The cable networks and the newspapers are missing this story so I want to add to the statements made by persons like Michael Yon and Bill Roggio that something BIG is happening now in Iraq.
Yesterday the largest, coordinated offensive of Coalition troops since 2003 began in Iraq. In cooperation with the Iraqi army and police, this offensive is designed to surround and destroy concentrations of Al Qaeda forces in Baghdad, northern Babil, Diyala and eastern Anbar provinces. This attack is a direct and immediate effect of placing General Petraeus in command of our forces in Iraq.
Baqubah is the capital of Diyala province and the self-declared capital of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The enemy has know that this attack was coming and they have prepared some nasty defenses against our forces. Many of our soldiers are at this moment in harm's way fighting against an extremely capable and ruthless enemy. I have no doubt in my mind as to who will win this battle. I have never been so proud of our armed forces.
June 2007 and the Battle of Baquba will be a battle for the history books.
My thoughts and prayers right now are with out brave soldiers on the ground.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Explaining Iraq
I have made numerous presentations on Iraq since my return. I have a Power Point presentation filled with photographs and I use these photographs to educate the audience on Iraq, Iraqis and what it was like for me to spend a year in a combat zone. In the three years since my return the tone and topics of my presentations have evolved.
Now, when I give my presentations, as I did two weeks ago to a local Lion's Club, the audiences want to know what I think about the war. I know that I am going to get this question, and I have given a lot of thought to my answers. As a veteran of this war I know that my opinion carries extra weight. The number of people who know anything about Iraq, much less have actually visited the country, are extremely small as a percentage of the population. I can tell the audiences are looking to me for some special insight on this very difficult and complex problem.
During the 1984 campaign for the presidency, Ronald Reagan ran against Walter Mondale. Michael Deaver, an aide to Reagan, constructed Reagan's campaign appearances so that there were a lot of good television visuals: balloons rising into the air, flags streaming, dancers, etc. Lesley Stahl, the CBS White House correspondent, prepared a hard-hitting and extremely critical piece on Reagan for the evening news. After the piece aired she called a source in the White House, expecting a lambasting. Instead, he thanked her profusely. Shocked, Lesley asked for an explanation. The response: the visuals in the piece were fabulous. The moral: the viewers don't listen to what you say, they take their cue from the visuals.
Now, when I give my presentations, as I did two weeks ago to a local Lion's Club, the audiences want to know what I think about the war. I know that I am going to get this question, and I have given a lot of thought to my answers. As a veteran of this war I know that my opinion carries extra weight. The number of people who know anything about Iraq, much less have actually visited the country, are extremely small as a percentage of the population. I can tell the audiences are looking to me for some special insight on this very difficult and complex problem.
A lot of how I feel about the war is conveyed in the tone of my presentation. I spend some time talking about the Iraqis, and how impressed I became with their sense of family, faith and work ethic. Most importantly, I talk about the many Iraqis who personally thanked me for coming to Iraq to relieve them of the burden of Saddam Hussein. I honestly bring up the fact that I have made a very large personal investment in this war and thus have a biased opinion about whether we should cut our losses or continue with this project until the end.
To most Americans the Iraq war is a daily, depressing irritant, a constant litany of violence and casualties endured for purposes they don't comprehend on a time line that stretches into the indefinite future. This steady stream of negative news comes with very little historical, political or geographical context. Television news, particularly, is so depressing that I quit watching it.
During the 1984 campaign for the presidency, Ronald Reagan ran against Walter Mondale. Michael Deaver, an aide to Reagan, constructed Reagan's campaign appearances so that there were a lot of good television visuals: balloons rising into the air, flags streaming, dancers, etc. Lesley Stahl, the CBS White House correspondent, prepared a hard-hitting and extremely critical piece on Reagan for the evening news. After the piece aired she called a source in the White House, expecting a lambasting. Instead, he thanked her profusely. Shocked, Lesley asked for an explanation. The response: the visuals in the piece were fabulous. The moral: the viewers don't listen to what you say, they take their cue from the visuals.
There are no "good" television visuals on Iraq. The commentary or the text of the story may be good but the visual is: car bomb. Last fall, for example, Anbar province was in the news. Ramadi and Fallujah were inundated in violence. The media leaked a Marine intelligence report that said that the counterinsurgency campaign in Anbar province had no chance of success. The situation in Anbar has changed dramatically since last Fall. The Sunni tribes in the province are now allied with the Iraqi government and the Coalition against Al Qaeda and the influence of foreign terrorists. The text of this remarkable turnaround may have been communicated to the American people, but the visual for the day was: car bomb.
