http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5641053 Last update: September 28, 2005 at 10:22 PM Katherine Kersten: Reservist says protesters are breaking faith Katherine Kersten Star Tribune Published September 29, 2005 Cindy Sheehan made big news at the antiwar rally in Washington last weekend. Cameras clicked as graying Vietnam-era biggies -- Joan Baez, Jesse Jackson -- relived their glory days. Seven busloads of Minnesotans joined them, drawn from groups such as the DFL Party and Women Against Military Madness. Sheehan set the "outside the mainstream" tone. She has called the foreign terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters." Now -- get this -- she is demanding that America pull our troops not only out of Iraq, but also out of "occupied New Orleans." Back in Minnesota, Marine Col. Jeff Vold watched the protest unfold. Unlike the demonstrators, Vold knows Iraq firsthand. A Reservist from Maple Grove, he returned last March from seven months in Fallujah and Ramadi, the heart of the violent Sunni Triangle. Vold's view is 180 degrees different from the protesters'. For years, he says, America took a passive approach to extremist threats. We learned the hard way that this emboldened terrorists and ultimately led to Sept. 11. Abandoning our mission in Iraq now, he says, would be both ill-advised and dangerous. Vold knows the painful cost of aborting a mission midstream. He was in Somalia in early 1994 when America turned tail. "We abandoned the Somali people because we took 18 casualties in October 1993," he said. "It was a shameful act." That same year, he sat in frustration on a troop ship off Kenya as hundreds of thousands of people were hacked to death in Rwanda. After the first Gulf War, he says, we left the Shiites to a bloody fate. "In Iraq, we're going to stay the course against the terrorists and give the people a chance at freedom and a representative government." Vold ticks off the extraordinary progress underway in Iraq. In Ramadi, he witnessed ordinary Iraqis braving mortar fire to vote in the January 2005 elections. In just two weeks, on Oct. 15, he adds, these courageous people will have another historic opportunity -- a chance to vote on Iraq's new constitution. Across Iraq, Americans and Iraqis are working together to reclaim the country from Baathists and terrorists. They are building or refurbishing schools, hospitals, roads and sewer systems. "The battle with the terrorists left Fallujah in rubble," says Vold. "But every day, people thanked us. 'We might have to rebuild our house,' they said, 'but you gave us back our city.' " Do the Washington protesters know about these great strides? Vold can't say. "When I got back from Iraq, I was disappointed -- astounded, really -- to read the news. The media was saying it's all a failure, while we saw successes around us every day." Vold puts the continuing sporadic violence in perspective. Most of Iraq, he says, is quiet. "Baghdad is a vibrant city, the size of Chicago's metro area. A bomb goes off -- it's a bad thing, but it's like we're sitting in Eden Prairie and a bomb goes off in Andover. The police investigate, people go about their business. Rush hour is one big traffic jam." Antiwar demonstrators sometimes claim that their prime motivation is concern for the safety of American troops. "Support the troops," the lawn signs say, "bring them home." But it doesn't work that way, says Vold. "I try not to take it personally. The reason I'm a Marine is to ensure this is a free country. But I don't think the protesters know the effect they're having on the soldiers. You're always tired, cold or hot, homesick. The last thing you need is a sense that people back home say your mission is doomed, when you see good things happening all the time." Vold adds that antiwar rhetoric sometimes implicitly portrays soldiers as dupes on a fool's errand. "We volunteered to go to Iraq. The guys over there, who know the situation best, are re-enlisting in great numbers. Most of the guys I served with think this is the best thing America has done in our careers." How did the Sheehan protest play in Iraq? Yesterday, I asked Vold's friend, Lt. Col. James MacVarish, an adviser to Iraqi troops in Fallujah. He told me in an e-mail that the Iraqis he works with believe such protests and the press they generate "play directly to the strengths of our mutual enemy." Iraqis "are absolutely astounded," he adds, "that we 'allow' that to continue." A few days ago, he had to give his Iraqi colleagues an hourlong civics lesson on freedom of the press. MacVarish says that the terrorists can't win militarily. So their strategy is to make the U.S. and Iraqi people "bleed a little every day." They hope that the resulting media attention will turn the tide of American opinion against the war, and make the political cost of sustaining it too high. "The more play the press gives Cindy Sheehan," MacVarish concludes, "the better the terrorists' chances are of ultimately succeeding here." What would a terrorist victory mean? "If we leave before the new government is established and the Iraqi Army is ready," says Vold, "the people will be at the mercy of the bad guys" -- beheaders and torturers, who blow up children. MacVarish minces no words: "If the terrorists win over here, stand by. There will be no stopping them anywhere in the world." Katherine Kersten is at kkersten@startribune.com.
