5 More GI's killed today in Iraq. Is it worthwhile?

Heck, the Army considers Iraq to be at peace today. Nothing to see here, move along....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4052404/

.
.
.
These are the "bloodline" attacks, as Tomlinson's superior, Capt. Todd Brown, calls them. Samarra is only about 15 miles from where Saddam was captured at Ad Dawr, but "what we're seeing now is much more tribal," he says. "It's the Arabic rule of five. If you do something to someone, then five of his bloodlines will try to attack you." The insurgency is self-replicating, like a virus, through the vengeance of brothers, sons, cousins and nephews. "That's Bedouin culture," says Brown, a handsome 29-year-old triathlete from Michigan who is revered by his men, although they accuse him of "going native" because, he says, he treats detainees too kindly, likes Iraqis and takes a scholarly interest in Arab culture. Brown's theory is shared by some intel analysts, especially in Sunni Triangle towns like Samarra and Fallujah, which continue to foment violence despite a general tail-off in attacks since the fall.



The One-Eighth conducts raids and patrols seven days a week with almost no R&R and even less appreciation. Though his men risk their lives every day, Brown complains he can put them in only for "peacetime" commendations; the Army is still officially pretending the war ended in May. The One-Eighth's base camp is a concrete slab overhung with plastic tarp and surrounded by thick, fetid mud. The battalion's morale is still amazingly high—perhaps because the dream date for the Fourth ID, which includes the One-Eighth, is nearing: April, when the soldiers have been told they'll be rotated out.

And the Americans are improving their counterinsurgency tactics, even if they often can't quite figure out whom they're fighting. The giant Bradley has become the perfect armor for urban combat and patrols, the men say, able to pivot nimbly through ancient streets. Brown authored a personal account called "the Samarra paper" that has become standard reading in the Fourth ID. Some of his tactics, such as "reconnaissance by fire"—shooting even into empty trash fields to scare and root out the enemy—have been widely adopted. The Army has yet to implement other ideas, like training commanders in local culture (which the Green Berets do).
.
.
.

 

I feel the most sorry for the parents of the soldiers killed in Iraq.

Having your child killed in a war has got to be horrible.

Having your child killed in a war based on lies and half-truths has got to be infuriating.

 

You conveniently left off point number 7. Defending yourself.

 

Right on. And beyond that, it's not like these American soldiers were drafted to war by the government. Each and everyone last one of them knew what they were getting into when they joined the military. Hell, many of them are getting their college education paid for by being in the military which is a better deal than they would get in most countries of the world where it is the law that every single citizen serve a few years in service. If you're going to whine about the war than 500 dead American soldiers in a year.

 

But how many of these other "problem nations and peoples" have all ready illustrated the will, ability, and capability to inflict large U.S. civilian casualties on U.S. soil at very little cost or effort? The middle east is a problem that the entire world should be addressing, not just America. My point of view is not "It is so great that we can liberate a people". My point is that we have two ways of life that disagree with one another and one way of lifes breeds a form of extremism that would like to wipe the other way of life off the face of the earth and that should be unacceptable to every last American citizen.

 

Probably because in no way does it apply to this situation. Iraq has never attacked us. Our intel said Iraq would never attack us ifit could. It couldn't.

 

Iraq has never demonstrated the will to inflict large civilian casualties on US soil.

Iraq does not have the ability/capability to inflict large civilian casualties on US soil.

I am assuming that you have more to link Iraq with this threat than a generalized racial connection, right? Otherwise, yet another rationalization.

 

man, i can't believe i'm even stepping in here...

but i don't think anyone believed that iraq, itself, would lead some attack on the US...but rather that saddam might be willing to turn over WMD's to terrorist groups who would use them in the US.

 

The hell it is MacBeth. Get your butt to the middle east and see the society for yourself then come back and try to preach this nonsense to me. The middle east is an imminent threat that should have been dealt with before now and now it has spilled over onto our soil and inaction is not an option. Let me simply ask you, how does the U.S proceed to fight and rid the threat of middle eastern terrorism to the U.S? Please tell me. And don't tell me by capturing Osama Bin Laden because there are hundreds of thousands of middle easterners that share Osama's view and if only a handful of them decided to violently express their views on U.S. soil, it is a problem that can not be ignored. You're clearly capable of a deeper analysis than that.

 

This was exactly what our intel was telling our administration wouldn't happen. It's in the NIE report.

 

Okay, I was wrong. Clearly you have nothing to connect them aside from race. Interesting basis for a foreign policy.


