Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

STING2

Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
8,876
Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating
Leaving fledgling state could help insurgents, betray Iraqis, troops warn


FORWARD OPERATING BASE SYKES, Iraq - For the U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, the war is alternately violent and hopeful, sometimes very hot and sometimes very cold. It is dusty and muddy, calm and chaotic, deafeningly loud and eerily quiet.

The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

With a potentially historic U.S. midterm election on Tuesday and the war in Iraq a major issue at the polls, many soldiers said the United States should not abandon its effort here. Such a move, enlisted soldiers and officers said, would set Iraq on a path to civil war, give new life to the insurgency and create the possibility of a failed state after nearly four years of fighting to implant democracy.

"Take us out of that vacuum -- and it's on the edge now -- and boom, it would become a free-for-all," said Lt. Col. Mark Suich, who commands the 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment just south of Baghdad. "It would be a raw contention for power. That would be the bloodiest piece of this war."

The soldiers declined to discuss the political jousting back home, but they expressed support for the Bush administration's approach to the war, which they described as sticking with a tumultuous situation to give Iraq a chance to stand on its own.

Leading Democrats have argued for a timeline to bring U.S. troops home, because obvious progress has been elusive, especially in Baghdad, and even some Republican lawmakers have recently called for a change in strategy. But soldiers criticized the idea of a precipitate withdrawal, largely because they believe their hard work would go for naught.

'A simple solution just isn't possible'
Capt. Jim Modlin, 26, of Oceanport, N.J., said he thought the situation in Iraq had improved between his deployment in 2003 and his return this year as a liaison officer to Iraqi security forces with the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, based here on FOB Sykes outside Tall Afar. Modlin described himself as more liberal than conservative and said he had already cast his absentee ballot in Texas. He said he believed that U.S. elected officials would lead the military in the right direction, regardless of what happens Tuesday.

"Pulling out now would be as bad or worse than going forward with no changes," Modlin said. "Sectarian violence would be rampant, democracy would cease to exist, and the rule of law would be decimated. It's not 'stay the course,' and it's not 'cut and run' or other political catchphrases. There are people's lives here. There are so many different dynamics that go on here that a simple solution just isn't possible."

Soldiers and officers had difficulty conveying what victory in Iraq would look like or exactly how to achieve it. In some ways, victory is a moving target, they said, one that relies heavily on the Iraqi people gaining trust in the Iraqi security forces and the ability of the Iraqi government to support essential services. In northern Iraq, officials said they expect to hand over major parts of the country to Iraqi forces within the next five months, but most agree that Baghdad will be far behind.

Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said.

"This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed."

'On the enemy's terms'
Numerous soldiers expressed frustration with the nature of the fight, which many said amounted to driving around and waiting for the enemy to engage them, often with roadside bombs, known within the military as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs.

"It's frustrating, because it's hard to get into the fight," said Staff Sgt. Robert Wyper, 26, of Riverside, Calif., a squad leader with Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment. Wyper rides around the Mosul area in a Stryker armored vehicle. He has fired a total of four rounds from his weapon since he arrived in August, while several other soldiers said they had never pulled their trigger during their deployments. "The combat we have is on the enemy's terms," Wyper said. "You can shoot at the enemy, but how do you shoot at an IED?"

First Sgt. David Schumacher, 37, of Watertown, N.Y., is on his eighth deployment to a foreign battlefield since a tour in Somalia, and his third tour in Iraq.

"The insurgents are more strategic this time, they're smarter," he said. "We're trying to anticipate their next move, and they're trying to anticipate ours. There's still a lot to do."

In Rushdi Mullah, a small farming village near Baghdad, Capt. Chris Vitale, 29, of Washington, Pa., said his unit's recent moves to the edge of this insurgent safe haven have made a major difference for residents. "If my unit left town, the insurgents would come back in and use it to stage attacks on Baghdad," he said. "I'm sure of it."

In the north, where Iraqi army and police units have made strides toward controlling their own territory, U.S. soldiers said they were at a critical point in helping the Iraqi forces develop.

'An extreme betrayal for us to leave'
Capt. Mike Lingenfelter, 32, of Panhandle, Tex., said that U.S. troops have earned the trust of residents in Tall Afar over the past couple of years and that leaving now would send the wrong message. His Comanche Troop of the 3rd Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment is working with Iraqi forces to give them control of the city.

