Quote from welo:
Sounds to me like someone has been listening to GWB's every breath a little too much for the past couple of years. Although I grudgingly admit to harboring a certain affection for the guy, I'm so sick by now of hearing variations of "Evil [whatever]" phrases I could almost scream.
Show some patriotism, support the troops, be proud of them and want them back, but cripes, do it for the right reasons. They'll be back when their job is done.
(I am a combat-"disabled" Gulf vet, incidentally. Recon, 2d Marine Division. Pleased to meet ya)
Marine Recon? Much respect and thank you for your service.
Don't be taken in by Candletrader.
I wonder if you read the British report from Fallujah that Madison linked. As a veteran, would you say there's anything surprising about soldiers who've been doing hard and dangerous duty griping profanely and telling dramatic stories in a manner intended to shock whatever civilian happens to be around to listen? I'm not suggesting that there aren't fatigue and possibly other serious issues that need to be dealt with better, especially in high tension hot spots like Fallujah, but in the 99% of Iraq where things are much better, different soldiers might have very different things to say, though my guess is that even the soldiers who are billetted in one of Saddam's palaces and swimming daily in one of his massive indoor pools are finding plenty to gripe about.
Yes, the loss of life is tragic. And, yes, the death toll is "mounting" - because, as David Warren recently pointed out, death tolls can't do anything else unless people start coming back to life. If all of the soldiers who have died since the fall of Baghdad had died before or during the taking of the city, the difference in the numbers would have had little effect on perceptions about the war as a whole.
There are no simple solutions, and we shouldn't expect there to be any. Withdrawing from the streets would in many places be the exact worst thing to do, though in other places it's the only thing to do. As for "Bringing Them Back": a) ain't gonna happen anytime soon (not counting troop rotations) and b) would be criminally stupid and a disaster.
Part of the problem - and one of the main reasons the much-criticized Garner was put in place originally - is that post-war planning was for scenarios that, in hindsight, seem like worst-case fantasies. Garner is an expert at dealing with disasters, but isn't much, apparently, on nation-building. That's not to say that there shouldn't have been better planning for what has occurred instead, or that the situation isn't complex and couldn't go really bad in a thousand ways, but the news media doesn't report, day after day, with screaming headlines, "No Humanitarian Catastrophe in Iraq" or "No Environmental Catastrophe in Iraq" or "Unused Mass Refugee Camps Still No Longer in Place" or "US and British Casualties Extremely Low." Nor do the media reflect much on the past: So we don't see "No Innocents Arrested and Tortured in Iraq" or "No Infants Denied Formula for the Sake of Propaganda" or "No Food Aid Sold on the Black Market by the Government" or "No Oil Money Stolen by Iraqi Officials." Similarly, the media doesn't run domestic headlines on "300 million Americans Not Leaving Homeless Men to Die in their Garages Today" or "Millions of Husbands Not On Trial for Murdering their Pregnant Wives."
CNN anchor Aaron Brown, whose work I usually enjoy, actually asserted tonight that the "truth" is somewhere between the statements "the Iraqi people are worse off than before" and "the Iraqi people are better off." That could only mean that the Iraqi people are in the same situation as before...
There have been a few reports on the re-birth or first birth of democracy in the quieter sections of the country, and the bringing of utilities and other services to some places, including many that had had no dependable service for years if ever, but media and political focus remains professionally on the bad news and whatever can be criticized. That's partly to the good, but no one should confuse the results with a just portrayal of the situation as a whole. And where are the international humanitarians who, before the war, used to claim that 6,000 Iraqi babies a month were dying as a result of UN sanctions? Giving credit to the US for changing the situation (which, typically, they exaggerated, but which did need to change)? No - they're busy finding new and different things to complain about, because, without new and different things to complain about, they'd be out of work.
In some ways, Iraqis and Americans are very similar - and just like most people on the planet: They tend to have short memories, tend to be obsessed with themselves and the present moment often to the exclusion of all rational assessements of their relative circumstances, and are real good at finding new things to whine about. (Which is the main difference between soldiers and civilians. Soldiers, as a rule, don't whine: They gripe.)