Maybe, Just Maybe, Good Was Done?

[JMortensen]

OK, how about we look at a different (more positive) poll from that bastion of conservatism, ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

[pparaska]

I think that it is so nice to read things that aren't written by our mass media and come from the average person. Especialy one that doesn't like Bush and has learned something. Now just cause it is written doesn't make it gospel, I know. But it was a good read non-the-less. Thanks for sharing. I too am glad they can vote.

 

Check this out:

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1363469/posts

 

Division Commander's Lessons Learned (real news, 1st Cav Iraq)

 

Posted on 03/15/2005 1:38:49 PM PST by CHARLITE

 

[VHFCN] Real news from Iraq

 

Went to an AUSA dinner last night at the Ft. Hood Officers' Club to hear a speech by MG Pete Chiarelli, CG of the 1st Cav Div. He and most of the Div. have just returned from Iraq. Very informative and, surprise, the Mainstream Media (MSM) isn't telling the story. I was not there as a reporter, didn't take notes but I'll make some the points I remember that were interesting, suprising or generally stuff I had not heard before.

 

It was not a speech per se. He just walked and talked, showed some slides and answered questions. Very impressive guy.

 

1. While units of the Cav served all over Iraq, he spoke mostly of Baghdad and more specifically Sadr City, the big slum on the eastern side of theTigeris River. He pointed out that Baghdad is, in geography, is about the size of Austin. Aus tin has 600,000 to 700,000 people. Baghdad has 6 to7 million people.

 

2. The Cav lost 28 main battle tanks. He said one of the big lessons learned is that, contrary to docterine going in, M1-A2s and Bradleys are needed, preferred and devastating in urban combat and he is going to make that point to the JCS next week while they are considering downsizing armor.

 

3. He showed a graph of attacks in Sadr City by month. Last Aug-Sep they were getting up to 160 attacks per week. During the last three months, the graph had flatlined at below 5 to zero per week.

 

4. His big point was not that they were "winning battles" to do this but that cleaning the place up, electricity, sewage, water were the key factors. He said yes they fought but after they started delivering services that the Iraqis in Sadr City had never had, the terrorist recruiting of 15 and 16 year olds came up empty.

 

5. The electrical "grid" is a bad, deadly joke. Said that driving down the street in a Hummv with an antenna would short out a whole block of apt. buildings. People do their own wiring and it was not uncommon for early morning patrols would find one or two people lying dead in the street, having been electrocuted trying to re-wire their own homes.

 

6. Said that not tending to a dead body in the Muslum culture never happens. On election day, after suicide bombers blew themselves up trying to take out polling places, voters would step up to the body lying there, spit on it, and move up in the line to vote.

 

7. Pointed out that we all heard from the media about the 100 Iraqis killed as they were lined up to enlist in the police and security service. What the media didn't point out was that the next day there 300 lined up in the same place.

 

8. Said bin Laden and Zarqawi made a HUGE mistake when bin laden went public with naming Zarqawi the "prince" of al Quaeda in Iraq. Said that what the Iraqis saw and heard was a Saudi telling a Jordainan that his job was to kill Iraqis. HUGE mistake. It was one of the biggest factors in getting Iraqis who were on the "fence" to jump off on the side of the coalition and the new gov't.

 

9. Said the MSM was making a big, and wrong, deal out of the religious sects. Said Iraqis are incredibly nationalistic. They are Iraqis first and then say they are Muslum but the Shi'a - Sunni thing is just not that big a deal to them.

 

10. After the election the Mayor of Baghdad told him that the people of the region (Middle East) are joyous and the governments are nervous.

 

11. Said that he did not lose a single tanker truck carrying oil and gas over the roads of Iraq. Think about that. All the attacks we saw on TV with IEDs hitting trucks but he didn't lose one. Why? Army Aviation. Praised his air units and said they made the decision early on that every convoy would have helicopter air cover. Said aviators in that unit were hitting the 1,000 hour mark (sound familiar?). Said a convoy was supposed to head out but stopped at the gates of a compound on the command of an E6. He asked the SSG what the hold up was. E6 said, "Air , sir." He wondered what was wrong with the air, not realizing what the kid was talking about. Then the AH-64s showed up and the E6 said, "That air sir." And then moved out.

 

12. Said one of the biggest problems was money and regs. There was a $77 million gap between the supplemental budget and what he needed in cash on the ground to get projects started. Said he spent most of his time trying to get money. Said he didn't do much as a "combat commander" because the the war he was fighting was a war at the squad and platoon level. Said that his NCOs were winning the war and it was a sight to behold.

