Category Archives: Middle East Turmoil

Understanding the Palestinian—Israeli Conflict: A Primer

Posted on by

israeli-conflictThis is the second book I’ve reviewed by Phyllis Bennis, and she uses answers to questions about an issue to present her views. The writing isn’t engaging, and the views are clearly anti-Israel and by extension anti-US, especially in regard to any of George W. Bush’s policies. However, there are many interesting tidbits of history.
 
I did find it somewhat disappointing that there is no discussion of Harry S. Truman’s pivotal role when the UN created the State of Israel. I lost track of the number of times it is mentioned that Israel’s occupation of Palestine violates international law and creates violence. The Palestinians in Israel are citizens, can vote and several Palestinians serve in the Knesset, or parliament. However, the Palestinians are dominantly second class citizens living mostly unemployed and in poverty.

Palestine became part of the British Empire after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. Britain was weakened by World War II and pulled back from Israel after the 1947 UN Partition Agreement that designated 55 percent for a Jewish state and 45 percent for a Palestinian Arab state. Jerusalem was to be left as a separate body under International control. The United States moved into the breach when the British pulled back. Israel took over the West Bank, Gaza, and the last of historic Palestine after the 1967 war. Israel had been giving the green light by President Johnson for that war. The areas taken are called the occupied territories. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, but controls the lives of residents. There are about a million Palestinians living in the occupied territories with millions more as refugees in neighboring countries. General Sharon was elected prime minister in 2001 and created the “Jordan is Palestine” campaign in 2002.

There are interesting discussions of the Jewish people who make up 80 percent of the population of Israel. About half arrived from Europe, and many of the earlier settlers were Jews who escaped pogroms in czarist Russia. The other half is called the Mizrahi Jews who arrived from diverse origins in Africa, Asia, Spain, and Latin America. Most of this group emigrated from Arab countries.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization or PLO was formed in 1964. Yasir (or Yasser) Arafat untied several factions to become the leader in 1968. The UN recognized the PLO as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian People” in 1974. The PLO was invited to participate as an observer within the General Assembly. The PLO drafted a “two-state solution” in 1976 that was put before the Security Council. The US vetoed and the resolution. The PLO was significantly weakened by their decision to side with Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Oil-rich Arab countries that had bankrolled them withdrew their support and Palestinians were expelled from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf states. There were secret negotiations between the Israelis and PLO in 1993 that led to the famous handshake between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat presided over by President Clinton. The Oslo peace process established the Palestinian Authority (PA), a quasi-governmental body with limited authority.

The intifada or uprising began in 2000 saw resistance in the form of suicide bombers. Hamas and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for most of the attacks. The al-Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade linked to the Fatah organization led by Yasir Arafat began a suicide bombing campaign. Most were in public places such as cafes when. Israel responded by beginning construction of a 24-foot high wall in the western sector of the West Bank. The International Court of Justice ruled the wall to be illegal. The author names some dignitaries who have described Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians as “Apartheid,” which was the Afrikaans word for “apartness” or “separate.” Arafat died in 2004, and with him died much of the Palestinian national identity.

The book has little if anything good to say about George W. Bush. The “illegality of the Iraq war” and the negative effect on the entire region is mentioned. Bush also accepted Sharon’s plan to annex the West Bank settlement blocs and repudiate the Palestinian right of return, which the author judges banished the possibility of a solution to the Palestinian—Israeli conflict.

There is an interesting history of Hamas, which is a Palestinian Islamist and nationalist organization. It was basically a Muslim Brotherhood organization that was created in Gaza in 1987 and was soon seen as a competitor of the PLO. It gained support by establishing a network of social welfare agencies including schools, clinics, hospitals, and mosques that provided services to Palestinians. Hamas also targeted Israel for suicide bombings, and Israel has targeted many Hamas leaders for assassination. The author writes that the huge turnout for Hamas in the 2006 election was created by frustration with the status quo and “…was not really a statement of an Islamist social agenda…” Sanctions imposed by the U.S. created a dramatic decline in the already dangerous humanitarian crises. Non-political civilians were and are paying the price for the conflict. The conflict spread to include the Hezbollah in Lebanon with Israel destroying infrastructure and hunting enemy soldiers while Hezbollah began indiscriminate rocket attacks into Israel.