"We'll pull their feet out from under them if we leave," Lingenfelter said.

"It's still fragile enough now that if the coalition were to leave, it would embolden the insurgents. A lot of people have put their trust and faith in us to see it to the end. It would be an extreme betrayal for us to leave."

Sgt. Jonathan Kirkendall, 23, of Falls City, Neb., said he fears that many Americans think that building the country to viability will be "quick and easy," when he believes it could take many years. Kirkendall, of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division in Baghdad, is on his third deployment to Iraq and celebrated his 21st and 23rd birthdays here.

"If they say leave in six months, we'll leave in six months. If they say six years, it's six years," said Kirkendall, who is awaiting the birth of his first daughter, due next week.

"I'm just an average soldier, and I'll do what they tell me to do. I'm proud to be a part of it, either way it goes, but I'd like to see it through."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15582948/
 
Too bad Bush couldn't convince enough other countries to send troops, so that we could bring more of our troops home and/or redeploy them elsewhere.

Remember the good old days, when Clinton was in office? When we removed Milosevic from power with a total of THREE American casualties, because we had a much better military and because we had a coalition of countries and allies working together?
 
LyricalDrug said:
Too bad Bush couldn't convince enough other countries to send troops, so that we could bring more of our troops home and/or redeploy them elsewhere.
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Estonia
Georgia
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
South Korea
Ukraine
United Kingdom
 
STING2 said:
Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating
Leaving fledgling state could help insurgents, betray Iraqis, troops warn

...


The one thing the war is not, however, is finished, dozens of soldiers across the country said in interviews. And leaving Iraq now would have devastating consequences, they said.

You broke it, you fix it.
 
LyricalDrug said:
Too bad Bush couldn't convince enough other countries to send troops, so that we could bring more of our troops home and/or redeploy them elsewhere.

Remember the good old days, when Clinton was in office? When we removed Milosevic from power with a total of THREE American casualties, because we had a much better military and because we had a coalition of countries and allies working together?

Oh. My. God. Yes, Clinton, that military mastermind; it's too bad he couldn't come back to save the world.

You probably don't know about/remember Haiti and Somalia; The attack on the pharmaceutical plant, the missles in the dirt at Bin Laden's terror camp when we KNEW he was there, the first attack on the WTC, the OKC bombing, the buying off of N. Korea which got us in the mess with them that we are now, The USS Cole, among the other disasters, scadals, and national embarassments.

Yeah, he was BRILLIANT. Bush may've mess this up, and if we leave now it'd be a disaster for the Iraqi's, but wishing for clinton is like getting kicked in the nuts and wishing for your hand to get chopped off to take your mind off it.
 
Last edited:
Macfistowannabe said:
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Estonia
Georgia
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
South Korea
Ukraine
United Kingdom

What, no numbers?
 
I do not get the point of this thread....

Hmmmm.....trolling?
 
Snowlock said:


Oh. My. God. Yes, Clinton, that military mastermind; it's too bad he couldn't come back to save the world.

You probably don't know about/remember Haiti and Somalia; The attack on the pharmaceutical plant, the missles in the dirt at Bin Laden's terror camp when we KNEW he was there, the first attack on the WTC, the OKC bombing, the buying off of N. Korea which got us in the mess with them that we are now, The USS Cole, among the other disasters, scadals, and national embarassments.

Yeah, he was BRILLIANT. Bush may've mess this up, and if we leave now it'd be a disaster for the Iraqi's, but wishing for clinton is like getting kicked in the nuts and wishing for your hand to get chopped off to take your mind off it.

Clinton removed Milosevic with 3 American casualties. How many more Americans are going to die for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.
 
LyricalDrug said:

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.

I know plenty of successful alcoholics.

Bush was in the service did not dodge.

And he won the war but is losing the reconstruction.
 
LyricalDrug said:


Clinton removed Milosevic with 3 American casualties. How many more Americans are going to die for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.

Um, we're still in Afghanistan.

Come back when you're better educated.
 
LyricalDrug said:

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

And now there are 43 dead Canadians, thanks to that decision.

Even if Iraq somehow manages to calm down and everything settles down, I will never - NEVER forgive Bush for that.