Senator Joe Lieberman, in an editorial on Friday's Wall Street Journal, wrote that during his recent visit to Iraq he was told that 90% of the suicide bombings in that country were generated by Al Qaeda backed groups. The fact that most of the car bombs are now detonating in Diyala province rather than Baghdad is lost on most Americans since it is all "Iraq" to them. All the visuals are still car bombs.
The "center of gravity" is the military term for the source of a nation's or a combatants power. The center of gravity for the United States in the Iraqi war lies in the support of the American public for this conflict. While the immediate target of the car bombs in Iraq are checkpoints, bridges, and police stations, the real target is the cable news cycle and the opportunity to reinforce to American viewers that the war is senseless, endless and un-winnable.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Julian Woodall
Lance Corporal Julian Woodall, USMC, was killed in action in Al Anbar province, Iraq on May 22, 2007. What made Julian different from all the other soldiers and Marines killed in Iraq this month was that I knew his father. Jerry Woodall worked for the Public Service Commission and he and I weathered many storms together at the State emergency operations center during the tumultuous 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons. The death of his son made Jerry as much a veteran of the war as I was.
When I returned from Iraq I experienced the age-old problem of the veteran: trying to explain the war to the civilians who remained behind. The percentage of the American popualtion who are familiar with the military is very low. Most of any knowledge that they have comes from movies or television, a dubious source at best. Much of the experience of being in a war comes from the culture of the particular sevice with which one serves. There is a rich history, language and social standards that come with each service. This culture is the foundation upon which each individuals war experience is laid. Explaining the war experience to the uninitiated is like translating from one language to another with only a tourist guidebook. A lot gets lost in the translation.
Jerry, his wife Meredith and Julian's widow Melissa entered a foreign, untranslatable world the night of May 22 when three Marines arrived at their door with terrible news. Just as I am unable to truly explain what happened to me in Iraq Jerry will never be able to relate the feelings and emotions that come with losing a child in a war. In this sense Jerry has become a veteran of the war. He has joined, unwillingly, a growing population of parents who were thrust into the same situation. They are all, we are all, veterans of this war and all wars.
When I returned from Iraq I experienced the age-old problem of the veteran: trying to explain the war to the civilians who remained behind. The percentage of the American popualtion who are familiar with the military is very low. Most of any knowledge that they have comes from movies or television, a dubious source at best. Much of the experience of being in a war comes from the culture of the particular sevice with which one serves. There is a rich history, language and social standards that come with each service. This culture is the foundation upon which each individuals war experience is laid. Explaining the war experience to the uninitiated is like translating from one language to another with only a tourist guidebook. A lot gets lost in the translation.
Jerry, his wife Meredith and Julian's widow Melissa entered a foreign, untranslatable world the night of May 22 when three Marines arrived at their door with terrible news. Just as I am unable to truly explain what happened to me in Iraq Jerry will never be able to relate the feelings and emotions that come with losing a child in a war. In this sense Jerry has become a veteran of the war. He has joined, unwillingly, a growing population of parents who were thrust into the same situation. They are all, we are all, veterans of this war and all wars.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
The strain on the Army
Last week I got my retired Army pin in the mail. I retired from the Army Reserve in July 2005 but the recent arrival of my retirement pin is not an example of typical, Army, bureaucratic slowness. The idea of sending every retiree a pin was a decision the Army made this year. The pin is modeled on the new Army logo, a yellow-bordered white star on a field of black with "U.S. Army" below and "Retired" above. I also received a retired Army sticker for the window of my car.
I put the sticker on my car and the pin on the lanyard for the identification badges that I wear around my neck every day at work. My Army, your Army, our Army is under a lot of strain right now. Soldiers are not only serving their second, third or even fourth tour in a combat zone, but these tours have been extended to fifteen months. I know from personal experience that twelve months on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait is tough. The living conditions range from primitive to spartan. Working outside in full combat gear in the Iraqi summer desert heat reveals new levels of misery. The ache of separation from home and family gradually numbs but never really goes away. And everywhere and always the war is a steady background noise of explosions, gunfire and death.
Living in a civilian town my biggest link to the Army is the weekly "Army Times." Every week the Times has a page that lists the names and shows the photos of the servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. This week there were a lot of photos. The faces, as always, are predominantly young.