There's no point to this, but I'll try anways: The fact that Iraq is in the same geographic region as other nations which do possibly pose a terrorist threat to us in no way means Iraq is equally accountable, or equally a threat. The fact that Denmark is in the same geographic region as Germany does not mean that Denmark was responsible for the Holocaust. I don't really feel that I have to go to Denmark or germany to come to that conclusion.


Does the entire Middle East dislike us? Absolutely, but with good cause. So does Central and South America, and Southeast Asia. You might see the connection between our actions in the past and these feelings, but it's a secondary point. Disliking us does not mean threat. Racial/geographic similarities does not mean shared responsibilities, and it's pretty, well, 'old-fashioned' of you to suggest that it does.

 

i don't understand...they were saying there was no way in the world saddam would ever do that?? or that those weapons in the hands of an unstable dictator would never be a threat to the US??

 

What they were saying was : "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the US Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks—more likely with biological than chemical agents—probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

• The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been, directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The IIS probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam’s regime has directed attacks against US territory.

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida—with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States—could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

• In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."


So, no, Max. They were not guarenteeing that Saddam would never, ever, under any circumstances attack the US. You would be pretty hard pressed to guarentee that Canada would never, under any circumstances attack the US. You can't prove a future negative.

But the experts were saying that the only way they could envision Saddam posing a terrorist/WMD threat to the US was
if we attacked him. So our intelligence was telling us exactly the opposite of what Bush et al were saying it was telling us. ANd exactly the opposite of what you suggested. Now in that the NIE represents the compilation of what the intelligence community had concluded and told the administration, where exactly did we get the intel that said that they were a terrorist/WMD threat to us?

And on a side note, what qualification do you use for calling Saddam 'unstable'? He had WMD in the first Gulf War, and didn't use them against us. He has been involved in exactly 2 external military operations in his entire @30 year reign, far less than the US, Israel, or several other 'stable' nations in that time. Of those 2 operations, at least one was ok'd and assisted by the US. We have no evidence of Saddam ever attacking the US, directly or indirectly, even when we know he had WMDs. Tyrant? Yes, but he has never shown himself to be unstable.

 

...and there are far more accidents resulting in death in cars than in airplanes. Doesn't lessen airplane accidents.

 

<b>Major
outlaw
SamFisher
MacBeth</b>

Actually I'm totally serious. Your implication is that every dead US soldier died in vain and that their surviving family and friends are in total agreement with "your propostion". Somehow I doubt that it is true or accurate.

Yes, there will be grief. That is only natural. Grief is not regret, however.

I am just challenging the depth of your convictions. If you are so sure that you are right, then this should be a piece of cake and you'll be invited over for Sunday supper by surviving parents, spouses, and loved ones.

 

macbeth --

1. it seems the threat of war was keeping saddam from getting involved with terrorists, according to that report.

2. did these guys say he had WMD's?? if they're wrong there, are they wrong about understanding his motives, too?

3. i said unstable because tyrants are always unstable...revolutions happen when tyrants assume power. it seems to me that most middle eastern governments are unstable.

 

OK, I'll do it. If you go to downtown Fallujah and tell a family whose son or daughter was decapitated by an errant JDAMS that they died for a cause.

I am just challenging the depth of your convictions. If you are so sure that you are right, then this should be piece of cake and you'll be invited over for afternoon tea by surviving parents, spouses, and loved ones.


That was lame, even for you.

 

you didn't answer my question giddy. if your son/daughter/brother/sister/husband/wife/domestic partner died in this war, would you feel it was worth it?

and i never said every single family member/friend of every single dead soldier felt this way.

 

Unlike you, I wouldn't presume to know how they felt about it. Surely there are those who oppose the US involvement in Iraq. And there are those who understand and accept the risk.

I didn't challenge you. I posted a hypothetical and you challenged it.

 

Originally posted by outlaw
you didn't answer my question giddy. if your son/daughter/brother/sister/husband/wife/domestic partner died in this war, would you feel it was worth it?

<b>That's hard to say. Personally, it seems like it would be hard to get beyond the grief and not wish to re-write a history that brought about the demise of my loved one, but that's not rational.

What's really important is how the dead soldier considered their service and the risk it entailed. They were all volunteers, after all. The preponderance of commentary from survivors is that they honor their loved one's ultimate sacrifice. I remember seeing Laurie Piestawaa's (Jessica Lynch's friend) brother talking about how proud they were of her service and her sacrifice. I don't know if I could be so at ease with it in a time of pain.</b>

and i never said every single family member/friend of every single dead soldier felt this way.

<b>You did specify a limit. Sorry! I lumped you in there. I didn't want to respond to 4 different people, so I lumped you all together in a hasty effort to be effecient.</b>