The U.S. has long welcomed Israel as a valued ally in the Middle East, and supports that country with financial, military, and diplomatic aid. Israel is said to receive 25 percent of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget. Israel receives about $4 billion in aid from the U.S. government and another $5 billion in tax-exempt contributions from private citizens. The U.S. has used the veto power in the UN to protect Israel on numerous occasions. Israel is referred to as the “fifty-first state.”

A peace conference to resolve the Palestinian issue was convened in Madrid in 1991 under joint U.S. and Soviet invitation. However, the U.S. was in charge as the Soviet Union was about to collapse. President George H. W. Bush proposed a plan close to the Oslo formula. The negotiations that plodded along for months and years made little if any progress. The process went on into the Clinton administration, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher accepted Israel’s positions.

The lack of a solution is discussed in the later parts of the book. The author believes a comprehensive peace plan would include establishing equal states for Israel and Palestine and include recognition of the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. The Zionist political movement was established to call for creation of a Jewish State. The Zionist slogan was, “a land without a people for a people without a land.” Adherence to the idea that Palestine was “a land without a people” continues to be accepted by Israel. They therefore have refused to agree that the Palestinians are entitled to any of the land now occupied.

In answer to the question of whether a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israeli security, it is mentioned that Israel has at least 200 nuclear weapons at Dimona in the Negev desert and that it has refused to be a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There is no discussion of how nuclear weapons could be used in a conflict within the borders of Israel.

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.

Blog Posting for Blood Stripes

Posted on by

I began a review of this book with the comment “This is the best book I’ve read for some time.” It provides insight into the raw and uncensored emotions of men killing and being killed in the Iraq war. I believe this book should be required reading for Presidents who might need to request war powers from Congress and those in Congress who would have to vote on such an act. People making war policy should also be reminded how the U.S. encouraged Shiites to mutiny against Saddam Hussein in 1991, and that we did not give their mutiny any support. Thousands were tortured and killed. More than a decade later we invaded and the Shiites in some areas actually did celebrate the arrival of the Marines despite the earlier abandonment by U.S. politicians.

The need for the war in Iraq has been debated endlessly, and much of that debate was going on while our soldiers were killing and being killed. The Commander-In-Chief, the Marine commanders, and all the rest of us asked that combat soldiers go to war with “rules of engagement.” Combat soldiers are trained kill the enemy and not to be “peace keepers” or “nation builders.”  The General commanding the Marines told them, First do no harm. The second order was “No better friend, which referred to building a common cause with the people of Iraq. The third order was “No worse enemy.” The first two orders had nothing to do with Marine training. The last order finally arrived at what Marines are trained to do, “…if some bastard wants to fight, hunt him down and kill him (or her) before they do the same to you.” I think we somehow cobbled together things expected of the State Department and combat soldiers and expected young soldiers to figure it out. From what I read they somehow did an amazingly fine job.

kThe enemies of the Marines were fighting came from diverse backgrounds. They included religious fanatics, young single men, men with large families, mercenaries, and poor farmers who believed they were fighting to defend their village. One of them mentioned the movie Braveheart, and that portrayal of the fight for freedom.

For those who insist Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, Lebanese journalist Zaki Chehab was embedded with the insurgents. His chronicle, Inside the Resistance: The Iraqi Insurgency and the Future of the Middle East, describes men claiming to be part of Zarqawi’s al-Qaeda in Iraq which began opening terrorist training camps in Iraq “…shortly after the post-9/11 American attack into Afghanistan.” Zarqawi had originally fled to Iran and then to the Iraqi Kurdish mountains. He established a route through Iran to smuggle personnel and equipment from Afghanistan. “By the fall of 2002, the Al Qaeda Underground Railroad was running full steam—from Afghanistan, through Iran, and into a northern Iraqi hideout.”

We also sent soldiers to fight in a war that we only noticed on occasion when watching news clips of politicians arguing with each other about the war. The lives of average Americans who did not have someone close to them fighting in the heat, filth, and fear of the battlegrounds in Iraq were unaffected. The Marines acknowledged that they joined because they were promised the chance to kill legally, but were envious of the free and fun lives of the young people who hadn’t joined. One of them asked, “Don’t these people give a shit that we’re at war?”