And he couldn't care less.

I will protest the man every chance I get until the day one of us dies.

43 of my countrymen are dead because of this mentally handicapped shitstain's personal vendetta.

Some days I wish he had put just a little too much blow up his nose in college. Thousands of people would be alive.

And he couldn't care less.

:|
 
Snowlock said:


Um, we're still in Afghanistan.

Come back when you're better educated.

With a limited, ineffective presence. Bush cut-and-run before he caught bin Laden, even when the U.S. had him cornered in Afghanistan.

Why? Because he needed troops for his Iraq fiasco. And why did he need troops for the Iraq fiasco? Because he couldn't convince enough other major nations to send troops, too.
 
Dreadsox said:


I know plenty of successful alcoholics.

Bush was in the service did not dodge.

And he won the war but is losing the reconstruction.

Oh right, we "won the war." Where did you hear that? Oh, was it the big "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush stood in front of, when he prematurely declared victory a couple years back? And which the White House has had to scramble to distance itself from?

Bush is a complete joke. He has an approval rating of 39%, and will be remembered as one of the least popular and worst Presidents in American history.
 
Re: Re: Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating

VintagePunk said:

You broke it, you fix it.

Exactly. The fact that the army feels leaving now will create such a storm is no boast. You broke it, fix it. You completely messed it up, you fix it. You tore the country apart, you fix it. You brought the whole region to such a dangerous place, you fucking fix it. You're right STING.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
Albania
Armenia
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Estonia
Georgia
Italy
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Moldova
Mongolia
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Singapore
Slovakia
South Korea
Ukraine
United Kingdom

The numbers can be found in a table (at the bottom of the page) here (go Moldova!):

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm

Uh, i guess it's the moral support that counts more with most of these countries? (I'm trying to be understanding.)
 
So basically we can summarize the initial post like this.

If you walk up to a dam and hit it with a hammer, and a chunk falls out, you stick your finger in to try and stop the water. Now cracks are forming and it's leaking water like crazy, but it's better to sit there with your finger in the hole slowing the flow of water than taking your finger out and getting completely swamped.

Well duh. Either way it still sucks and you shouldn't have hit the damn thing with a hammer to begin with.
 
LyricalDrug said:


Clinton removed Milosevic with 3 American casualties. How many more Americans are going to die for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.
And the lives cost under the sanction regime that the Clinton administration saw as a price worth paying? Responsibility for Iraq extends well before this administration and the body count already extended into the hundreds of thousands.
 
LyricalDrug said:


Oh right, we "won the war." Where did you hear that? Oh, was it the big "Mission Accomplished" banner that Bush stood in front of, when he prematurely declared victory a couple years back? And which the White House has had to scramble to distance itself from?

Bush is a complete joke. He has an approval rating of 39%, and will be remembered as one of the least popular and worst Presidents in American history.

I think we disagree on everything.
 
LyricalDrug said:
Too bad Bush couldn't convince enough other countries to send troops, so that we could bring more of our troops home and/or redeploy them elsewhere.

Remember the good old days, when Clinton was in office? When we removed Milosevic from power with a total of THREE American casualties, because we had a much better military and because we had a coalition of countries and allies working together?

Milosevic was not removed from power by Clinton, the United States or NATO, he was removed by the people of Serbia in October 2000, more than a year after the last bombs fell on Kosovo and NATO troops occupied the province.

The US Military today is far more advanced, experienced, trained, as well as funded than Clintons military of the 1990s. Casaulties did not occur in Kosovo or Bosnia because Clinton restricted combat to airstrikes at 15,000 feet above sea level. In addition, the airstrikes often targeted duel use faciliities important to the general public as well as the Serbian military. The destruction of Serbian infrustructure, not its military, led to Serb capitulation after 80 plus days of bombing.

As for the Allies, the United States conducted nearly 90% of all the airstrikes in both campaigns.
 
LyricalDrug said:


Clinton removed Milosevic with 3 American casualties. How many more Americans are going to die for the removal of Saddam Hussein?

And why did Bush cut-and-run in Afghanistan, without capturing bin Laden?

Bush is an alcoholic draft-dodger who knows much, much less about the military than Clinton. He's losing this war.

