Category Archives: Troops

We can run but we can’t hide

Here’s one congressman who didn’t go visit Baby Assad, but came back from a Middle East trip sobered anyway.

"While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States."

Joe Lieberman in the WaPo is worth a read. He supports more troops to secure Baghdad and Anbar. But what, really, is to prevent the enemy from just waiting until we leave to resume? Possibly a combination of their invigorated army, plus a stronger government to support them. The question, in my mind, is do we really have any choice but to press on?

Bucking up morale at home

My unwitting use of a more-than-a-year-old Iraq email, posted at The Corner yesterday without a clue to its antiquity and still not explained as of this writing, reminded me that the best sources for news on what’s going on in Iraq and elsewhere still are the active-duty military bloggers, either on the scene or temporarily at home and waiting to go back.

One of the best in the former category is Badgers Forward which, as Badger 6, the blogger himself says, trys to buck up morale at home. He posts this quote from veteran milblogger Michael Yon, who is newly returned to Iraq as a private journalist, which sums up the problem rather well:

"This war is strange. I never hear soldiers worried about their own morale sagging. Contrary, the war-fighters here are more concerned to bolster the morale of the people at home. The morale at war is higher than I have ever seen it at home; makes me wonder what they know that most Americans seem to be missing."

Probably because the soldiers ignore CNN and the networks and don’t read the-sky-is-falling stuff purveyed by the MSM. So read the milblogs, folks. They’re the best source. When their writers get down, it’s time to worry, but only then.  

Weasel 61

John Kerry’s fact-finding trip to Iraq apparently was less than pleasant. But he could get the last laugh.

UPDATE  The Liberal blogs, led by TPM Muckraker, went ballistic over a photo at the "less" link above. Then Kerry’s aide also fought back but, in the end, the annonymous staff officer Ben of Mesopotamia declared it a draw and I agree. It’s pretty obvious that many troops despise Kerry, for a variety of reasons. Not all of them, of course, and BoM was generously evenhanded to him in the "less" link. Far more than I would have bothered to be.

Bias for all to see

I must admit, at first I didn’t see what the complaint was when LGF and a few others went off on what seemed to me to be this fairly innocuous Associated Press lede on a slow news day:

"The U.S. military announced the deaths of seven American soldiers Tuesday, raising the U.S. death toll since the beginning of the Iraq war to at least 2,978 — five more than the number of people killed in the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S."

Just another in the MSM’s relentless focus on the grim and bloody, I thought. But Meryl Yourish helped put it in perspective for me by rewriting it this way as if it was during World War II:

"Earlier Tuesday, the military also announced the deaths on Monday of three American soldiers. The U.S. military death toll [rose] to at least 2,978, 575 more than the number killed in the Dec. [7], 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor."

Makes little sense that way, unless you are complaining about the reason for the war itself.

Iraq update

Not the gloom and doom narrative you find in the MSM, in fact rather opposed to their view:

"[M]orale among our guys is very high. They not only believe that they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted."

Interesting look at the overall tactical situation in Iraq by Cliff May at The Corner at the conservative National Review Online–a magazine few media subscribe to, altho they all get The [liberal] Nation. Worth a read.

UPDATE  Well I was fooled and I don’t appreciate it one bit. I have emailed The Corner to see what they have to say about this, although I don’t see any effort on their part to claim it is new, when it is more than a year old, but they didn’t point out that it was old, either. Thanks a bunch, NRO.

Deep in the heart

Strategy Page reports on a potentially disturbing development:

"The heavy equipment for the troops at Ft Hood moves by rail to Houston and Beaumont, where they are loaded on ships for movement overseas. The tracks cross numerous little gullies and creeks. For the most part the viaducts across these obstacles are made of creosote-treated wood. And there’s absolutely no security. In one night a half dozen guys with some trucks and matches could do enough damage to hold up the movement, of half a dozen brigades (III Corps), for weeks."

Let’s hope someone is doing something about this. Alerting the sheriffs in the affected counties would be a good start. 

Go big? Just like Vietnam

It’s hard to tell if the pundits know anything or if they’re just misunderestimating Bush, as usual. Heck, most of them predicted he would hop up on James Baker’s hobby horse and ride off to Tehran and Damascus to plead for help. So is there any real evidence that he wants to throw more troops at the problems in Iraq, like many of them are saying now? Hope not. It might just be Vietnam all over again, the way the anti-wars believe it already is. American troops all over the place, the Iraqi troops (read South Vietnamese army) sitting on their hands watching the Americans chew up neighborhoods, lots more American and civilian casualties. And, in the end, when the troops go home, nothing much to show for it as the insurgents surge back in. So I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the pundits, including irascible Ralph Peters, really don’t know what they’re talking about.

Peters, in particular, seems to have lost his way lately. He still gets a lot of respect from retired military careerist friends of mine, but sometimes he just doesn’t make any sense. He’s for Go big, but only if the rules of engagement change: ignore the MSM, shoot to kill, disarm the population, swarm the streets of Baghdad. Fat chance. The World War II days of saturation bombing are long gone. Do it precisely, directed by 30,000 or so advisers on the ground embeded with the Iraqi army, or forget about it. And start by killing Mookie Sadr, or at least ship him to Guantanamo. My two cents. The great thing about blogs is I get to spend mine. So do you if you care to comment. Just keep it civil.

UPDATE  Blogger Bill Roggio, embeded with Marine advisers to the Iraqi Army is reporting stuff I haven’t seen anywhere else. Some of it is good: the Iraqi troops are brave and resourceful and tactically profficient. All they really need advisors for is help with resupply, and heavy weapons. Presumably also medevac, although it isn’t mentioned. The bad stuff sounds a lot like the worst of the South Vietnamese army’s problems. The Iraqi government is so inept (or corrupt) that their troops can’t get rifles, helmets or body armor, not even their own pay! Surely we can do better for them. While you’re at Roggio’s place, hit his tip jar. He’s already doing more than the MSM has.