 

13. Said that of all the money appropriated for Iraq, not a cent was earmarked for agriculture. Said that Iraq could feed itself completely and still have food for export but no one thought about it. Said the Cav started working with Texas A&M on ag projects and had special hybrid seeds sent to them through Jordan. TAM analyzed soil samples and worked out how and what to plant. Said he had an E7 from Belton, TX (just down the road from Ft. Hood) who was almost single-handedly rebuilding the ag industry in the Baghdad area.

 

14. Said he could hire hundreds of Iraqis daily for $7 to $10 a day to work on sewer, electric, water projects, etc. but that the contracting rules from CONUS applied so he had to have $500,000 insurance policies in place in case the workers got hurt. Not kidding. The CONUS peacetime regs slowed everything down, even if they could eventually get waivers for the regs.

 

There was more, lots more, but the idea is that you haven't heard any of this from anyone, at least I hadn't and I pay more attention than most.

 

Great stuff. We should be proud. Said the Cav troops said it was ALL worth it on Jan. 30 when they saw how the Iraqis handled Election Day. Made them very proud of their service and what they had accomplished.

 

The Main Stream Media is, IMO, an even greater evil than the insurgents. They've shown the side of the story that they knew would piss off the most people and bring in the ratings and MONEY. All while keeping their owners' and editors' leftist slant. Our Italian journalist that should have been killed but wasn't is an even worse cancer.

 

If you turn off your brain and listen to the MSM and take what they present you in aggregrate, you end up with an incredibly inaccurate picture of the true reality of what's going on on the ground in Iraq.

[pparaska]

Although it might appear that I made this post as an "I told you so" kind of thing' date=' I really didn't. What I wanted to convey was the idea that the Iraqi election isn't about the US or Bush or Kerry or Rumsfeld or Rice or Vietnam or anything else - its about the Iraqi people finally getting a chance to control their own destiny.

 

Its a realization I came to over the weekend (and that's despite being a supporter of the current administration's policies) and the two posts above kind of reflect that realization (the first more then the second). I really hope, that from this point forward, the Iraqi's take control of their destiny, throw us out, a develop a Constitution enshrining a Democracy, a Republic, a Parliment, or whatever best respresents them as a people.[/quote']

 

John, I believe we are on the exact same wavelength on this. Sure, I was againstthe idea of going in with forces the way we did, not because of some peacnic BS, but because I thought waiting even 10 years to go in covertly (after we'd decided that we needed to invest in that way of doing things in the Middle East) would bear the same fruit, without many of the spoils of war.

 

The issue is that the Iraqi and Afghani people are in much more control of their own destiny (to a person) than they were before, because their oppressive governments are dismantled, and the coalition went in and has helped them help themselves on domestic infrastructure issues.

 

But Bush haters and Republican haters won't ever be able to see that for it's importance, because it takes the wind out of their emotional sails.

[pparaska]

Unfortunately, our quasipuppet govt. we're setting up in Iraq will fail... democracy won't work because it's a country whose laws and morals are solely derived from islam. They will not be able to separate church and state (or, mosque and state in this case) from the govt, and ultimately fail

 

Look at the blog I posted. The Iraqi people are some of the most thoughtful and intelligent people in the world. The rules of their islamic religion don't run their lifes to the point that civil war is inevitable. That's the media saying it is that way. The incredibly shallow media.

[crazy280]

You might think that the media is slanted, but I doubt its the owners. The owners are megarich businessmen, who must cater to the big businesses who place ads in their media source, thereby paying their salaries. The megarich, and big businesses, support the "right" 99% of the time, because, as Charles Barkely once said "they take care of the rich" lol.

[pparaska]

I also wish the US citizens could be more cohesive and supportive of what our country does. It is a great privilage to be able to have a disenting view' date=' but it seems too often the disent is because of political viewpoints and which party is in power rather than what is a good or bad policy.[/quote']

amen to that!

[johnc]

The megarich, and big businesses, support the "right" 99% of the time, because, as Charles Barkely once said "they take care of the rich" lol.

 

Megarich right wing folks like Steve Speilburg, Bill Gates, Barbara Streisand, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Ted Kennedy, Soros, Oprah, Steve Ballmer, ...?

[JMortensen]

You might think that the media is slanted, but I doubt its the owners. The owners are megarich businessmen, who must cater to the big businesses who place ads in their media source, thereby paying their salaries. The megarich, and big businesses, support the "right" 99% of the time, because, as Charles Barkely once said "they take care of the rich" lol.

[sarcasm]I agree. That's why I can't stand those friggin democrats. Did you know they raised more money then the supposedly big biz republicans and STILL lost the elections? That's what I call sticking it to the man![/sarcasm]

[pparaska]

OK, how about we look at a different (more positive) poll from that bastion of conservatism, ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

 

Did anyone read this? Pretty interesting.

[johnc]

I did! Not as positive as the IRI report but still shows that the Iraqi's are feeling things are getting better.

