Today marks the deadliest day of the Iraq war for U.S. servicemen. Thirty-six of America's best and bravest lost their lives on Wednesday, including thirty-one Marines who perished when a CH-53 helicopter went down. More than 1,400 American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have died since the war started nearly two years ago. Keep them in your prayers.
May God Bless them and their families for their sacrifice!
And may GW declare mission accomplished and get them out of there.
Mission will be complete when we help stabilize Iraq. As in Germany and Japan after WWII, it took 3 years to stabilize them, and as history recalls, we lost great American soldiers there as well in the process. We still have a military presence in both countries, 60 years later.
ASDF, the overall mission will be accomplished when it is done. Cutting and running is not the solution. It should be looked at in general phases. First phase, the ground invasion was accomplished. The second, an interim Iraqi governent was established equaling accomplished. Third, the Iraqi elections will be accomplished, and prediction, turn-out will be better than ours. And the final phase, we need to make sure that the Iraqis are trained to sustain and protect Iraq from both domestic and foreign enemies which are ours as well.
Fortunately, we still have a President who will follow through with what he started. Unfortunatley, in the process, we will lose more soldiers in Iraq. God Bless our soldiers.
God bless those Marines and all our troops.
James, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany and Japan was zero.
Obi - for a number of reasons, not least that we forced their unconditional surrender, not just the removal of their government heads. (In fact, I don't think that we ever deposed the Emperor in Japan.) We've been a lot more picky about targets in Iraq, especially civilians, which puts our own soldiers at increased risk. God bless them all, with their loved ones, for their continued sacrifice and risk.
This leaves aside for now any tactical or strategic shortcomings regarding Mosul, Fallujah, et al. - for one thing, others are more qualified to debate that in detail; for another, we also had problems during and after WW2, but relentless nit-picky media wasn't among them. In all, I think that given the paramaters we've chosen for this fight, we've done well. What does everyone think of the parameters themselves?
obi juan you are way off. Have you ever heard of accidents? Sporadic Resistence? casualties from wounds? You need to get out more. As for our fighting soldiers over there, keep up the good work, I pray for you everyday and come home safe.
James Mayfield
US Army 1999-2004
James, I'm sure there were accidents. That's how Patton went. But sporadic resistance killed zero. It is killing quite more than zero in Iraq.
Given that this war was a choice and not a necessity I'd say that it's going horribly bad.
I have to dispute the "choice/necessity" thing. The "choice" involved was either:
1a. letting Saddam mooch personal wealth and power through the UN's corrupt and inept "Oil-for-Food" program,
1b. permitting Saddam to escape the consequences of breaking the terms of the cease-fire from the first Gulf War,
1c. eventually allowing him to recover WMDs after/ his previous use of these weapons and public pursuit of more of the same,
1d. as a result of a-c, letting the world think of us as shrinking nancy-boys,
OR,
2. doing what we are doing, warts and all.
I think that's not really a choice at all, and as proof, I offer the post-WTC bombings of 1993, when we "chose" option 1 and suffered dearly for it, even before 9/11/01.
PS - misplaced backslash in my previous. Sorry about that, guys. (These modern devices confuse and frighten me...)
I'm going to have to say I prefer #1. The fact that Saddam mooched off of the UN didn't bother me enough to expend one US soldier's life. Escaping the consequences for the Gulf War is a bunch of bullshit and you know it. His country was wrecked and he was powerless. He was in no position to reconstitute his arsenal with inspections in place. Let the whole world and all the mooninites as well think we are nancy boys, I'd rather we not sacrifice our soldiers over such a silly thing.
The WTC bombing in 93 and even 9/11 had what to do with Iraq? If anything it is our foreign policy, like our current foray in Iraq, that sets things like the WTC in motion.
Obi, you haven't been reading memri.org very closely. Heck, you haven't been reading the papers the past week - not a day after the inaugural address, al-Zarqawi was railing against the idea of democracy appearing in Iraq; indeed, against the very concept of democracy.
One of the big ideas behind Wahhabist Islam is that any rule of man inherently opposes the rule of Allah; democracy is anathema and secular rules are an oxymoron. All they see in freedom is the freedom to disobey. You'll notice that the much greater freedom afforded Palestinian citizens of Israel, and any citizen at all here or in Europe, doesn't mollify Wahabbists - it in fact inflames them. For them, any near occasion of sin is just as bad as sin itself, and must be purged by force. This is most certainly a war by fascists against freedom and liberty.
