Rumblings in the Ranks 6

Two years ago, I began a thread about dissent and growing frustration among the troops in Iraq. (Click the Label "ranks" below to see these articles.)

I wrote that there was increasing dissent among the grunts in Iraq, the ones actually dying. I linked to several articles, many of which never made it into the mainstream media.

Recent surveys, and a well-publicized op-ed by serving soldiers, support the view that these men and women are getting sick and tired of the hypocrisy and bad decisions of this country's leadership.

Think Progess reports the following:

Some say two wars are being fought here: the one the enlisted men see, and the one that senior officers and politicians want the world to see.

“I don’t see any progress. Just us getting killed,” said Spc. Yvenson Tertulien, one of those in the dining hall in Yousifiya, 10 miles south of Baghdad, as Bush’s speech aired last month. “I don’t want to be here anymore.” […]

The signs of frustration and of flagging morale are unmistakable, including blunt comments, online rants and the findings of surveys on military morale and suicides.

Sometimes the signs are to be found even in latrines. In the stalls at Baghdad’s Camp Liberty, someone had posted Army help cards listing “nine signs of suicide.” On one card, seven of the boxes had been checked.

I would just like to note that throughout history, revolutions have begun from the midst of soldiers.

My question is: how soon before these soldiers say enough is enough and begin refusing to fight? What the, George? Are you going to order that they be shot for disobeying orders? Read more!

Rumblings in the Ranks Rattle the State Machinery

For months I have run a virtual category called "rumblings in the ranks." It's included comments and bitches by those in the lower ranks, as well as some from the higher pay grades. I ran this because I believe that if this war is going to end, it's going to do so because the soldiers in the field and their commanders are so pissed off that they'll basically "mutiny."...

Something of this angle seems to have gotten to the Insider Watchers at the Washington Post. They're finally realizing that when John Murtha threw down the iron glove on G Bush's table, it wasn't just him talking but the commanders and soldiers in the field who are fed up with a war going nowhere fast.

Now it seems that the disaffection with the wayward Bush policies has also made its way to the intelligence services. Granted, the entire Plame affair was about lower-echelon agents in the CIA rebelling against the ham-handed bullying of Cheney/Rumsfeld. But now it appears that the entire intelligence apparatus is starting to creak. According to David Ignatius at the Washington Post:

One little-noted factor in this re-balancing is what I would call "the officers' revolt" -- and by that I mean both military generals in uniform and intelligence officers at the CIA, the NSA and other agencies. There has been growing uneasiness among these national security professionals at some of what they have been asked to do, and at the seeming unconcern among civilian leaders at the Pentagon and the CIA for the consequences of administration decisions.

Stay tuned for this one folks. The old truism that nothing gets done unless the insiders say it can looks like it's about to break out into open warfare. The gloves are coming off.

To mix metaphors, the gears and belts of the state machinery are squeaking and we are going to have a chance to look inside at the gory details of what makes this machine tick. Read more!

Rumblings in the Ranks 5

Captain Ian Fishback is currently in the military. He sent the following letter to Senator John McCain to voice his concerns about the War on Terror, American notions of justice, and torture. The letter was published in the Washington Post today.
--------------
A Matter of Honor
Wednesday, September 28, 2005; A21

The following letter was sent to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Sept. 16:

Dear Senator McCain:

I am a graduate of West Point currently serving as a Captain in the U.S. Army Infantry. I have served two combat tours with the 82nd Airborne Division, one each in Afghanistan and Iraq. While I served in the Global War on Terror, the actions and statements of my leadership led me to believe that United States policy did not require application of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan or Iraq. On 7 May 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's testimony that the United States followed the Geneva Conventions in Iraq and the "spirit" of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan prompted me to begin an approach for clarification. For 17 months, I tried to determine what specific standards governed the treatment of detainees by consulting my chain of command through battalion commander, multiple JAG lawyers, multiple Democrat and Republican Congressmen and their aides, the Ft. Bragg Inspector General's office, multiple government reports, the Secretary of the Army and multiple general officers, a professional interrogator at Guantanamo Bay, the deputy head of the department at West Point responsible for teaching Just War Theory and Law of Land Warfare, and numerous peers who I regard as honorable and intelligent men.

Instead of resolving my concerns, the approach for clarification process leaves me deeply troubled. Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees. I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment. I and troops under my command witnessed some of these abuses in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is a tragedy. I can remember, as a cadet at West Point, resolving to ensure that my men would never commit a dishonorable act; that I would protect them from that type of burden. It absolutely breaks my heart that I have failed some of them in this regard.

...

... Some argue that since our actions are not as horrifying as Al Qaeda's, we should not be concerned. When did Al Qaeda become any type of standard by which we measure the morality of the United States? We are America, and our actions should be held to a higher standard, the ideals expressed in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Others argue that clear standards will limit the President's ability to wage the War on Terror. Since clear standards only limit interrogation techniques, it is reasonable for me to assume that supporters of this argument desire to use coercion to acquire information from detainees. This is morally inconsistent with the Constitution and justice in war. It is unacceptable.

Both of these arguments stem from the larger question, the most important question that this generation will answer. Do we sacrifice our ideals in order to preserve security? Terrorism inspires fear and suppresses ideals like freedom and individual rights. Overcoming the fear posed by terrorist threats is a tremendous test of our courage. Will we confront danger and adversity in order to preserve our ideals, or will our courage and commitment to individual rights wither at the prospect of sacrifice? My response is simple. If we abandon our ideals in the face of adversity and aggression, then those ideals were never really in our possession. I would rather die fighting than give up even the smallest part of the idea that is "America."

