Category Archives: Iraqi War

Refugee Ethics

Posted on by

A reader and frequent commenter sent me an article by Richard D. Lamm that appeared in the Denver Post. The story is told of Martin of Tours finding a starving beggar during a 13th Century ride and dividing his cloak and dinner with the desperate man. The question is asked “What if instead of one cold and starving beggar, there are 100?” Considering the world situation, what if there are thousands or millions? There is another report that ISIS has slaughtered another several hundred people after taking a city in Iraq, and thousands or hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced. I have difficulty imagining there is anyone remaining in Syria other than the various fighting organizations or a place for an “ordinary citizen” to live. Thousands of people are taking the perilous trip across the Mediterranean to escape the anarchy and terror of Libya (and perhaps wishing Gaddafi could return). Lamm mentions increasing population “…and political unrest in most of the Middle East and Africa guarantee continued massive migration from that volatile area. Is Europe’s only ethical response to take them all in?”

Lamm mentions that “…the U.S. has its own substantial pressure from south of its boarder (sic).” He then poses the ethical dilemma. “A moral response to an individual or manageable group might not make sense if there are hundreds of thousands. Sheer numbers can totally change the ethical implications.” “The maximum generosity of the developed world cannot absorb the staggering numbers fleeing political chaos, war, violence, and lack of economic opportunity.” Later in the article he writes, “No nation can be expected to commit social and cultural suicide. No ethics can demand what the ecosystem or social fabric of a society cannot support.”

I have fretted since the first reports of ISIS slaughters in Iraq that we as a nation should feel ashamed. Regardless of your beliefs about the justification of the second Iraq War, we did overthrow Saddam Hussein and established a fledgling democracy. We then decided we were “war weary” and withdrew our soldiers. The situation that evolved was predictable. There was an opportunity, perhaps a slim opportunity, to assist in establishing a stable and perhaps even prosperous country where people wouldn’t be slaughtered because they practiced the wrong religion. We instead chose to fulfill a political promise. Is there anyone out there who continues to believe withdrawing was the right thing to do? We also helped “decapitate” the dictatorship in Libya and then sat behind our comfortable borders while terrorists took over.

Perhaps we should be asking whether we’ve learned anything. Are we going to repeat what we did to Iraq in Afghanistan?   I understand the Taliban developed a motto after the announcements that we were going to withdraw on a schedule. “You have the watch and we have the time.”

Bosnian Serbs Erect Statue for Assassin Who Started WWI

Posted on by

Recent commemorations of the beginning of World War I led me to reflect on the difficulties or impossibilities of overcoming centuries of ethnic hatred. One news report described how “Artists and diplomats declared a new century of peace and unity in Europe …in the city where the first two shots of World War I were fired…” Not everyone saw it that way. Another report described Bosnian Serbs unveiling a statute of Gavrilo Princip, the Bosnian Serb teenager who killed Crown Prince Ferdinand after Ferdinand had travelled to Sarajevo to inspect his occupying troops.

A hundred years of time have not resolved the divisions. Austrian President Heinz Fischer said “Europeans have learned that no problem can be solved by war. Milorad Dodik, president of the Bosnian Serb half of the country called Princip “…a freedom fighter and the Austro Hungarian empire was an occupier here.”  He added that the people are still divided in “…this country which is being held together by international violence.” An actor portraying Princip posed in front of his statue with a pistol as people shouted “shoot at NATO” and “shoot at the EU.” Continue reading →

Iraq after American Troops

Posted on by

I’ve been reading about Iraq after American combat troops were withdrawn in December 2011, and it isn’t a pleasant story. Almost 1,000 people have been killed in September 2013 in Iraq “…as car bombs have become a near daily occurrence in a country seeing its worst surge of violence in five years.” Iraqi civilians have been “…caught in a resurgence of al-Qaeda terrorism that has been growing since the United States pulled out forces two years ago.” Continue reading →

Contractors in Iraq

Posted on by

A recent posting was about Iraq after American combat troops withdrew in December 2011.  I was curious how many contractors remain, and there are some interesting web sites that provided details. One is a primer for someone who is going there as a contractor, and it contains information about the risks and how to prepare yourself to deal with them.

Some of the risks to the contractors are kidnapping, unexploded ordinance, and being shot at. The advise for avoiding kidnapping is to have “…a camouflage passport, which is a faux passport ‘issued’ by a non-existent country. Camouflage passports are used to throw off terrorists and abductors, who may be looking to single out a person from a specific nation.” The advice for unexploded ordinance “…is to stay well clear.” The advice for what to do if you are shot at certainly makes sense. It is to “…move and move fast.” Life insurance is highly recommended.

NPR estimates there are 15,000 workers in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and several consulates, which makes it the largest U.S. diplomatic operation abroad. There are as many as 5,000 security contractors carrying assault rifles and flying armed helicopters. There had been as many as 17,000 security contractors the year previously. One official responded to a question about what the contractors do if there is an attack. He answered, “We run. We go. We do not stand and fight.”