This doesn't stop the mullahs from jumping into bed with guys like Saddam to further their own common interests. They are also quite plain about being emboldened by our previous timidity in Mogadishu and elsewhere.
That's why it was such a bad idea to let Saddam flout the terms of his ceasefire, including screwing around with the inspections you so readily endorse. To quote Spock in "Balance of Terror" (there's no Corner ban here, right Dan?), to show weakness would be a disastrous mistake. Saddam was using his mooching to pursue his ambitions and fund the further ambitions of our enemies; at the very least he was starving his own people. Those together are enough cause to march on him. It's not about our machismo, but about hindering and dissuading armed attacks on us.
You say that none of this is worth the life of even one soldier. I say that any of this is not worth the life of one civilian. You say that our foreign policy caused the initial attacks, but it's more accurate to say that it permitted them. Iraq didn't supply the actual terrorists but they sure as shooting approved of their deeds, and probably helped finance and train them as well. I have no problem with making sure that they don't have the capability of doing so again.
This is the first time in history that the terrorists have been able to project their terror to our shores; previously they had to content themselves with hijackings and embassy bombings. As a result, I think that we are quite justified in projecting our response back to their shores.
Obi, you obviously have never heard of the Werewolves, the Nazi "guerrilla" movement that continued to terrorize Germans and kill Allies and Soviets up until 1947- including General N.E. Berzarin, the first Soviet commandant of Berlin. They were also responsible for the June 1945 bombing of the Bremen police station that killed 5 Allied soldiers and 39 Germans. The Werewolves claimed at least 40 Americans lives between 1945-46; to claim "But sporadic resistance killed zero" is a gross insult to the American, British, and Russian soldiers of WWII.
Why would anyone read memri.org closely? It's a neocon propaganda outlet. No doubt they get a check from the administration just like Armstrong Williams!
I have every reason to believe that latest speech from Zarqawi is a total fake, just part of some psyops. It is in direct contrast to Osama's last message and has him all but proclaiming loudly that he hates kittens.
Beats me why you mention Wahhibism at all since that is centered in the country of our great ally, Saudi Arabia.
If Saddam or anyone else wants to starve their people then the people better overthrow their leader. Right now they seem to be putting up a much better fight against us then they ever did against Saddam. It isn't worth the life of one US soldier. It isn't our fight. If the Iraqis want to be free than it is incumbent on them to do the fighting. We have a 100,000 or so Iraqi ex pats living in the USA who will be voting in the Iraqi election... wouldn't it make sense for them to maybe shed some of their own blood for their own country and for their own vote?
Are we going to invade every country that approved of 911? That's ever country in the mideast except for Israel!
Why do terrorists want to project terror on our shores? Could it be all the clandestine operations we do on their shores? When Lincoln freed the slaves we didn't have the problem of Arabians frothing at the mouth over American freedom did we? It is a recent thing and entirely because of our projection of power and abuse of that power. We've run roughshod over the idea of countries that we don't like being sovereign and now are dealing with the consequences.
Dennis, find me something that didn't happen in June 1945. 40!!?!?! That's all you can scrounge up?
Well right now the Iraqi's are making the werewolves look like were-poodles.
Spare me the 'gross insult' crap. That you even have the gall to compare Iraq in any way shape or form to WWII is the gross insult here.
May God bless and keep our troops and their families as they fight the good fight to defend America and all of those who love and cherish liberty!!
Some people have raised issues about post WWII issues. For more information on this, if interested, you can go to www.jessicaswell.com and click on the article "Americans are loosing the victory in Europe." At this time, that's all I really know. Where I think a mistake may have been made is terrorists and their supporters have only been "liberated", in order for the mission and the broader war to be successful the terrorists and their supporters will need to be "defeated."
www.memri.org a neo con propaganda outlet? That's interesting. Apparently anything that might support the Bush administration will automatically be labeled as neo con propaganda. I'm not even a big fan of Bush nor do I know much about memri.org but this seems ridicuolous. "Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an, sura 9:5) That quote is not neocon propaganda. It is straight from the Islamic religion book. By the way remember the Egyptian Coptic Christian family who was slaughtered by Islamists, in Jersey City, apparently for daring to be Christians. The silence of the main stream media here is defeaning but by no means surprising.