I admit I worried about soldiers in the book who were described as “addicted to battle,” or those who felt satisfaction when they saw the “pink mist” created as their bullet passed through an enemy. However, we were the ones who put them there, and we must be thankful there are men such as these. George Orwell, the famous writer who did fight in combat in the Spanish Civil War, once wrote something to the effect that “People sleep soundly because there are rough men willing to do violence to protect them.” I would substitute “brave” for “rough.”

Marine grunts looked down on anyone who was not a Marine grunt. They called everyone outside that category Persons Other than Actual Grunts, or POAG. The acronym evolved into the word “pogue.” Everyone in the Marines not in combat units, everyone in the Navy, Army, and Air Force were pogues. Anyone who never wore a uniform was the worst kind of pogue. If I would have the honor of meeting one of the Marines portrayed in the book I would ask for my Army comrades who served in combat roles in Vietnam to be excluded from that description.

There was a Marine Chaplin who told the survivors that they would have to deal with the guilt for surviving while others did not. I understand that. A quote at the beginning of Chapter 15 is “Freedom isn’t free, but the U.S. military will pay your part of it.” The Marines who survived would deal not only with the guilt of surviving but also the loss of “…the purity of being surrounded by a group of men who, whether they loved or hated them, were devoted to giving their blood, seat, and lives for the same of their mission or their Corps.”

The book observes that 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.

One of the corporals was scheduled for a DUI trial, and the female judge opened the hearing by reading the award citation for his service in Iraq. The judge didn’t finish reading the entire citation, and later said she couldn’t finish because she realized she was being overcome with emotion. She simply ended the reading and announced, “Case Dismissed.” Reading that brought tears to my eyes.

“H-Money,” one of the interpreters for the battalion continued to carry a sniper rifle and “fought like a lion.” Fatima, another interpreter, made it to the U.S. and was working on becoming a citizen.”Muhammad remains alive and continues to fight Americans. Most expect this kind of war to go on for many, many years.”

Iraq after the War

Posted on by

I’ve been reading and reviewing books about the Iraqi war, and believe the primary question is, “Was it worth it?” There is an excellent article in Spiegel Online International by Bernhard Zand that is summarized in the title, “Obama’s Over-Hasty Withdrawal, Iraq is Neither Sovereign, Stable, nor Self-Reliant. The article begins with a description of a meeting between some students with Ahmed Chalabi, the man the U.S. brought in from exile after the Iraqi government had been dismantled by the invasion to be prime minister and oil minister. He had a goal to rebuild Iraq. The businessman was asked whether Iraq was what he would imagined it would become. He replied,”We have all failed. Totally”

The article was written in late March 2012 as the Arab League was preparing to meet in Baghdad. It was to be the first meeting of the League in Iraq since 1990, the first since the beginning of the “Arab Spring,” and the first since the last U.S. combat soldier left on December 18, 2011. President Obama had given a speech saying the U.S. was “…leaving a sovereign, stable and self-reliant country with a representative government elected by the people.” The article says, “…the circumstances of the US withdrawal and the language Obama used to whitewash it borders on negligence.”

Devoted Shiite Nouri Al-Maliki was imposed as Prime Minister of Iraq because he was perceived to have the best chance to form a government in the short term. He issued an arrest warrant for the Sunni Vice President the day after he came to power, drove other Sunnis out, and strengthened relations with Iran.  He also has appointed figureheads and relatives to important government positions who have access to lucrative government contracts.  Many areas of the country continue to lack basic services, and over 4,000 Iraqis had died in violence after the exit of the Americans to the date of the article. There continues to be a risk that the country will splinter. Western Sunni regions could secede if Syria falls to Sunni rule, Kurdish areas are effectively autonomous, and other areas have either threatened or announced plans to separate.

A New York Times article by Michael S. Schmidt published about a month after the U.S. troop withdrawal expressed concern that violence had increased. One speculation is that Al Qaeda in Iraq has regained strength and has “…shifted its attention toward those with close ties to Iran, particularly Iraq’s Shiites, in an effort to push back Iran’s influence in Iraq in the wake of the American withdrawal.”

A multipage Bloomberg Business week article by Elliot Woods has the ominous title “Iraq:  Under Worse Management,” and describes a country in shambles. There is inadequate infrastructure to deliver water and electricity or to remove sewage and garbage. Corruption is routine. Iraq is far from stable, and the future is uncertain, but there is some good news. “By some statistical measures, Iraq today is safer and more stable than it has been in nearly a decade.” There are “…shouts of young men watching soccer in the cafes, the laughter of children tromping off to school.” I’m hoping the blood shed by American soldiers has the ultimate outcome that Iraqis decide to stand against terrorists.