Clinton did not remove Milosevic. Bush did not cut and run from Afghanistan. As the war in Iraq started, the number of troops in Afghanistan DOUBLED!

Clinton disarmament and containment strategy against Saddam failed which is why regime change became necessary in Iraq.
 
DaveC said:


And now there are 43 dead Canadians, thanks to that decision.

Even if Iraq somehow manages to calm down and everything settles down, I will never - NEVER forgive Bush for that.

And he couldn't care less.

I will protest the man every chance I get until the day one of us dies.

43 of my countrymen are dead because of this mentally handicapped shitstain's personal vendetta.

Some days I wish he had put just a little too much blow up his nose in college. Thousands of people would be alive.

And he couldn't care less.

:|

No one cut and ran from Afghanistan, the number of US troops on the ground has doubled in Afghanistan, not gone down. The invasion of Iraq, conducted primarily by Heavy Armor units, did not impact overall troop levels in Afgahnistan at all!
 
LyricalDrug said:




Bush is a complete joke. He has an approval rating of 39%, and will be remembered as one of the least popular and worst Presidents in American history.

Like Harry Truman right? Harry Truman was at 22% approval before he left office.
 
STING2 said:


Clinton disarmament and containment strategy against Saddam failed which is why regime change became necessary in Iraq.

Why was it necessary? Yes, he was an evil person who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, but there are quite a few evil murderous dictators in the world whose countries we don't invade.

Saddam didn't have WMDs (as Bush led us to believe) and wasn't involved with Al-Qaida (as he also led us to believe). So why was it necessary to remove him and not Kim Jong Il, who does have WMDs?
 
Re: Re: Re: Soldiers say Iraq pullout would be devastating

Earnie Shavers said:


Exactly. The fact that the army feels leaving now will create such a storm is no boast. You broke it, fix it. You completely messed it up, you fix it. You tore the country apart, you fix it. You brought the whole region to such a dangerous place, you fucking fix it. You're right STING.

What was dangerous for the region was a man who invaded and attacked four different counties unprovoked, used WMD more times than any leader in history, murdered 1.7 million people, his own and foreigners, through his wars, threatened the planets chief source of energy supply with siezure and sabotage, would not verifiably disarm of WMD, and was actively doing everything he could to get out from under sanctions and succeeding.

Saddam Hussien broke Iraq and nearly the region, and was removed by the coalition. Now DEMOCRATS want to withdraw prematurely before the rebuilding of Iraq has been completed, which will only lead to another US intervention not long in the future under far worse circumstances.
 
STING2 said:


The US Military today is far more advanced, experienced, trained,


I'm sorry but this made me laugh really hard. I wonder why the military is so much more experienced than under Clinton??? Hmmmmm, I wonder....
 
Diemen said:
So basically we can summarize the initial post like this.

If you walk up to a dam and hit it with a hammer, and a chunk falls out, you stick your finger in to try and stop the water. Now cracks are forming and it's leaking water like crazy, but it's better to sit there with your finger in the hole slowing the flow of water than taking your finger out and getting completely swamped.

Well duh. Either way it still sucks and you shouldn't have hit the damn thing with a hammer to begin with.

The United States did not invade Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or attack Israel, Saddam did. The United States did not use any WMD in the region unlike Saddam who has used more WMD than any leader in history. Saddam had failed to disarm and all of the elements of containment were crumbling. Your DAM was leaking water like crazy. The removal of Saddam has far now removed the immediate danger to Persian Gulf oil supply in Kuwait and Easter Saudi Arabia. But if the United States withdraws prematurely, it will likely create the conditions for another US intervention not to long down the road under far worse circumstances. The Planet is not going to be any less dependent on Oil from Eastern Saudi Arabia in 10 years. The Planet is far more dependent on Oil from Eastern Saudia Arabia than it was in 1990/1991 when the United States sent over 550,000 troops there to remove Saddam from Kuwait, a war that most DEMOCRATS opposed including John Kerry, Joe Biden, and then Rep. Jim Webb.
 
STING2 said:


The United States did not use any WMD in the region unlike Saddam who has used more WMD than any leader in history. Saddam had failed to disarm and all of the elements of containment were crumbling.

These WMDs that you keep talking about, he had a lot of them didn't he? We found tons of them when we invaded, didn't we? Oh, right . . .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom