidize Israel to the amount of billions a year, and Egypt also to keep Mubarek in power and keep peace on that front. Will there be enough dollars, time and American lives to buy the peace in Iraq?
June 8, 2006 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I flew into my second combat zone on board a New Jersey National Guard C-130. (My first combat zone was El Salvador, during their civil war in 1988, but that’s a story for another time.) "
Dude, I can't wait.
Rilly
June 8, 2006 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm confused Larry. Someone on the Great Left(which is my tribe)said you were in Las Vegas. WTF? Yo dog! You, Digby, JoshCo, and others stayed out of the sands of South Nevada? I'd love to be in Vegas.
God bless and stay safe and as always a great read.
P.S. I want you to buy a CD by Bruce Cockburn(pronounced co-burn and he's Canadian). Title: Stealing Fire. It's an oldie from 1984.
June 8, 2006 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't disagree with this sentiment, but I'm becoming more and more skeptical that it is achievable.
A strong Iraqi government with strong leaders who play by the rules and respect the rule of law, etc is one thing. But if Larry is suggesting a solution that resembles U.S. support for the Salvadoran government in the 1980s, it would be an unmitigated disaster - in Iraq, in our relationship with the greater Middle-East, and in our international standing. No two ways about it.
Voteless In DC
June 8, 2006 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the view from the ground Larry...stay safe.
I guess my observations on this is you describe our men and women are holding back the "floodwaters" in Iraq but I view it more as the ocean's tide. And nobody can hold back the ocean forever. Even if we are successful at slowing the sectarian violence and temporarily stop the civil war there we are going to leaving at some point and the tide will come rushing back in.
Our military presence in Iraq is tragic on many different levels. But for me one of the great tragedies is the damage being inflicted on our kids there...physically and to their psyches. And the reason it is the tragedy is that this all is because we have incompetent political and military leaders in DC. Our military men and women are the greatest in the world. And imo that military might could be the ultimate deterrent if used properly. But that might is being worn down by the battering waves of an Iraqi civil war that our leaders both shortsightedly and grossly incompetently allowed to start...
Get home safe...Godspeed.
June 9, 2006 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
June 9, 2006 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
"Let the Sunnis and Shiites fight it out"
Good idea but a bit overstated I think. Because the very prospect will undoubtedly force them to talk first - something they obviously aren't doing much of (al Hayat suggests that the insurgents with Zarqawi out of the picture are looking to forge a Shiite/Sunni united resistance) Another benefit of withdrawal - while we are doing the fighting for all sides of the civil war and much to prevent unification of the country (even tho that would be inimical to our position!), the Kurds are also sitting back fat dumb and happy re-cleansing Kirkuk, solidifying their oil revenue position which will deny the Sunnis any meaningful revenue after the Kurds secede and finalize the break up of the state...
"Fighting it out" in short is the only way at this point that Iraq can be held together, assuming that's a worthy goal. I am not sure it is or is not for all I am sure of is that the US has lost the war and is damned whatever it does
June 9, 2006 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our military men and women are the greatest in the world. Libertine
Wouldn't have any factual support for this piece of parochial, jingoistic nonsense, would you?
June 9, 2006 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Larry is secretly working on "National Lampoon: The Johnson Babylon Vacation"
Send pics of the Bush Hanging Gardens
June 9, 2006 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't have any factual support for this piece of parochial, jingoistic nonsense, would you?
LOL...I take it this refers to my opinion. I will make sure that in the future I was use the appropriate "impjn" in my posts Ellen...
Looking forward to reading your nonsense too...
June 9, 2006 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"impjn"
Does that mean "I'm being a Parrot, Just Now"*
* As the Parrot explained, "Like all of my species, I'm cliche ridden."
June 9, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha Ha ... very astute...
No ... to the majority of those who, through no fault of their own, are unfortunate to be truly insane, such as those at Atascadero by example, have no clue whatsoever and usually just go about whistling while they do the thorizen shuffle.
This whole passel of morons running this show have no such excuse..
June 9, 2006 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies if my replies don't get your stylistic seal of approval. Maybe you should post something about your guidelines in Cafe Management. In the meantime I will work on trying to be more snarky and unreadable...
June 9, 2006 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Our moral imperative is to bring peace to the world, cure all diseases, end hunger, and love one another. When will we start on that?
