A soldier's viewpoint

I have copied this in its entirety from another site that requires you to register and go thru e-mail rigamorole to read the article. http://info.interactivist.net/ It's rather long, but interesting, I think.

QUOTE:

The writer is currently being investigated by the military and could face treason charges and the gulag if convicted. The investigation was prompted by this article.

Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more dollars and even more casualties than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the
idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

September 20, 2004

Al Lorentz [send him mail] is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.

Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com

END QUOTE

[slang]

A truly interesting article. It seems to me that any thinking person could not help but to come to the conclusion that this is the modern day Viet Nam and that the current leadership is soley responsible for the whole problem.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Ah, but Lorentz fails to take into consideration, God is on OUR side.

[busterb]

Aw Shucks born again.

[404Error]

Here's a letter from a soldier I have copied in it's entirety from an email that was sent to me. It's from another website that presents a view from the other side of the spectrum.

Forwarded From: http://Moms4Bush.com

We asked this active Air Force member if we could share his letter with our group. We all just had a hectic week ~ Lots of PR and along with that some other not so kind comments ~ the debate on Thursday. This letter should inspire you to keep working hard for the next 31 days, to keep President Bush in office! Though addressed to ma'am, it is for all our volunteers and our other grassroots friends!

==================

Ma’am,

I would like to express my personal gratitude to your group and the others like it. President Bush is not only my president, but my Commander-in-Chief as well. I am a member of the United States Air Force and have deployed to the Middle East five times. That would be five times more than most of those that sit in their armchairs at night, watching the evening news, telling their families what our foreign policy should be. I have been there. I have seen the face of terrorism. If we do not fight the terrorists in their own backyard, we will be fighting them in ours. I prefer the former. Trust me when I say this, President Bush is pursuing the correct policy. I am not alone in my feelings. At least 90% of my brothers-in-arms, across all branches agree with what we are doing to stem the tide of terrorism. Our biggest fear is that John Kerry will be elected president, and we will not be able to complete our important work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I often hear people say that there is no link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism. That is on par with saying that there was no link between the Nazis and Japan during WWII. The Nazis did not attack us on December 7, 1941, yet our leadership saw a growing threat from Germany as well as a direct threat from Japan. I liken this vision to President Bush’s clear vision of the task at hand. Unfortunately, military members are not authorized to speak their minds in regards to political issues. If they could, you would hear a resounding roar of support for President Bush. It is a difficult task, however, with your organization and others like it, we are often reminded as to why we stand so boldly in the face of terror. It is for you, and all Americans, that I wear my uniform with pride and would defend to the death your freedom, and the freedom of your children.

God bless you,

MSgt __________ _________ (name omitted)

Your Leadership Team
Security Moms For Bush
Website: www.moms4bush.com
email: Founder@moms4bush.com

[tw]

Originally Posted by 404Error

I am a member of the United States Air Force and have deployed to the Middle East five times. That would be five times more than most of those that sit in their armchairs at night, watching the evening news, telling their families what our foreign policy should be. I have been there. I have seen the face of terrorism. If we do not fight the terrorists in their own backyard, we will be fighting them in ours.

If he looked into the eyes of terrorism, then why did he not shoot bin Laden right then and there. Oh. bin Laden is no longer the eyes of terrorism? This Master Sergeant's own generals said Saddam was a threat to no one. Why then does this Master Sergeant know more?

Retired generals tend to speak for the active generals (because active generals are not permitted to speak). No mystery about Gen Tommy Franks extreme anger when George Jr told him to reverse direction - plan an attack of Iraq. Of course he was mad. Anyone with minimal intelligence knows who the terrorist is - bin Landen. Same person who attacked the WTC and Pentagon, attacked two American embassies in Africa, attacked the USS Cole, and failed (because Clinton did his job) attacks on LAX, US embassy in Tirana, Christian tourists on Mt Nebo, massive bomb on Amman Radisson in Jordan, USS The Sullivans (in Yemen), and a possible attack on Montreal, US embassies in Uganda and Rwanda, and on Time Square - all during or after Millenium celebrations . Same person we stopped going after because George Jr had a revelation?

So what did Saddam attack? Funny how facts dispute those who blindly follow a lying president.

Of course this Master Sergeant knew all this when he tells us he looked into the eyes of bin Laden.

Why did the Master Sergeant not shoot bin Laden right there? Because he never really looked into the eyes of THE terrorist. A mental midget president using classic propaganda in a Jan 2002 State of the Union address easily confused this poor Master Sergeant and many other Americans. The danger here is that the Master Sergeant may be fighting a war he does not understand - just like in Vietnam. Exactly why this expression exists: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

People who know far more than a simple Master Sergeant have long been saying who the terrorist is. It's no mystery. It's bin Laden. bin Laden is not in Iraq. Furthermore, those with knowledge said Saddam was a threat to no one. Again, a no brainer. Wonder why this Master Sergeant was never officer material. A president openly lies and some people even believe him. And yes, some people in the deep south once believed blacks were monkeys - because they were told so. Its called learning to think for yourself. Some never learn - and still become president.