At the heart of this is not American foreign policy. We are being attacked for who we are, not for what we do. Islam has the insane desire to rule the world. The sooner we understand this the closer we will be to winning. Once the terrorists are actually defeated it will be possible to discuss real grievences and attempt to resolve them. Sacrificing Israel the only democracy in the middle east, as well as our most important buffer between the terrorists, is simply not an option!!
Regarding Saudi Arabia, they will need to change behaviour. The lack of moral clarity is disturbing here. For example, GW Bush says "we will go after the terrorists wherever they are." Then Israel does the same thing and GW Bush says it is "not helpful." Also, it is okay for France and Germany to fight Islamo-Fascists alongside Americans in Afghanistan, but they actively help the same Islamo-Fascists in Iraq!! Because of UN oil for food we now know why. I suspect Saudi Arabia will be dealt with in time. I don't know if a one size fits all strategy will work. Having written that, what sometimes appears to be a lack of moral clarity is troubling. Unfortunately in a largely post Christian western world this probably should not be surprising.
Iraq truly is like WWII. Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/"Palestine" are all multiple fronts in the same war. The Arab terroritsts understand this. Unfortunately many Americans do not. Those who do not understand this will not evaluate the threats we face in the proper context. The invasion of Iraq has truly made America safer, in that it has forced the terrorists to redirect resources that would have been used elsewhere. Forcing the terrorists to redirect resources can only be a good thing!! As of this writing there have been no more terrorists attacks on American soil. This is truly miraculous. The invasion of Iraq has probably had allot to do with this.
For more information on the links between Ssddam and Al Qaeda, if interested, see "The Connection: How Al Qaeda's cooperation with Saddam Huessin has endangered America." Also, "Shadow War: The untold story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror" by Richard Minter. While I have not finished these books yet, they do offer a perspective you don't generally get from the main stream media.
Sanctions were collapsing because of UN Oil for Food. Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs. To think we could have ontinued the status quo, is simply not valid based on all the evidence available. Thank God a major threat was taken out before it could fully materialize.
God bless the troops who are fighting the good fight!! May God grant them success and may they return home safely and may they return home soon!!
James
Thank you very much for your service to our country!! May God bless you and yours!!!
Rob
I think that Bush and his crew lost their way on this one. There were a lot of reasons to go into Iraq initially. But overall it was to insure that there were no WMD’s. Deposing a brutal dictator was a fringe benefit and it didn’t help him or his country that he was constantly ‘thumbing his nose’ at U.N. inspectors and limiting their abilities to secure the World’s suspicions about Iraq. Military posturing that made him seem to be more of a threat than he probably was didn’t help either.
Now that we have confirmation that there are no WMD’s and Saddam is essentially gone, I would say: mission accomplished. So it’s time to get out.
Nowhere, was it ever part of the bargain to make Iraq safe for ‘Democracy’ and to push that philosophy on a people who are probably not ready for it. This is something that our leaders have cooked up and what will keep us fighting there for years to come.
Bush One had it right when he saved Kuwait, pushed the Iraqi horde back over their border and continued to keep them in check.
Let’s stop being saps. Securing their oil should be the only reason we have a military presence in Iraq.
Let it be known that Armstrong "Mind for Rent, Unfurnished" Williams has now officially been used in the attempt to undermine other people's credibility. That didn't take long. Thanks, AW (and GWB).
I second Rob's comments. Saudi Arabia was the source of Wahabbism, but they've been exporting heavily. Even before this, there have been problems, ever since Israel was formed. The terrorists have long wanted a piece of us, as well, for recognizing that state; it is only now that they can reliably project this desire onto our shores. The old patchwork approach thus won't work any more, so we'll develop a new one.
And the laissez-faire Buchananite "Let them handle their own problems" approach? I'd have to say that empirically it's a total disaster. We've lost purposefully-targeted civilians here and abroad; we've lost soldiers and sailors going back decades, which suggests that is really has nothing to do with covert operations or sanctions. That's causus belli right there. Besides, part of the terrorist strategy is to use the West as a scapegoat for the misery and poverty of the subjects of dictators and madmen. They emphasize the "Kill all unbelievers" message to gain willing conscripts (if you'll forgive the oxymoron) for this end.