 

Here's a funny shot at the New York Times:

 

http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2005/03/what_to_do_when.html

[crazy280]

Hey, I was trying to be funny there guys. But seriously, the Republicans raised more money than the Democrats in the last presidential election, like they usually do. I watched the head finance guys from the two parties give speaches on C-Span. A common point made was that Republicans get more contributions from wealthy citizens than Democrats do, which is how they raise more money than Dems, and which is why Dems end up taking more "soft money" contributions. All partisan-politics aside, I'm glad the Iraqis have their freedom (well, no more Saddam at least). I agree with Pparaska that we should have done it another way, but at least they can vote now, and I really hope we are successful with the rest of the mission. It is nice to hear positive news about Iraq, admist all of the mayhem. It seems like every day I hear "Three American soldiers were killed today by a car bombing in Iraq" or some variation of that. It's awfully depressing, and I wish our government would have chosen a better route. I can definately appreciate the positive aspects of this war, but it's hard to be happy when our soldiers keep dying (and some of my friends are in the military). Just my oppinion, take it for what it's worth.

[pparaska]

It seems like every day I hear "Three American soldiers were killed today by a car bombing in Iraq" or some variation of that. It's awfully depressing, and I wish our government would have chosen a better route. I can definately appreciate the positive aspects of this war, but it's hard to be happy when our soldiers keep dying (and some of my friends are in the military).

 

To coldly put things in perspective, think of how many people die accidental deaths everyday, or how many people die at the hands of people they know (most murder is by someone known to the victim). Along with those who die in Iraq (both coalition soldiers, and innocent Iraqis at the hands of both sides), all fall into the category of "senseless deaths". You'll find the number of people dying senseless deaths outiside of Iraq pales in comparision of those outside of any connection that the coalition is in Iraq.

 

Again, the main stream media has oversensitized too many people about deaths in Iraq (on both sides and in the innocent middle), to their own advantage.

[pparaska]

Well, here's some interesting info on "senseless deaths" in Iraq, nonetheless, from one of the sources that I was referring too. Just goes to show you generalizations stink:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-17-humvees-usat_x.htm

[crazy280]

I know plenty of people die everyday around the world, but the deaths I'm talking about are as a result of our government's actions, you know? If we can prevent it, I think we should, my values tell me to preserve human life. But since we're already in this mess, we have to clean it up, which means more big-hearted American soldiers are going to die, as well as brave Iraqi/coalition fighters, and innocent civilians. I wouldn't say "senseless deaths" exactly; maybe "avoidable deaths". I guess it's offset partially by the removal of Saddam (a mass murderer), but we still caused a lot of deaths over there and it's hard to get that "feel good" state of mind with such a cloud over my head. Again, just my oppinion...

[johnc]

Not to pick on anyone in particular, just on an attitude in general...

 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

Remember these great words said 120 years ago? Some people think that these words are not appropriate for our soldiers who fought and died in Iraq. They are fighting for the very same reasons as the soldiers who died during our Civil War - freedom and liberty for the oppressed. Could it be that those who think a soldier's death in Iraq is less honorable then a soldier's death 120 years ago because our soldier's now are dying for Arabs and not our fellow countrymen?

[JMortensen]

Hey, I was trying to be funny there guys. But seriously, the Republicans raised more money than the Democrats in the last presidential election, like they usually do. I watched the head finance guys from the two parties give speaches on C-Span. A common point made was that Republicans get more contributions from wealthy citizens than Democrats do, which is how they raise more money than Dems, and which is why Dems end up taking more "soft money" contributions.

I think you're right about Bush and Kerry personally, but Democrats raised more than Repubs as a party:http://www.democrats.org/news/200412060002.html

[JMortensen]

Remember these great words said 120 years ago? Some people think that these words are not appropriate for our soldiers who fought and died in Iraq. They are fighting for the very same reasons as the soldiers who died during our Civil War - freedom and liberty for the oppressed. Could it be that those who think a soldier's death in Iraq is less honorable then a soldier's death 120 years ago because our soldier's now are dying for Arabs and not our fellow countrymen?

I would say that fighting a war in Iraq is not as fundamental to our freedom or the preservation of our country as fighting in Gettysburg. But I would also say that the fight in Iraq was worth fighting, and that the deaths are not in vain.

 

I think Pete hit on something too with this:

Again, the main stream media has oversensitized too many people about deaths in Iraq (on both sides and in the innocent middle), to their own advantage.

This is the same thing I've been trying to say since the war started. Even now at 1500 dead, that is a TINY fraction of what was expected. It is an AMAZINGLY thorough stomping of the Iraqi forces AND the insurgency. To portray it otherwise is just dishonest, and the MSM seems to be losing credibility in the face of the facts.