[lookout123]

No mystery about Gen Tommy Franks extreme anger when George Jr told him to reverse direction - plan an attack of Iraq. Of course he was mad.

what source document are you using for your knowledge of Franks' anger at going to Iraq? I've never seen anything to suggest he was anything but positive about the concept of going into Iraq. His interviews, his articles, and his own autobiography support this. rightly or wrongly, Franks sees himself as a student of maneuver warfare and an excellent strategist. Franks approached this as a test of his abilities.

This Master Sergeant's own generals said Saddam was a threat to no one.

without debating whether or not saddam was a threat, i would caution you on this statement. the AF generals (retired) that have come out against the war are Merrill McPeak and his boys. The legacy of McPeak's leadership is that he liked to change our uniforms a lot - McPeak was an extremely political animal without a lot of in service respect and support.

People who know far more than a simple Master Sergeant have long been saying who the terrorist is...
...Wonder why this Master Sergeant was never officer material.

come on, tw - even though we disagree 99.9% of the time, i expect better out of you. this is just pure condescension on your part. the modern enlisted force is not filled with a bunch of mindless monkeys. The fact that he is an E7 does not speak to his intelligence or his abilities - only to the fact that he did not choose to pursue a commission. the modern enlisted force has a higher level of education than the officer corps did pre-1975.

Originally Posted by lookout123

come on, tw - even though we disagree 99.9% of the time, i expect better out of you. this is just pure condescension on your part. the modern enlisted force is not filled with a bunch of mindless monkeys. The fact that he is an E7 does not speak to his intelligence or his abilities - only to the fact that he did not choose to pursue a commission. the modern enlisted force has a higher level of education than the officer corps did pre-1975.

For once I agree with Lookout! E7's and E8's are no fools. They form the backbone of the enlisted army and many a green lieutenant or captain would be lost without his far more experienced master sergeant to show him the ropes. Also, a master sergeant with 20 years in the military makes more than a lower level officer. Look at the education and well thought out writing displayed by the non-commissioned officer whose letter I started this thread with.

[wolf]

I know a Sgt. with a Master's. I also know a lady who was a CPO in the Navy (Gulf War I vet, was on the ground in Kuwait, staffing a mobile hospital), has a Master's in Counselling (and damn good at it too ... she's also an EMT/Paramedic Instructor) who only took officer rank when she switched branches of service to get an increase in grade. The Navy wouldn't make her a Lt., but the Army did.

[lookout123]

there are many people who are enlisted because in the sometimes arbitrary world of the military - the job only exists in the enlisted ranks (mine is one. 24 enlisted people in my area, all have at least a Bachelor's.) i've turned down the opportunity for commissioning because i truly enjoy my field.

AFSOF until the last 12 months were enlisted only. they have now created a commissioned position within these units and most of the slots have been filled by enlisted people who were already serving in the field.

the AF uses such a large number of officer billets for pilots and other aircrew positions that many jobs that are done by officers in other branches, must be filled by enlisted in the USAF. even some bizarre positions like Historian are enlisted only in the AF. the army still uses officers only in the position. the educational requirements are the same, force structure sometimes dictates what jobs are for enlisted and what are for officer.

[Joe Faux]

Whether someone is educated or not., the facts remain.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...casualties.htm

[lookout123]

who is debating the fact that the attacks have been increasing? that is an indisputable fact. this thread was more about the attitudes of the troops on the ground. high casualty rate doesn't necessarily mean low morale rate, although we are hearing more from the troops who are opposed to the war.

Originally Posted by wolf

I know a Sgt. with a Master's.

Does that make him/her a Master's Sgt.? Bad pun, but I couldn't stop myself!

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

what source document are you using for your knowledge of Franks' anger at going to Iraq? I've never seen anything to suggest he was anything but positive about the concept of going into Iraq. His interviews, his articles, and his own autobiography support this. rightly or wrongly, Franks sees himself as a student of maneuver warfare and an excellent strategist. Franks approached this as a test of his abilities.

It was leaked to the press sometime after the Iraq war started. It was reported as part of some news articles about the Iraq war - when others were complaining about information overload.

from Bob Woodwards' Plan of Attack
After Frank's mini-explosion on Novermber 21 when he had gotten word that Rumsfeld wanted a commander's estimate on the Iraq war plan, the general soon settled down.

Other news reports vary as to how long it took him to settle down. He literally exploded over that absurd request - and justifiably so. Some reports suggest he settled down that day. Others report it took him many days to get over this rediculous idea of an Iraq invasion. But his anger was clearly justified.

Look at the numbers - the dates. World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked 11 September. By Wednesday before Thanksgiving, Tommy Franks is being ordered to plan the attack on Iraq - when we have not even yet invaded Afghanistan.

Back then he rationalized to his deputy Renuart, "Don't get too worreid. We'll just do what we can. I just can't imagine this is something we're going to be doing anytme soon." He was wrong. On Friday, 28 Dec in TX, Franks is breifing George Jr on Iraq invasion plans.