In any case, no we haven't invaded SA or Iran or Egypt (whose state-run papers have long been bitter proponents of the Great Satan theory). In many ways, we don't have to. Look at countries like Pakistan and Libya: our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have caught their attention. Pakistan has gone from the brink of nuclear war with its neighbors to a supporter (however inconsistent) of the war; Mohamar Qadafi suddenly "got religion," as it were, and announced that they were voluntarily dismantling their own aborning WMD program. The war is working without having us simply sack every country in the Middle East, in turn. No doubt behind the scenes, the State Dept is working those Saudi sheiks as well. In fact, it looks as if the old slanders, that the Administration lacks nuance and allies, are inaccurate - he's using force where necessary, and diplomacy (both direct and through others) elsewhere.
On the positive side, Obi - nice mooninites reference.
asdf,
You raise some valid points. Saddam is gone. The Iraqis are probably not ready for democracy. It may be time for us to withdraw. Like many, I am all for self defense but am generally loathe to support nation building. Regarding the WMD issue, according to a Fox News report on the evening of 1/26/05, enough explosives were recently found by US troops to make over 1,000 of the road side bomb devices that have been used by the terrorists in Iraq. These were apparently buried in the sand. Other reports have suggested that Saddam's stokpiles of WMD could fit in a two car garage, furthermore, I think it would be assumed he would hide them in a place where his people largely control, such as the Sunni Triangle. I just don't see the Sunni Triangle being secure enough to do the kind of detailed search that it would be necessary to find this stuff if it were there. When Fallujah was taken a chemical weapons lab was found. Who knows what other surprises lurk? Is it possible someone is trying to shut down the Iraqi WMD search prematurely for strictly partisian political purposes? I'm not saying they are but it is something that I think should be considered.
It’s clear that Iraq had some chemical weapons but it was not apparent that they were developing them or using them on a large scale or with the intent to use then against international enemies. Their use of such weapons seemed to begin and end with their own population.
This isn’t to say that these weapons weren’t eventually going to be developed with a delivery capability in mind but we don’t know that and now never will. We also won't know if there would have been a threat against anybody other than their regional enemies in the middle east.
From what seems to be historical fact and what can be seen even today is that leaders in that part of the World are very tribal. Because of this, they think small and immediate and I think that Saddam was more apt to develop only the weapons he needed to harass and bully his own people and maybe a selected few of his neighbors. A lot of what he did was to use his capabilities to show his superiority in the region and probably as an immediate deterrent.
Look at Pakistan and India as examples of small third world countries developing nuclear weapons as defensive deterrents.
Even though we didn’t (or haven’t yet) found any evidence of large scale development of WMD’s in Iraq, we at least have satisfied our fears that they were developed but not stockpiled. Our troop movement and temporary occupation may be enough to secure the rest of the region with regards to any thought of developing WMD’s or using them in any great quantity for more strategic purposes.
But, we can't stay forever and continue to police this part of the world. We should only move when we know of or perceive a threat that impacts the U.S.
So, it's time to leave.
asdf
You suggest that middle east leaders tend to think small and immediate. This is quite fortunate for us that they tend to get caught up in petty tribal bickering because if they weren't their attention would be focused elsewhere. It seems some of them have changed their behaviour in recent years. Saddam sheltered at least one of the members of the Al Qaeda cell that carried out the 1993 WTC bombing and even paid him a monthly salary. This is documented in "Shadow War: How Bush is winning the war on terror" by Richard Minter. Other authors have documented the links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. A leader of Hamas, stated "first we shall lift lift the flag of Islam over 'Palestine' then over the whole universe." This was documented at www,israelnationalnews.com, about a year or so ago. While it is true that allot of their energies are spent in fights with one another, they seem to have their eyes on a bigger picture. The international terrorist networks are engaged in global jihad. We are at war with them. Iran, Syria, and others supply the terrorists. Russia and China supply Iran, Syria, and other terrorist supporters. Ultimately our biggest enemies are Russia and China. I believe we must be careful not to focus all of our attention on the Islamic Terrorists and loose sight of the larger picture.
With much Respect,
Rob
I can appreciate the concern we all have that Iraq may have been a hotbed and base camp for terrorist activity. The same goes for Afghanistan. This could be said for any large number of countries that hate and despise us. But, we can’t invade and occupy them all and truly need to pick our shots if we’re going to launch offensive strikes.
If there is a clear and present danger, we need to do whatever it takes to insure our safety. That could mean a military attack and, only when absolutely necessary, an occupation.
But, in my opinion, what we really need is a strong defense mechanism on our own continent to insure that the thousands of potential threats to our security are kept at bay. Stronger borders; stronger internal security and national intelligence networks that are serious about protecting us should be established and maintained.
I’m sorry to say that I don’t think the powers that be are all that deliberate with regards to strengthening the security of this country. Borders are still porous. Illegals are untrackable. Intelligence between government agencies is still for the most part not shared.
We can’t make up for this by sending troops to every place we think is a threat.
We definitley do need to strengthen border security. Unfortunately neither of the major parties seems very sericous about doing this.
Dennis, find me something that didn't happen in June 1945. 40!!?!?! That's all you can scrounge up?
No, but it is enough to prove your assertion that "But sporadic resistance killed zero" is wrong.
Well right now the Iraqi's are making the werewolves look like were-poodles.
So what? Who was arguing the magnitude of the Werewolves terrorism vs. that of Zarqawi's?
Spare me the 'gross insult' crap.
I will like hell-- you were the one who claimed "But sporadic resistance killed zero", thereby implying that the GI's who died after V-E Day did so because of accidents, not combat, as many did.
That you even have the gall to compare Iraq in any way shape or form to WWII is the gross insult here.
I wasn't comparing Iraq to WWII- I was pointing out your ignorance concerning post-victory Germany, as made in your assertion James, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany and Japan was zero.
If you can't stand being shown up when opinning on something you're ignorant of, then you should refrain from opinning, shouldn't you?
It proves you wrong more than it does me Dennis, namely that your comparison of Iraq to WWII is shameless. When comparing such a thing the magnitude is certainly an issue. And you still misrepresent those that died since the 40 number is Allied deaths, not seperate from American GIs, which is what I claimed was zero.
And now you backtrack that you weren't comparing Iraq and WWII, but anyone here can read what you were saying earlier and see that you are a bold faced liar.
Obi's original post:
James, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany and Japan was zero.
Posted by obi juan at January 26, 2005 03:57 PM
My response:
Obi, you obviously have never heard of the Werewolves, the Nazi "guerrilla" movement that continued to terrorize Germans and kill Allies and Soviets up until 1947- including General N.E. Berzarin, the first Soviet commandant of Berlin. They were also responsible for the June 1945 bombing of the Bremen police station that killed 5 Allied soldiers and 39 Germans. The Werewolves claimed at least 40 Americans lives between 1945-46; to claim "But sporadic resistance killed zero" is a gross insult to the American, British, and Russian soldiers of WWII.
Posted by Dennis_Mahon at January 26, 2005 07:22 PM
I leave it to the readers of this blog to decide for themselves who is telling the truth, and who is the Emperor That Wears No Clothes.
Dennis and Obi Juan, the exchange is very interesting, but I'd like to get closer to the truth. Do either of you have sources to back up your statements? I've heard that American troops were killed by insurgents in Germany after V-E Day, but today when I googled it one credible history site claimed that four months into the occupation no Americans had been killed. Obviously, this says nothing about '46, '47, or beyond. Does anyone know what the real deal is on this matter?
Dan, actually after this exchange I am a bit confused as well. I originally got the information from blog entries at LewRockwell.com which linked to an article on Slate.
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007187.html
http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007191.html
Dennis, saying from 1945-1946 means little since it does not differentiate between the time before and after Germany's surrender. Germany surrendered in May and it seems from the instances of Werewolf resistance you listed their greatest accomplishments were only a month or so after surrender, and of the casualties you listed none were American soldiers.
Dan, my source was Werwolf!: The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946 by Alexander Perry Biddiscombe and Crimes and Mercies: The Fate Of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 by James Bacque. Unfortunately, I no longer have either copy, so I cannot give pages for my citations.