This is actually a lot more thoughtful article than I thought it would be from the thread title. Thanks for the post. I will say, I was against the war at the beginning. But I really think that most people who are against the war still believe we have to finish the job and can't leave Iraq in a stat of civil war or chaos. I think there are two ways you can look at the political pressure being put on Bush by Sheehan et. al. 1) It can push for Bush to hastily withdraw troops to save his political backside and let the terrorists win. OR 2) It can create political pressure for the administration to do what it takes to sufficiently secure the country so that the Iraqi government will become self sufficient rather than US troops continuing to linger in a Vietnam-style quagmire. I hope it does the latter. I agree with many of the articles points about previous conflicts. We should have stayed in Somalia (of course we should also have consulted regional countries so we had a better strategy going in) and we damn well should've gone into Rwanda. However, I'm not sure what effect any withdrawal or protest will have on more violence. Does a march demanding an end to the war really make a difference in whether or not people will attack us? We bailed in Somalia and Lebanon, yet we stuck it out in Kosovo. Did either of these two paths really influence anyone in Iraq right now? I honestly don't know the answer. My inclination is to say no, but I'm not sure.
Make no mistake. Sheehan and the anti-war protestors around her want immediate withdrawl. They've explicitly stated it.
the problem for me is this..... everyone says we have to stay in iraq until they have a fully functioning democratic government set up. well how long is that gonna take? people so quickly forget that iraqi's have NO CONCEPT OF A DEMOCRACY WHATSOEVER. period. there are 3 different cultures/ethnicities in what we call Iraq that all despise each other.... greatly. and they have NEVER ruled with a democratic philosophy. it is a concept outside of their realm of understanding, especially given the fact that such a large portion of their population is completely uneducated. the people have to KNOW and UNDERSTAND what they're "voting" for for a democracy/republic to work. otherwise you end up right back to where you started. to think we can go in there and change the mindsets of different peoples who have gained and maintained power through brute force for pratically 2 millenia is absolutely absurd. the change in beliefs will take generations, not 1 or 2 years. things there will get pushed along just for the sake of "progress", but the second we leave civil war will erupt.... count on it. the logistics of this "liberation"/occupation just don't add up.
Nobody seems to respond to the fact that we are losing in Iraq at present. It is stupid to stick with what isn't making progress. If the option is to stick with it, or pull out, we should pull out. I prefer another option which is since we started it, let's get it finished correctly, and that would inolve more troops, more training, more equipment, funding that requires those who receive it to be held accountable etc. It requires clear objectives, a feasible plan to acheive it, and plans to get out once they are done. However our leadership is pretending like we don't need a change. There are serious doubts, considering damage done to our nation's credibility, allies and UN willingness to help inside IRaq in part because of this administration's handling of the lead up to the invasion, and refusal to allow others to have a voice in what goes on, that they are capable of doing what it would take to really win in Iraq. If they can't or aren't willing to do what it would take to win, than Sheehan, and anyone else who wants our troops home right away, are offering a better solution, than staying there and not getting the job done, while still getting our people killed. If our only two choices are to suffer slowly for a long time, and not accomplish the objective or to come home and suffer briefly and all at once while saving the lives of our soldiers, then it is better to pull them out now.
And what would be gained then? Please see my post in the "troops" thread. As for me? If I were in charge, (and that would be a FANTASTIC thread) I would pull every US soldier out and bomb them.... Severely... Then let my troops back in. No? That bombing didn't work? More terrorism? Pull troops out again, and BOMB again. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Names we, as "liberals" don't like to repeat. But it sent the the message. We, as a Nation, have never.... ever... ever..... dealt with terrorists, and yet y'all want us to back down.