Seriously, a strong man really is most likely to be the only way to bring peace to Iraq. How that strong man rules is another issue entirely. But, to start with, he is only effective if he is ruthless, feared by all, willing to do the dirty work to stop sectarian violence. That isn't going to happen though, for many reasons, the primary one being that Iraqis have had their fill of strong man government.
I think my moral imperative list is more achievable than the above one for Iraq.
Hoppy in Sacramento
June 9, 2006 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Years ago, The Nation had an issue themed on patriotism. One of the contributors (I don't remember who) told about someone who used to agree that the United States was indeed a great country. He'd then add, "They're all great countries." Smart man, both times.
June 10, 2006 5:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why y'all keep losing #180:
Our military men and women are the greatest in the world. Libertine
Wouldn't have any factual support for this piece of parochial, jingoistic nonsense, would you?
Enough said!
June 10, 2006 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, sarge. People who need to believe that kind of BS don't read this board.
You don't believe it, do ya, hero?
June 10, 2006 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not too concerned about who believes it or not, those who come in contact with it realize it soon enough. Just pointing out that the disdain that the left feels towards the military is one of the reasons you keep losing elections. Painting America as the (insert favorite phrase here... enemy, evil empire, terrorists, oppressors of the universe) is not going to be a winning campaign strategy. I'll tell you what I do believe. I believe that many on the left actually think that if there were no American military the world would be freer and safer, and that America is the cause of most of the problems in the world. This belief leads to your demise every time one of you guys lets it slip in public.
June 11, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
From your equivocating response I gather that you don't believe the BS anymore than any thoughtful person would and recognize it for the cheap demogoguery it is. You're just so trapped within the hollow rhetoric your self-important role of super-patriot demands of you that you can't say it aloud. Pity.
As for your low opinion of Americans, I disagree. It is true that people feel uncomfortable espousing what, by virtue of the public shouting of all the go-along-to-get-along types which surround them, appear to be minority opinions -- even when they sense that those opinions are sound. Therefore, it's up to courageous leaders -- not members of this board but rather men like Al Gore -- to make a reality-based rhetoric the common currency of the nation.
Truth talks; BS walks.
June 11, 2006 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheap demogoguery? Not defending SFCWallace in the least...I can love my country, praise the people who serve defending it but still feel the POTUS is a complete a-hole and his policies are a load of sh*t Ellen. Yes I am patriotic and proud to be an American...and am nuanced enough to differentiate between patriotism and nationalism.
Signed:
The cliche ridden, parochial, jingoistic, nonsensical, cheap demogogueric poster.
June 11, 2006 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You made a careless statement; my reaction was overly harsh. I apologize -- not for my criticism of thoughtless hyperbole but to you for the results of my being too lazy to search out a means of depersonalizing that criticism.
June 11, 2006 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you...
John
June 12, 2006 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not defending me because I'm me, or because you disagree that the US military is one of, if not the finest military in the world and that the far left's disdain for it keeps red districts red and turns some blue districts purple?
June 12, 2006 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Finest" is as "finest" does. The US military's been in Iraq for three years, now, and things don't seem all that "fine."
June 12, 2006 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why SFCWallace?
As a rule on-line I generally don't fight other people's fights for them. So I usually won't "speak for other people". We both share a great respect for our men and women in uniform...even if we disagree on most other things we can agree on that.
June 13, 2006 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely
June 14, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Don't need you to fight for me, I just thought it was an interesting qualifier for the rest of your post....kind of like Seinfeld's "not that there's anything wrong with that."
June 14, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link.
The NYT article answered some of my questions but raised more. It seems to me that each of the smuggling schemes described had at least one point where that operation could be effectively slowed if not altogether stopped. The article says many smugglers can be identified by sight at public demonstrations. The article says smuggling goes on “……as American and British overseers look the other way, the Iraqi and American officials say.” It says that boats offload oil to tankers but don’t say whether our navy, which shouldn’t be stretched to the breaking point like the ground forces, is trying to stop it. If the US forces are not making a major effort to stop the smuggling then surely the question of why not should be raised.
I think an important clue is the report that the tanker truck drivers pay protection money. Apparently that works and apparently relying on the Coalition Forces for protection isn’t enough.
It looks to me that the insurgents and criminal element can cripple the oil and fuel flow in Iraq anytime they want to and somebody has made the choice to give them a piece of the economic pie so that they don’t.
One consequence of that decision is that the organization infrastructure of the forces fighting our occupation of Iraq is becoming larger and more efficient on a "earn as you learn basis" and those forces, as a result, will be even stronger and better able to wield their power as time goes on.
June 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink