I am a soldier currently stationed in Camp Ar-Ramadi. I do not believe this war is justified and feel that there should be a timetable set for a withdrawal. However, I do not totally agree with the article, “Who Cares About Iraqis?” I do not think there were originally terrorists in Iraq when the war started, but they are here now. I have heard the roadside bombs go off and watched two ING soldiers burn to death in their unarmored truck outside of Anaconda in Balad. I have heard the call to prayer at night followed by mortars and an RPG attack that killed a soldier by the PX a couple of weeks ago at Camp Ar-Ramadi. I have talked to the Shi’ite ING at Camp Ali and Defender and heard about why Ramadi is “no zayn” or no good and each one of them has a story about how the Sunnis under Saddam oppressed them. These people are supposed to be our allies, and yet they have stolen from me every chance they get. Some of the guys don’t bring knives and other sought-after personal items when we go out to the ING FOBs because we don’t want our stuff stolen.
The only Iraqis I have met that seemed to be decent people were the Kurds, so I guess those are the Iraqis I care about. Maybe the Kurds deserve Mosul and Kirkuk and their own country for all their persecution. I don’t know. I also don’t always agree with the M1 Abrams tanks firing back into the city after mortars come in, but the locals should not ask why they are getting shot at when I am getting shot at.
The U.S. should not have to police Iraq and the Arab world. The Arab world should police the Arab world. I am not a fan of the commander-in-chief’s ideals on democracy for the Middle East, but I have to do my job. This is a messed-up conflict and I cannot wait to go home, but I don’t truly believe either side is totally innocent. I do not think this is about oil either, because the insurgents keep blowing up pipelines and hitting convoys, keeping production lower than prewar levels. I have seen the long gas lines outside of Tikrit and wondered why an oil-rich country can’t provide gas for their own vehicles.
Most soldiers are sick of the heat, the people, the sand fleas, just plain sick of Iraq. I just feel that one side is going to have to give in, and the current administration does not want to lose face. I am going to do my tour and hopefully rotate out in early fall. I really don’t want to come back to Iraq or the Middle East and hope America just leaves this place alone. My platoon sergeant has a saying about how sh*tty Ramadi is, and he writes it everywhere: “Stay Classy Ramadi.”
Our government made a mistake in coming here as we can see by our current spending, adding to the national debt. I am sorry for all the unnecessary deaths on both sides. I just hope we leave soon and Iraq becomes a semi-stable government that does not become a haven for the terrorists we create.
~ Soldier stationed at Camp Ar-Ramadi
I just spent seven months in Iraq with the 1st Marine Division as a Navy corpsman. Unless you go there and stay awhile, your opinion on the war there doesn’t mean much, or have much validity as you say. You guys and gals should see if you have what it takes to put your life on the line for something you believe in and take your peace movement to Iraq. To see how it works out over there. Go to villages and give pens, coloring books, and candy to the kids. See how young girls get none of these things because they are made to stay indoors. If one does manage to get to you for handouts, a young boy will beat her and make her leave. They start young. Democracy in Iraq will change this. It is good America went there; you all will see this in the future. Our being there will spark democracy throughout the region.
Scott Horton replies:
Dear Bob,
I sympathize with your need to believe that what you’ve done is right, but as the Declaration of Independence says, individuals are born free. It is simply wrong to violate that principle (i.e., kill people) in the name of some imagined future greater good. Not only do ends not justify means, violent means determine violent ends. “Democracy,” that is, rule by the fundamentalist Shia majority, is not going to deliver individual liberty to people who still live in a tribal society. So far, “democracy” has only deepened past divisions and repression.
If the only opinions that count are those of the government employees who accept the jobs as paid killers, then I guess ours don’t. The fact that it’s our money that is being spent, and our friends and family that are being made the targets of future acts of vengeance, is irrelevant: if we are not gullible enough to actually go and do the killing, we don’t have the standing to object to it.
While we’re at it, perhaps we should let those charged with committing acts of fraud, robbery, and (private) murder judge each other’s actions as well.
Accepting your premise, have a look at what some of your fellow veterans have to say: “Why We Cannot Win” by Sgt. Al Lorentz, “Danielle Green Speaks Out,” “Breaking Ranks” by David Goodman, “Iraq Vet Speaks Truth” by Robert Sarra, “Mother of Soldier Slain in Iraq Speaks Out” by Kay Liss (gave her son, is that credentialed enough?), and here are 167, 000 more search results for “Iraq war vet speaks out.”
I read through the above article with very little hope of finding any useful information, since I know that Ilana Mercer is not a supporter of the ideas of socialism. I was not much surprised with what she said, pretty obvious stuff given her bias (let’s not forget that Americans are the only ones who still consider the label “communist” an insult).
However, she concludes that the Europeans realize that “Liberty is associated with a dispersion of political power, never its concentration and centralization.” And decides that this is the reason that the French and Dutch voted against the EU.
She might be right about what the right wing in both of those countries voted against; however, that is hardly a summary of the reason the left wing in both countries voted against the Constitution. The reason they voted the way they did is simple: they are against the “Anglo-American” economic model. The model that pushes free-trade, reduction of social grants, limits laws against companies, and reduces worker protections. Of course, Ilana Mercer didn’t mention that because she believes wholeheartedly in the Anglo-American economic model!
Americans will have to get used to the idea that Europeans are not willing to let go of their socialist state. They want to keep their generous social benefits and worker protections and don’t want to see companies able to move around at will and destroy the wages of the workers in Europe. The problem with the EU Constitution is nothing less than a clash of differing ideas of what the EU should represent: either the Anglo-American model or the European socialist model. Both France and Holland (and Germany with their vote against Schroeder’s party) have made it very clear that they do not want to go the way of the American worker – underpaid, easily fired or retrenched, and overworked.