My overwhelming reaction to this news, as I see it, hear it or read it, is guilt. The few, a pitiful few, are carrying the burden for the many. My guilt traces directly to the illogical, but real, feeling that whatever I have done to support the burden of this war, it wasn't enough. I could volunteer to return to active duty in the Army for an assignment that "meets the needs of the service" and the Army, in its current desperate straits, would probably take me. But I can't, or I won't. In actuality, I can but I don't. I have already forced my family to endure one tour in a combat zone. How could I possibly ask them to possibly endure another? I can't. Or I won't.
This burdens of this war, which I deeply believe that we can and must win, must be borne by those younger and stronger than I. I have come to accept that verdict. But I still feel guilty about it.
I put the sticker on my car and the pin on the lanyard for the identification badges that I wear around my neck every day at work. My Army, your Army, our Army is under a lot of strain right now. Soldiers are not only serving their second, third or even fourth tour in a combat zone, but these tours have been extended to fifteen months. I know from personal experience that twelve months on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait is tough. The living conditions range from primitive to spartan. Working outside in full combat gear in the Iraqi summer desert heat reveals new levels of misery. The ache of separation from home and family gradually numbs but never really goes away. And everywhere and always the war is a steady background noise of explosions, gunfire and death.
Living in a civilian town my biggest link to the Army is the weekly "Army Times." Every week the Times has a page that lists the names and shows the photos of the servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. This week there were a lot of photos. The faces, as always, are predominantly young.
My overwhelming reaction to this news, as I see it, hear it or read it, is guilt. The few, a pitiful few, are carrying the burden for the many. My guilt traces directly to the illogical, but real, feeling that whatever I have done to support the burden of this war, it wasn't enough. I could volunteer to return to active duty in the Army for an assignment that "meets the needs of the service" and the Army, in its current desperate straits, would probably take me. But I can't, or I won't. In actuality, I can but I don't. I have already forced my family to endure one tour in a combat zone. How could I possibly ask them to possibly endure another? I can't. Or I won't.
This burdens of this war, which I deeply believe that we can and must win, must be borne by those younger and stronger than I. I have come to accept that verdict. But I still feel guilty about it.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The Sunni's start to wise up
A number of things about Iraq have continued to mystify and perplex me. The first and obvious point is why Don Rumsfeld thought that he didn't need an occupation plan. The second point is why the Sunnis in Iraq continued to Iraq against their own self interest. As the media continues to cover Iraq like so many car crashes on the 6 o'clock news, more reliable sources of information indicate that the Sunnis in Iraq are finally starting to wise up.
The main gripe of the Sunnis has always been that they, even though a minority, have always been in charge and should always be in charge. The Sunni dominated Ottoman empire placed Sunnis in the bureaucracy of the three provinces that make up what is now modern day Iraq: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul. When the Ottoman empire was carved up by Winston Churchill and others, the British decided that the long suffering majority Shia were troublesome and inexperienced at self government. To maintain stability, the British decided to install the very same Ottoman bureaucrats, backed up by British military might.
The 1920 Shia revolt in the lower and middle Euphrates basin against this injustice was suppressed by the British, who took advantage of their superiority in air power. History was repeated in 1991 when the same Shia in the same region were suppressed by Saddam, primarily using his superiority in air power.
The overthrow of Saddam and the installation of a Shia dominated representative government sent shock waves that reverberated inside Iraq and among the other countries in the region. The neighboring Sunni dominated states of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Turkey were shocked by the sudden ascension of the Shia to power in such a large and resource rich country like Iraq. Iraq is the only Arab country with oil and water resources. Properly guided, Iraq could easily feed the Middle East and become a large exporter of agricultural foodstuffs.
Until very recently, no oil was known to be in the Sunni dominated areas of Iraq. With known oil reserves firmly in control of the Shia and Kurds, the only hope for accessing this wealth was through a Sunni participation in a unified and representative Iraq. Since 2003 the Iraqi Sunni dominated insurgency has been operating contrary to this obvious self interest. This was clear to me even when I was in Iraq back in 2003-04.
Fouad Ajami, a Professor at Johns Hopkins, author, and frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, recently provided some interesting insight into the Sunni thinking the last few years. He quoted one Iraqi Sunni who had complained that they Sunnis had been waiting all these years for their Sunni brethren in the neighboring countries to come and save them from the Shia infidels. As if Syria and Saudi Arabia were going to invade Iraq, oust the American occupiers and reinstall the Baath party.