Well any comment on how effective or ineffective your strategy would be, is is pure speculation. But I will ask if you think that will help ensure a stable, democratic IRaq that is friendly to the U.S.? That is the standard that BAsso has set. Israel has a similar strategy as that in their occupied territories, and it hasn't done much good. However, I believe that my idea of sending in more troops, enlarging the scope and having it become a situation where more nations have a vested interest, having more training, proper equipment would do a number of things. It would show terrorists and insurgents that they aren't just fighting the U.S., but the whole world was working toward stability. It would help Iraqis take over their own nation faster, it would help ensure the safety of our troops on the ground now, it would help them actually make things more stable over there, it would improve moral of our troops, and our nation in general, it would give us a chance of accomplishing the goals that Basso mentioned. But leaving our troops in there now, and not changing the strategy is a huge waste. It continues to make them targets without allowing them to reach the goals that need to be reached in order to have a victory. Pulling our troops out now would save lives of our troops, and bring about a quicker end to our involvement in the mess and failure that is Iraq. We could divert resources and troops into rebuilding Afghanistan and stabilizing the first nation we invaded and promised to rebuild. It would help us move on to more productive means of fighting terrorism.
No but we were fighting a war against the nation of Japan, not a group of insurgents fighting against occupation. Japan wasn't headed for a civil war with various groups of Japanese on opposite sides. Again we had the equipment, troops, leadership, and a totally different situation in Japan to see the job was done correctly.
I, for one, would like to read some articles on the good that is going on in Iraq, where they interview some people who say "thank you".... Why doesn't the media do that? You would think that at least Fox would be doing that. DD
Of course, we spent billions and billions of dollars on reconstruction in Japan to show good faith. We can't afford that type of investment in Iraq, unfortunately, because Republicans aren't willing to consider raising taxes and there's already an out of control budget deficit. Not to mention the fact that the *insurgents* are bombing things left and right. You think they'd have a problem if we did their job for them (making the Iraqi people resent the US)?
While I know you are technically correct, I doubt that every Japanese citizen that was killed or survived those bombings were anti-American. They were a culturally servile people under the rule of a militarist leadership.
And what would that prove exactly, that American's are evil like most in the middle east are already thinking? How would this affect the geo political climate? Would any body trust us anymore when we say we want to go into another country with valid reason? This isn't a d!ck swinging contest FFB, this is world affairs we're talking about. Think with your head for a second. We want stability in this country, this doesn't help that. As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, call me crazy but if China isn't unified and stable right now, and Japan has the ability to remillitarize again, I would bet there's going to be some axe to grind. They, along with everyone else (including those in the muslim world) love the American pop culture, but if you actually start watching some of their media such as anime, you will see a suprising amount of anti american under tone a lot of what they show on tv (Gasaraki, Samurai Champloo etc), things that just made me go "hmm, that's not PC.
Anybody that compares Iraq now to Japan in WWII doesn't know anything about history. The situations are so different it isn't even funny. I was for the invasion because I was duped by the administration that Iraq had WMDs. I still supported the war when it became evident there were not WMDs, but this administration's bungling of just about everything going on there has made this war one of the biggest mistakes in U.S. history. Those who advocate an immediate pullot have no sense of the consequences of doing that. Those who still think Iraq can be made into a "democratic beacon" for the rest of the Middle East need to be taken away in a straight jacket. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld don't even believe that any more. What to do? Train train train the Iraqi military and plot our exit strategy. The goal now is to leave behind a stable government that is capable of maintaining law and order. It is worth the effort to do this and by next summer, we should know if this is acheivable. The votes on the new constitution could be a giant step forward or a huge setback. We can't make any long term decisions until we see what happens on this. The U.S. must show the world that when it commits to taking action, it will persevere. One reason some Iraqis (and Afghans) won't commit to supporting us openly is they feel we will leave them and they will be punished for supporting us after we leave. Our exit from Iraq must be done in a way that minimizes the damage to our global standing. People who want to yank out in a hurry need to realize this. I sympathize big time with Sheehan's loss but anyone calling the terrorists that have moved into Iraq "freedom fighters" is a sorry individual.
And you and halfbreed should also understand that staying the course is losing the war, slowly but surely. To be in favor of that doesn't make sense. It never makes sense to keep doing the same thing that isn't working. Amost any change is better. A change to succeed would best of all, and a change to withdraw immediately would be far better than draw out the death and failure.
I must say, the view of this one soldier has changed my mind, as it is clearly more valid than the view of the other one soldier.