It was common knowledge that Frank was not the only general furious with this Iraq invasion nonsense. Military analysts even demanded to see the only evidence George Jr had that Iraq was building nuclear weapons. The only evidence were speculations about aluminum tubes. Today we know that technical analysts by the dozens were correct - those tubes were only for making rockets - to duplicate an Italian rocket called Medusa. Even the company (Zippe?) who made centrifuges that George Jr claimed Saddam was duplicating said those aluminum tubes were wrong - completely wrong - for uranium processing.

Of course, you have read today the long NY Times articles that demonstrates how this admistration perverted facts to justify the Iraq war:How the White House Embraced Disputed Arms Intelligence Perverted is a word very appropriate to how George Jr decisions are made.

Miltary analysts demanded to see the evidence and found it lacking. Repeatedly, those who know how the work gets done were upset with the mental midget president's decision to invade Iraq. It made no logical sense. That is painfully obvious with what the retired generals were saying back then. An Iraq invasion was not justified. Franks was correct to be angry. Even back then, a war with iraq was obviously wrong - once you eliminate the propaganda from the White House and their mouth pieces - ie Rush Limbaugh.

Again I make the point that you don't have enough information to dispute what I post. Gen Franks was clearly furious when told to plan for the Iraq invasion. And he should have been.

Based upon far more information, I have conceded to this conclusion. To many sources - especially the video of him sitting in the FL classroom - say this president does not make his own decisions. He is told what to think. That, lookout123, is the daming fact that becomes obvious as one reads more facts - and discounts everything from the White House and its mouth piece Fox News.

Franks was furious that we were even talking about an Iraq invasion - because unlike the president, Franks is intelligent. Ironically, Franks even reads his own memos. Wish we could say that about the current president. Lookout123, if your sources are sufficient, then you too conceded this president does not even read his own Presidental Daily Briefings. He essentially admitted same in the National TV debates.

We disagree because - and I say again - your information sources are insufficient. Therefore you support a president who repeatedly lies. Once you start doing some heavy reading, you will discover this is a terrible president who has earned his adverse credibility throughout the world. (Please list how many leaders even visited this president during the start of a new UN General Assembly session. Why do they avoid this president in droves?)

He just sat their in that FL classroom for seven minutes. He did not even ask if anyone was in charge. I ask others repeatedly what they would have done if Andy Card said to them, "A second plane has just hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Everyone - yes everyone - says they would have gotten up and left the classroom immediately. George Jr never even asked one question for seven minutes. Seven minutes when fighter pilots still had no authorization to fire - to protect America. Why? I finally had to concede. This president waits to be told what his decision will be. That is why we disagree. I have conceded this president is even worse than I thought only one year ago.

This president even and intentionally confuses the war on terrorism - bin Laden - with someone who was a threat to no one - Saddam. Well at least he finally admitted on National TV that he knows the difference between Saddam and bin Laden. We had to wonder.

When, dear lookout123, will you recommend we go get bin Laden. When do we finally go after America's number one enemy? We are not doing so now because the mental midget president lies. He says Saddam was the threat. He ignores bin Laden - America's number one enemy and an enemy of Saddam. Even you must now admit - the president therefore lies. When do you think we will finally go after bin Laden? Please, if you have any credible news sources, then you can clearly answer that question. Lookout123 now being characterized as the typical George Jr supporter. When do we go after bin Laden?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

who is debating the fact that the attacks have been increasing? that is an indisputable fact.

What is also is not debated is that I posted long ago, that you don't disban the Iraqi military and police. I originally quoted or paraphrased a 500 BC author - Sze Tze - his book "Art of War" - when Bremmer was still there. If we had intelligent leadership, then the army and police would never have been disbanned. Today's American deaths and the resulting double or tripling of insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr and his replacement for Lt Gen Jay Garner. Garner, it is believed, opposed a disban of the army and police. Therefore Bremmer replaced him. George Jr - because he does not have basic knowledge of military political history - created this Iraq insurgancy.

So lookout123 - do you deny this insurgency is directly traceable to George Jr? Or do you assume this was inevitable. Any leader with even basic knowledge - or who had even seen the end of the movie Patton - knew disbanning of military and police was wrong. When do we blame top management - George Jr - for making just another problem? When do you, lookout123, admit that all this insurgency and American casulties (we don't even list the many Americans who lost limbs) is directly traceable to George Jr's lack of basic knowledge?

Yes it is hard nose questioning. And it should be. The alternative is proven by Vietnam. If one thinks George Jr should be relected, then one better have the long posts full of facts to justify this president. We have a serious crisis here. It's called a president who does not even read his own memos. Who sits for seven minutes in a FL classroom while America is under attack - and does not even ask one simple question such as "Who is in charge?". These are daming facts that lookout123, as the typical George Jr supporter, must reply to - if he can. Please tell us that George Jr did not make Iraq ripe for insurgency. Please explain where he made an intelligent decision to disban the military and police? Americans are dying due to his decision.