They were seriously deluded, but finally (Thank God! or Praise Allah, if you insist) they have started to come to grips with reality. See www.billroggio.com for the details, but the Sunni tribes in Anbar province (home of such scenic cities as Fallujah and Ramadi) have begun to band together to fight Al Qaeda. The tribes have banded together into paramilitary formations (recognized and condoned by the Baghdad government) that are engaging in pitched battles with Al Qaeda terrorist cells.
Most if not all of the Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners who have come to Iraq from all over the Arab world to kill Americans. Wherever Al Qaeda elements have taken control of cities in Anbar province they immediately established a form of Taliban fascist dictatorship. Last year, when the Sunni tribes rebelled against this form of rule internecine fighting broke out between Al Qaeda and the Sunni tribes. Initially, Al Qaeda had the upper hand, with tactics such as terrorists attacks on Sunni tribal leaders that didn't tow the line.
Finally, last Fall, the tribal leaders banded together into a military and POLITICAL organization to resist Al Qaeda and seek help from the Baghdad government and the U.S. military. The tribes were able to supply a lot of actionable intelligence to the U.S. military and this has resulted in numerous raids, disruptions of Al Qaeda terror networks of the capture or death of a number of senior Al Qaeda Iraq leaders. Recently, tribes in other Sunni dominated provinces, like Diyala, have witnessed the success of the tribes in Anbar and have created similar organizations.
Now, everything is not hugs and kisses between the Sunnis and the U.S. military. They won't ever forgive us for removing them from power and installing the Shia. At least now they are acting in their own self interest. They have recognized that Al Qaeda is the greater enemy to them. They have in essence switched sides. This is big.
Unfortunately, even if General Petraeus and the Baghdad government turn Iraq back into the Garden of Eden this summer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi won't be happy with the results.
The main gripe of the Sunnis has always been that they, even though a minority, have always been in charge and should always be in charge. The Sunni dominated Ottoman empire placed Sunnis in the bureaucracy of the three provinces that make up what is now modern day Iraq: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul. When the Ottoman empire was carved up by Winston Churchill and others, the British decided that the long suffering majority Shia were troublesome and inexperienced at self government. To maintain stability, the British decided to install the very same Ottoman bureaucrats, backed up by British military might.
The 1920 Shia revolt in the lower and middle Euphrates basin against this injustice was suppressed by the British, who took advantage of their superiority in air power. History was repeated in 1991 when the same Shia in the same region were suppressed by Saddam, primarily using his superiority in air power.
The overthrow of Saddam and the installation of a Shia dominated representative government sent shock waves that reverberated inside Iraq and among the other countries in the region. The neighboring Sunni dominated states of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Turkey were shocked by the sudden ascension of the Shia to power in such a large and resource rich country like Iraq. Iraq is the only Arab country with oil and water resources. Properly guided, Iraq could easily feed the Middle East and become a large exporter of agricultural foodstuffs.
Until very recently, no oil was known to be in the Sunni dominated areas of Iraq. With known oil reserves firmly in control of the Shia and Kurds, the only hope for accessing this wealth was through a Sunni participation in a unified and representative Iraq. Since 2003 the Iraqi Sunni dominated insurgency has been operating contrary to this obvious self interest. This was clear to me even when I was in Iraq back in 2003-04.
Fouad Ajami, a Professor at Johns Hopkins, author, and frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal, recently provided some interesting insight into the Sunni thinking the last few years. He quoted one Iraqi Sunni who had complained that they Sunnis had been waiting all these years for their Sunni brethren in the neighboring countries to come and save them from the Shia infidels. As if Syria and Saudi Arabia were going to invade Iraq, oust the American occupiers and reinstall the Baath party.
They were seriously deluded, but finally (Thank God! or Praise Allah, if you insist) they have started to come to grips with reality. See www.billroggio.com for the details, but the Sunni tribes in Anbar province (home of such scenic cities as Fallujah and Ramadi) have begun to band together to fight Al Qaeda. The tribes have banded together into paramilitary formations (recognized and condoned by the Baghdad government) that are engaging in pitched battles with Al Qaeda terrorist cells.