Once again, I strongly urge you to do justice to your men and women in uniform. Give them clear standards of conduct that reflect the ideals they risk their lives for.

With the Utmost Respect,

-- Capt. Ian Fishback

1st Battalion,
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment,
82nd Airborne Division,
Fort Bragg, North Carolina Read more!

Rumblings in the Ranks 3

To keep abreast of the feelings of our troops, those on the ground in Iraq, I offer the following links.

In this article by Rupert Hamer in Basra, British soldiers express what all soldiers in Iraq know: there's no reason to be there. If there was one, that reason has disappeared into a fog of blood, impending civil war, and decaying ability of Iraqis to subsist. As one soldier puts it: "It's time to get home. There is no point in anyone else dying here. We are past the time that we are needed here in Basra. We have done enough."

In the second article, you can link to a web site with video clips of soldiers back from Iraq who express their dissatisfaction with the war, their participation in that war, and the growing discontent of their fellow soldiers still in Iraq. The videos can be very emotional. Soldiers describe experiences of killing citizens as well as soldiers. The devastating effect that these incidents will have on their lives cannot even begin to be imagined by us who sit in comfort and security.

According to the article:

"In one clip, Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey (ret'd) describes the killing of more than twenty unarmed protesters in the first days after the initial assault on Iraq, and the subsequent killing of many more unarmed Iraqi's at a military check point. Jimmy Massey, previously a Parris Island Trainer and Recruiter for the US Marine Corp. describes how, when he told his commanding officer "Today's been a bad day sir, we've killed a lot of civilians," his commanding officer responded "No, today is a good day." Massey adds, "When he said that I realized I was in the wrong place. Maybe I wasn't cut out for the Marine Corp." "

Read more!

Rumblings in the Military Ranks 2

Another testimony to the misadventure in Iraq from a man who was there. Again, I submit that this colnel's reflections on what he was sent to Iraq to do and the reality he found on the ground represents the illusion that this o****ry's leaders continue to perpetrate against its citizens.
----------

This is a mess of our own making

Tim Collins told his troops this was a war of liberation, not conquest. Now he says that he was naive to believe it

by Tim Collins
Sunday September 18, 2005
Observer

When I led my men of the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment across the border into Iraq we believed we were going to do some good. Goodwill and optimism abounded; it was to be a liberation, I had told my men, not a conquest.

In Iraq I sought to surround myself with advisers - Iraqis - who could help me understand what needed to be done. One of the first things they taught me was that the Baath party had been a fact of life for 35 years. Like the Nazi party, they said, it needed to be decapitated, harnessed and dismantled, each function replaced with the new regime. Many of these advisers were Baathists, yet were eager to co-operate, fired with the enthusiasm of the liberation. How must it look to them now?

What I had not realised was that there was no real plan at the higher levels to replace anything, indeed a simplistic and unimaginative overreliance in some senior quarters on the power of destruction and crude military might. We were to beat the Iraqis. That simple. Everything would come together after that.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

It is time for our leaders to explain what is going on. It was as a battalion commander trying to explain to his men why they would embark on a war that I came to public notice. The irony is that I made certain assumptions that my goodwill and altruistic motivations went to the top. Clearly I was naive. This time it is the role of the leaders of nations to explain where we are going and why. I, for one, demand to know.

· Colonel Tim Collins gave a celebrated speech to his troops about their mission to liberate, not conquer, in Iraq. He has since left the army.

Read More Read more!

Rumblings in the Ranks?

What is unique about the following letter--besides its unusually lucid and powerful rhetoric--is that it was published in Stars and Stripes, the official newspaper for soldiers by the US Defense Department. Soldiers know what's what--as I had noted in several earlier posts, those soldiers and the officers are going to turn the whole Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld applecart over.

One aspect of a soldier's criticism is that s/he has a certain moral authority now and what he or she is thinking and feeling carries a lot of weight in the current political/social debates. As soldiers, it is very rare for them to criticize the commander in chief. To see something like this letter in an official military forum is therefore quite interesting.
-----------------

Katrina another Bush failure

The fourth major failure of the Bush administration leading to tragedy has unfolded in gruesome detail in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. It revealed the hypocrisy of “small government” and sham privatization of emergency services. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which was professionalized under the Clinton administration by former Director Jamie Lee Witt was gutted by President Bush.

FEMA’s incompetent political-crony appointees delayed responding to Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco’s pleas for federal help, which she issued three days before Katrina hit. While people were dying there, the president returned to his fake ranch, the vice president bought a mansion, and the secretary of state shopped Ferragamo’s for $1,000 shoes.

The first failure was cutting Army Corps of Engineers funding to strengthen the levees. Technology to provide equivalent Category 5 hurricane flood protection has been implemented by Holland engineers for decades. Bush’s reduction of funding for this project guaranteed levee failure and disaster.

The second failure, the purposeful dismissal of warnings that al-Qaida was an imminent terrorism threat, led to the disaster of Sept. 11, 2001. The Bush administration downgraded terrorism as a priority, defunded a program monitoring U.S.-based al-Qaida operatives, and replaced counterterrorism Justice Department programs with anti-drug and domestic policing. After 9/11, this was quietly reversed.

The third failure, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, was based on lies and “cooking” of intelligence. This was confirmed by the Downing Street memo and the “9/11 Commission Report.” This administration didn’t care enough about servicemembers or a successful occupation to provide sufficient troops, protective armor or an exit plan. Staying longer in Iraq and failing to secure it means profit for politically connected firms.

Troops in Iraq and veterans were abandoned by a war-profiteering government, as New Orleans residents were. This presidency is deadly, knows it, and doesn’t care.

M.D. Wooldridge
Würzburg, Germany
Read More Read more!