I can see that, and I live in South Africa. I’m surprised that Ilana Mercer cannot put her obvious bias aside to report on what is really happening, not what she thinks is happening.
~ Lilly White, Johannesburg, South Africa
Ilana Mercer replies:
Dear Lilly,
From the fact that I detest socialism (I recommend The Black Book of Communism), you concluded I have no information to impart? Who is biased here? Incidentally, I’m not a reporter, so I am allowed my “biases,” as you call the belief in freedom from the state and the power of voluntary civil society.
Moreover, the EU is not remotely related to the “Anglo-American” economic model, as I explained in the essay. I did, however, mention that the French voted against the EU for the wrong reasons – because they perceived it to be free-market friendly. Overall, however, they did the right thing.
It is indisputable that all factions rejected the EU for the same underlying reason: the fear of losing sovereignty and national identity. How can you dispute that, and how exactly does it contradict what you say?
It doesn’t!
It remains a fact that the Europeans – the followers of Rousseau and Descartes and their “wise legislators” – are teaching us – the ostensible philosophical descendants of Adam Smith and his “invisible hand” – a thing or two about freedom. That many have done so by default doesn’t change this fact.
After reading Ilana’s insightful assessment of the reasons for the French and Dutch no to the EU constitution, one wishes the people of Virginia and Massachusetts would have done the same when they were asked. But then, the constitution of the U.S. was more stealthily designed for a transfer of power from the individual to an ever more remote and unaccountable federal bureaucracy. It seems that a parasitic class of politicians and other public servants, whether in Brussels or D.C., always finds a way to subdue and enslave the productive members of society, no matter how well thought-out the safeguards are.
War is not a pretty thing. I believe some of our junior troops are going to be hammered for something that was condoned, or at least allowed to happen, by more senior people. As our people see more of their friends and comrades maimed and mutilated, I think that you’ll hear more bad things. Think back to Vietnam. Our guys did to the enemy what the enemy did to us first. The same thing will happen in Iraq and Afghanistan if the war goes that long. One of the sayings that we used to teach our junior troops was “When you have them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.” […] I don’t care what branch of the military you join, you are taught to KILL the enemy before he kills you.
If you have never been in the military and have no desire to go, then thank the ones that did join to defend your First Amendment and my Second Amendment rights. I don’t mean to make light of the rest of our rights. I think America is the greatest country in the world. If you don’t believe it, check out any other country and see what it is about us they don’t like. It will be our freedoms.
~ Charles Cox, GySgt USMC Retired, Disabled Veteran
Etc.
Wow! Not only did I just finish reading Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris – picked up at a Dulles airport bookshop for some “light” airplane reading – I’ve also just discovered the Antiwar.com Web site, and have spent the past few hours “educating” myself. Both the book and the site have given me ample justification for examining my own opinions, stances, and for modifying my personal-public comments. In short, I am beginning to recognize “the point.”
I do have, however, one question regarding non-interventionism, from an historical perspective. Believe me, I believe (now!), but I don’t have enough background to answer an anticipated rebuff: If we hadn’t gotten involved in WWII, we’d be speaking German now.
Every article I’ve read has been enlightening, to a degree, but I would appreciate reading a response from your “crew” about whether antiwar policies at such times (as pre-WWII) are likely to have an even worse impact on America and/or the world. Does Antiwar.com espouse Ghandi-ism?
Scott Horton replies:
Dear Mr. Roessler,
It is great to hear that one more has given up on America as world superhero, and we are happy to be of service in this area.
Ah, yes, the old “we’d be speaking German now.”
When they ask, you could say, “The Germans couldn’t even cross the English Channel, how were they to conquer North America?”
Next, you might try to explain to them about how some of FDR’s most important advisors, such as Harry Hopkins and Alger Hiss, were KGB. Their motivation for American involvement in World War II was not to save the British, the French, or the Jews, but Uncle Joe Stalin, the greatest mass murderer of all human history. Through Lend-Lease and splitting German forces, they succeeded. Half of Europe was enslaved for decades, and the ensuing Cold War cost untold millions of lives and wasted trillions of dollars of hard-earned wealth.
Had we stayed out, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia likely would have destroyed each other. The Nazis were already near defeat, and were sending boys, old men, and foreign conscripts to the front. Instead, the U.S. only made matters worse, saving the world’s worst despot from the first runner-up. Conscripted Americans also fire-bombed Dresden and Tokyo, dropped nuclear weapons on helpless civilians, committed the absolutely unforgivable crime known as Operation Keelhaul, centralized our government and economy, and created this terrible myth of the U.S. as champion of the underdog, when in fact we have supported elites against their people all over the world ever since. (Not that we don’t usually turn around and stab them in the back to replace them with new elites.)
You might also relay the history of how National Socialism in Germany could never have amounted to anything if Woodrow Wilson had kept America out of World War One.
Pretty harsh, I know, but the sad truth is that most history as we learn it is just the lie the government told that day – written down.
Antiwar.com supports the natural right of all to self-defense against aggression. The problem is, none of our wars have been defensive for a long time, though some of us probably disagree about when the last one was.
Sam Koritz replies:
Logically, one can support Antiwar.com, oppose military aggression, and also believe that the U.S. was right to fight against Germany and Japan in World War II. The Japanese military did, after all, bomb a U.S. colony, and Japan’s formal ally Germany did declare war against the United States. A reasonable person could consider war under those conditions to be self-defense. Another consideration, for those concerned with the rule of law, is that Congress declared war against Japan and Germany, as constitutionally mandated. If Americans had insisted on similar preconditions, we would have fought no wars since.