Most if not all of the Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners who have come to Iraq from all over the Arab world to kill Americans. Wherever Al Qaeda elements have taken control of cities in Anbar province they immediately established a form of Taliban fascist dictatorship. Last year, when the Sunni tribes rebelled against this form of rule internecine fighting broke out between Al Qaeda and the Sunni tribes. Initially, Al Qaeda had the upper hand, with tactics such as terrorists attacks on Sunni tribal leaders that didn't tow the line.
Finally, last Fall, the tribal leaders banded together into a military and POLITICAL organization to resist Al Qaeda and seek help from the Baghdad government and the U.S. military. The tribes were able to supply a lot of actionable intelligence to the U.S. military and this has resulted in numerous raids, disruptions of Al Qaeda terror networks of the capture or death of a number of senior Al Qaeda Iraq leaders. Recently, tribes in other Sunni dominated provinces, like Diyala, have witnessed the success of the tribes in Anbar and have created similar organizations.
Now, everything is not hugs and kisses between the Sunnis and the U.S. military. They won't ever forgive us for removing them from power and installing the Shia. At least now they are acting in their own self interest. They have recognized that Al Qaeda is the greater enemy to them. They have in essence switched sides. This is big.
Unfortunately, even if General Petraeus and the Baghdad government turn Iraq back into the Garden of Eden this summer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi won't be happy with the results.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
"The war is lost," says Harry Reid
The most polite thing that I can say about Harry is that he is grossly misinformed. Ignorance can be cured but stupidity cannot, so I will leave it to the reader to place General Reid in the proper category. I have promised myself that I wouldn't spend the rest of my life being angry at people yet Harry and Nancy continue to test me.
When I returned home from Iraq I found solace and comfort in the Memoirs of U.S. Grant. In my military career different Chiefs of Staff of the Army have published recommended reading lists for officers and I noted that Grant's memoirs were always prominently featured. The country is divided now over the war in Iraq but the divisions in the Civil War were much deeper. Not only had the southern states seceded from the Union but many people in the north, horrified at the slaughter on the battle fields, were deeply opposed to President Lincoln's war policies.
In 1863, as Grant struggled to take Vicksburg he had many northern newspapers brought to him so that he could gauge public opinion. These newspapers were full of advice and criticism about his generalship and conduct of the Vicksburg campaign. His resignation and/or relief were frequent topics of editorials. The tenor of these criticisms weighed on his military decisions as he maneuvered Sherman on a variety of different routes in an effort to get him into position to assail the city. Grant was well aware that the fate of his President and the war was hanging on the success of his Vicksburg campaign.
Field Marshall Reid has declared the so-called "surge" a failure, even though all the troops called for by this strategy are not yet in place. I have serious doubts about Harry's military judgment, whether the issue relates to tactical, operational or strategic military questions. General Petreus is coming to Washington this week to testify to the House on the progress of the war. General Petreus is a good man and well qualified to report on the status of the Iraq campaign. Like General Grant, Petreus is well aware that the fate of a President and the war are riding on his success. Whatever Harry thinks that he is doing, he is not making the good generals job any easier, or the jobs of the many American service men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When I returned home from Iraq I found solace and comfort in the Memoirs of U.S. Grant. In my military career different Chiefs of Staff of the Army have published recommended reading lists for officers and I noted that Grant's memoirs were always prominently featured. The country is divided now over the war in Iraq but the divisions in the Civil War were much deeper. Not only had the southern states seceded from the Union but many people in the north, horrified at the slaughter on the battle fields, were deeply opposed to President Lincoln's war policies.
In 1863, as Grant struggled to take Vicksburg he had many northern newspapers brought to him so that he could gauge public opinion. These newspapers were full of advice and criticism about his generalship and conduct of the Vicksburg campaign. His resignation and/or relief were frequent topics of editorials. The tenor of these criticisms weighed on his military decisions as he maneuvered Sherman on a variety of different routes in an effort to get him into position to assail the city. Grant was well aware that the fate of his President and the war was hanging on the success of his Vicksburg campaign.
Field Marshall Reid has declared the so-called "surge" a failure, even though all the troops called for by this strategy are not yet in place. I have serious doubts about Harry's military judgment, whether the issue relates to tactical, operational or strategic military questions. General Petreus is coming to Washington this week to testify to the House on the progress of the war. General Petreus is a good man and well qualified to report on the status of the Iraq campaign. Like General Grant, Petreus is well aware that the fate of a President and the war are riding on his success. Whatever Harry thinks that he is doing, he is not making the good generals job any easier, or the jobs of the many American service men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)