[JMortensen]

Another timely news story: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050319/ap_on_re_eu/europe_iraq_protests 2 years later and they still don't get it. That's probably because they're all watching the BBC and according to the BBC the whole Iraq thing is a horrible defeat for the US, we're on the verge of throwing in the towel, etc.

[pparaska]

I know plenty of people die everyday around the world, but the deaths I'm talking about are as a result of our government's actions, you know?

 

And what about the deaths and human rights violations of Saddam, his sons, and his government over the past decades? I could say that we ALLOWED those deaths by not putting a stop to Saddam earlier.

 

Are the 1500 U.S. soldiers deaths that are some how more important than the multitude more of Iraqis killed over the years by Saddam's regime for no reason other than they didn't like his government and might have said something against it, etc.

 

The U.S.'s proclivity to go into other countries to try to help the innocent people there (Somalia, etc.) is well known. If a U.S. citizen doesn't want to be put on the spot to defend the rights of others in a foreign country, they know they shouldn't join up or be in the reserves. Somehow, I think that U.S. soldiers who don't want to be in Iraq are a small minority, for just that reason. In fact, the few I've spoken with actually are glad to return.

 

If we can prevent it, I think we should, my values tell me to preserve human life.

 

I'm not sure the following applies to you or not: Is it your values, or your pacifist tendencies? It's very difficult to tell the difference between one feeling or another. Only critical thought can help get a real answer on this. I tend to be a cold calculating person first, and one bent toward emotions second - because I learned long ago that following my feelings only sends me down a road that I later find was foolish and self-serving.

 

But since we're already in this mess, we have to clean it up, which means more big-hearted American soldiers are going to die, as well as brave Iraqi/coalition fighters, and innocent civilians. I wouldn't say "senseless deaths" exactly; maybe "avoidable deaths". I guess it's offset partially by the removal of Saddam (a mass murderer), but we still caused a lot of deaths over there and it's hard to get that "feel good" state of mind with such a cloud over my head. Again, just my oppinion...

 

My advice is this: Forget about your feelings. Do some critical thinking about the facts. You've made some good points in that last paragraph:

 

-Saddam and his regime were a self-serving sadistic bunch who killed and tortured 10s if not 100s of thousands of people over the decades before we ousted him. His people lived in a constant state of fear of the government; fear that they would be tortured and/or killed for next to nothing or stating their opinion.

-More soldiers will die. More Iraqis will die. Balance that with the death and zero human rights that the Iraqi's lived with before we took Saddam's regime down.

 

My use of the term "senseless deaths" was a joke really - all deaths are a waste of human life. One is no more important or senseless than the next. Time has no bearing as well - 100s of thousands killed by Saddam's regime over 4 + decades are no less important than the 1500 US soldiers who've died, the thousands of innocent Iraqi's who've died in the crossfire, mistakes, and retaliation from insurgents, or the dead, misguided young sons of Iraqi fathers and mothers who've been brain washed or otherwise coerced into being insurgents. They're all dead, and all important deaths, no more senseless than the next, IMO.

 

The number of true devils in this war can probably be counted in the 10s. Some would put Bush and his guys in there, others would include people like our italian journalist liar (I sure do). Some would say al-Zaquri and Osama Bin Laden.

 

Question: What should put a cloud over your head? Innocent Iraqi people who've been tortured and/or killed or had their loved ones killed or taken away for decades? Innocent Iraqi people taken out by the insurgents for collaboration wiht the coalition? Friendly Fire deaths on the coalition side? A wedding party killed through a mistake on the part of the US commanders? US soldiers dying in overturned Humvees because they were ill-trained on the consequences of driving them too fast, etc.? Tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who die each year in the US due to auto wrecks, drug use, etc.? I'd hope the answer would be none of them. Life happens. Sometimes the bad stuff is avoidable. Sometimes it's the consequence of trying to do some good.

 

Once we allow are feelings to run our thinking (e.g., cloud over your head), we lose objectivity and make poor choices. These are the people who based on their emotions have very strong opinions on things (with no real objective thinking to back them up) and go out an make a bunch of noise at protests, etc. They make a bunch of noise and usually make themselves look pretty foolish.

 

Ask me if I give a good crap about whether we've found WMDs. No, on the other hand don't.

[Heavy Z]

Pete, your post gives a lot of details about Iraqis being safer today than under Saddam, something I'm interested in finding out more about. Could you link a study or something done on death rates before and after? I looked a few months ago, and the only study I found (comparing current with pre-war death rates) said the chances of a violent death were 58 times higher after the invasion than before. It was in the Lancet medical journal and was based on interviews with Iraqis, most of them doctors. From what you said though, there must be more info on the subject I haven't seen.