Events involving U.S. contractors in Iraq since the troop withdrawal do not bode well for diplomatic relations between the two countries. A New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt and Eric Schmitt published in January 2012 describes how Iraqi authorities had detained “…a few hundred contractors in recent weeks…” The detentions were mostly at the airport in Baghdad and at checkpoints around the capital. My interpretation of the full article is that Iraqi officials held up the issuing of visas, weapons permits, and authorizations to drive certain routes and then detained the contractors for failure to have current documents. The contractors were held for as long as several weeks, and some were told to leave Iraq or face arrest. Another ominous signal was that the Maliki’s son began evicting Western companies and contractors from the heavily fortified “Green Zone.”

Why would anyone want to work as a contractor in Iraq when there are so many risks and now the Iraqi government is actively working to make those people less than welcome? The answer is, of course, money. There are reports that the guards in private security firms are paid between $400 and $1000/day. I’m not certain either of those amounts would justify the risks, but some people apparently think they do.

I remain baffled by the events in Iraq. I certainly believe all the polling data that most Iraqis resented the presence of American soldiers, although I also believe that most of those soldiers would have much preferred to have been somewhere else also. They were there because their commander told them they had a mission to make Iraq safer for Iraqis. They gave the Iraqis the chance to make that a reality; although it isn’t yet certain the Iraqis will actually take advantage of the opportunity they have been given.

There were many accusations that the Iraqi war was really about the U.S. coveting Iraq’s oil. We apparently didn’t do a very good job of grabbing that oil while our soldiers were there, because it is estimated 90 percent of the government’s income is from oil. That income depends on tens of thousands of foreign workers.  Mr. Maliki is apparently more interested in solidifying his standing with Iran than making workers providing the money for his budget comfortable that they will be safe.

Maybe it is true that the Iraqi War was a mistake. Maybe they didn’t deserve the sacrifices of our soldiers, their families, and the rest of our country. I’ll say again that Iraq has been given a wonderful opportunity to make their country into a peaceful place to live because of American and English blood and treasure. We’ll see what they ultimately decide to do with that opportunity. I’m not optimistic that their current leader is interested in more than corruption and abuses of power while bowing to the Iranians. I hope I’m wrong. Our dead and injured soldiers and their families certainly deserve a better outcome.

Iraq after American Troops

Posted on by

I’ve been reading about Iraq after American combat troops withdrew in December 2011.  The common criticism of the Iraq war was that it was “about nothing but oil,” and there is some interesting recent news about Iraq and oil. An article by Kay Johnson in the Associate Press titled “Again a power in OPEC, Iraq could shift landscape” reports that Iraq has been rapidly expanding oil production. The increase in oil being produced in Iraq is likely to complicate OPEC’s efforts to influence world prices.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki leads a Shiite-dominated coalition that has close ties with Iran, and Iraq is officially backing Iran’s push to set lower production limits to keep oil prices high. However, it is countermanding Iran’s desires by expanding oil production. “Iraq recently reached production of 3 million barrels per day, a level not seen since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein. It is on track to become OPEC’s second largest producer in the coming year, surpassing Iran and trailing only Saudi Arabia.”  It is estimated that Iraq could double production, which is the basis for the predictions of Iraq’s increasing influence on OPEC and the world.

What this means in Middle East and world politics is complicated. The increased economic clout available to Iraq from oil production (which provides 95 percent of government revenues) could result in economic prosperity and freedoms previously unimagined in that country. However, strife between the Sunnis and Shiites continues to be a problem. Shiite pilgrims trekking toward a shrine in Baghdad were recently attacked with car bombs. There were 93 people killed and 312 wounded according to an article from Mohammed Tawfeeq of CNN.  June 14 was the deadliest day in the country since the U.S. withdrew its troops.

I’ve posted several recent reviews and blogs about the Iraq war. The blog posting on June 13, 2012 has the comment, “…victory will not come from the service and sacrifice of the soldiers who fought in Iraq. That will happen, if it happens, within the culture of Islam. The soldiers have only functioned as the soil for the seed of freedom. The ultimate victory, if it is achieved must happen within Islam.”

Terrorism in Iraq is no longer justified by the presence of foreign soldiers. Now the people of Iraq have to decide whether indiscriminate killing of civilians based on how they worship is justified. I suggest they look at the genius of the American founders in insisting on allowing freedom of religion. I would speculate that any reasonable person would conclude that the “American experiment” resulted in a life style for citizens that the rest of the world envies. I see from afar that Iraq is at a crossroads, and I sincerely wish the best for them.

Blood Stripes

Posted on by

This is the best book I’ve read for some time. The descriptions of experiences of four non-commissioned officers in the Iraq war were informative and deeply emotional for me. I’ve read some of the Amazon reviews. There were a few complaints about writing style, but I don’t agree. The writing engaged me and made me feel connected to the experiences of the warriors described in the book.

The first learning experience for me was the origin of the title, and I was confused until I searched “Blood Stripes” and found a photo on Wikipedia. The “Blood Stripe” is a red stripe (varying in width, depending on rank) that runs down the outer leg of the dress uniform of noncommissioned and commissioned officers of the Marines. The “Blood Stripe” is described as being a tribute to the unusually high casualty rate of Marine noncommissioned officers and officers during the Battle of Chapultepec in Mexico in 1847.

The learning certainly didn’t stop with descriptions of Marine uniforms. The “Author’s Notes” tells me that “…Iraq is an Arabic word, (and) the English equivalent has no proper pronunciation: the closest would be ‘eee-rock’.” The word derives from the Arabic urug, which means “root.” Adding a letter from the Arabic alphabet arrives at the translation “Root of All.”

Much of the book is about the warrior culture of the Marines, and the first chapter is titled, “Go Tell the Spartans.” The quote immediately after that title is “I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are. The Marines are extremists.” Recruiters for other military services promise education benefits, the possibility of world travel, and excellent retirement benefits for those who stay long enough. The Marines were and are promised intense physical training that many will not be strong enough or have enough stamina to withstand. They are promised that if they could make it through training they are likely to have multiple deployments to live in primitive and very uncomfortable places where other people were trying to kill them. The book “Gates of Fire” by Steven Pressfield about the Spartans who all died together at Thermopylae is described as the unofficial Marine Bible. Marines are promised they will be expected to fight and die together like the Spartans. The Marines described in the book dealt with the risk of death by considering that they already knew they were going to die, although the men did worry about masculinity-ending injuries. The only time fear seemed to be prevalent was when the time was approaching for their departure.

Marines acknowledged that they understood they were joining to learn how to kill legally, and craved the “thrill of battle.” Winston Churchill was quoted as saying, “There is nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed.” Mostly they were inspired by the brotherhood of soldiers fighting beside one another. That inspired their “gung-ho” attitude, despite the fact that phrase originated with a Chinese expression that means “all together.” Some readers would undoubtedly be put off by descriptions of satisfaction from seeing the “pink mist” created when a bullet passes through the body of an enemy.

There is an interesting footnote that the Continental Congress ordered Samuel Nicholas to organize two battalions of Marines on November 10, 1775. Nicholas began his recruiting in Philadelphia’s Tun Tavern. “Marines are very proud that the Corps was born in a bar.”

The book describes the language of Marines. Discussions with one another would often be considered coarsely obscene and degrading to an outsider. I recall one fire team leader thinking he should compliment his team after an especially intense day of combat. He told them, “Y’all used o be a bunch of girls, but now you’re women.” Quotes from several movies make it into the conversations of Marines preparing for battle. One was Mel Gibson’s line in Braveheart, “At least we don’t get dressed up for nutin’.”

The first assignment of the Marines in this book was guarding “national strategic assets” at a Naval Submarine Base at Bangor Washington, home of several Trident missile submarines. The Marines “…could neither confirm nor deny that they guarded those assets.” The Marines were mostly bored and disappointed with the assignment. They were asked whether they were willing to go kill “rag heads” in what promised to be a long war. The four corporals featured in the book all raised their hands.

The book focuses on what it takes to become a Lance corporal in the Marines, which is the lowest rank authorized to wear blood stripes on the slacks of the dress uniform. “Lance corporals excel through alpha male characteristics of strength, cleverness, skill, and force of personality.” There is no doubt there are few who could meet all the requirements.

The enemies in Iraq were called “Muj,” short for Muhajideen. Friendly Iraqis were called “hajji.” The Marines were there to win the hearts “…of the hajjis while killing every Muj they could find. Separating Muj from hajji was the hard part.” There is one description of a raid on an Iraqi police station that found large amounts of the weapons and outfits worn by the Muj. There was a prolonged battle between the Marines and Muj in the area with hundreds killed. It was observed there were many fewer policemen after the battle. There was one ambush that involved insurgents firing at the Marines from two buildings opposite each other. The Marines under this intense ambush described it as a “Polish ambush,” since anyone with common sense would not position soldiers shooting across a street at one another.

The Marines had an interesting manner of dealing with Improvised Explosive Devices, or IEDs that were planted by insurgents. If they suspected something was an IED they would kick it hard, hoping that the force of the kick would disable the device. They noted a Harrier war plane making a bombing approach a hundred feet in the air set off numerous IEDs. The Marines then often requested low flybys by Harriers before patrolling down a street.

The daily routines of the Marine were as interesting as the descriptions of the many intense battles. The Marines rated the quality of their quarters based on the quality of privies, which ranged from “luxurious” air conditioned units to basic stinking latrines. They loved the Lamisil cream used to treat the abrasions created from wearing heavy equipment for days in the oppressive daytime heat and the frigid nights that caused them to need to spoon together to retain precious body heat. Alcohol wasn’t accessible to grunt units, so they depended on Motrin, caffeine, and nicotine. They mostly depended on one another.

I recommend this book to all adult readers; I believe it would be particularly interesting to people who never served in the military.