One encouraging sign is that a Google search for “Iraq in June 2012” brought up sites for job openings in Iraq, a cycling event that includes Iraq, a soccer game with Jordan, and an upcoming trade show. That must mean the world media has lost interest in violence in Iraq, and the media is notoriously disinterested when there aren’t disasters to report. I remain hopeful for the Iraqi people. However, there continue to be politicians who have not put aside the tradition of corruption, hatred for those with different religions, and desire for absolute power.

I’m typing this on Memorial Day, and am thinking of the American soldiers who gave lives and limbs in Iraq. Their mission was to make Iraq a safe place for its citizens. To Iraqis, you have been given a precious opportunity bought with the service and blood of soldiers. I don’t expect you to think kindly of people many or most of you resented being in your country. All I ask is that you don’t waste what they gave for you.

I’ll close this by revealing I was apparently one of the few Americans who thought the war was a bad idea from the start. However, I will never criticize soldiers who fought or are fighting to fulfill a mission given them by their commander.

The Good Soldiers

Posted on by

David Finkel wrote this book based on the eight months he was with the 2-26 Army Infantry Battalion that was ordered to Iraq as part of the “surge” announced by President George W. Bush in January 2007. The announcement set off a storm of criticism by people opposed to the war (I thought it should have been called “reinforcement”). Battalion commander Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich was eager for his unit to deploy from Fort Riley, Kansas to Baghdad.

The book does not give a clear answer whether the surge was a success or failure, although the tone indicates the author certainly did not consider it a success. The book does provide brutal insight into the lives of combat infantry soldiers facing the daily possibility of being blown apart inside their Humvees by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and explosively formed penetrators (EFPs). Snipers were often waiting for them.

The first death was twenty-two year old Private First Class Jay Cajimat who died either instantly in an explosion or more slowly in the fire inside the Humvee that burned his arms and legs into stumps and the rest of him beyond recognition. The details of the deaths and treatment of the injured are difficult to read. As an example, a soldier treating a comrade with a head injury noted a piece of the injured man’s brain fell out as a bandage was being adjusted. The injuries aren’t always that obvious. The trauma suffered by those who watched fellow soldiers die will be with them for a lifetime. A friend of Kauzlarich had ominously warned him before he and his unit left Fort Riley, “You’re going to see a good man disintegrate before your eyes.”

The families, girl friends, wives, and children of the soldiers also suffered, and of course some suffered more than others. President Bush visited a soldier and his wife in Bethesda. The soldier was described as “ruined,” and was only able to do small movements with his eyes, fingers, and feet. The wife thanked Bush for coming, but wished she had told him he didn’t understand what they were going through and that he didn’t know how it felt. She began to cry, and Bush didn’t understand she was crying in anger.

Reality had been exposed even before the soldiers had left Fort Riley as they and their families completed forms prior to the deployment to select whether they wanted to be buried or cremated, the location of their cemetery, and what personal effects they wanted to have buried with them. The remainder of the country mostly was oblivious with the exception of watching news reports that were often about the opposing political views.

The author describes the soldiers leaving the Forward Operating Base (FOB) fully equipped for combat “…to make their first impression on 350,000 people who surely were just waiting to blow the dumbasses up.” They found an unexploded mortar shell with Iranian markings on the fins. “A lesson, perhaps, in who they would be fighting.”

Kauzlarich began the deployment believing that he and the men of his battalion were going to make a difference, and he was said to very frequently respond to questions or concerns with the comment, “It’s all good.” He also tended to make comments such as, “What’s the difference between ordinary and extraordinary? A little extra.” He had been influenced by studying the battle of Ia Drang in Vietnam, which was the subject of a book and movie called “We Were Soldiers Once…and Young.” He had been told by Hal Moore, the commander of the unit portrayed, to trust his instincts. He had almost daily opportunities to rely on his instincts and the skill and courage of his soldiers as they performed the missions intended to make Baghdad safe for Iraqis. He had great respect for Qasim, his counterpart in the Iraqi military, although the soldiers of the Iraqi unit would mostly desert in the face of intense combat. The explanation for those desertions is given in the descriptions of the torture and murder of Iraqis who had been suspected of helping the Americans.

Most of the soldiers would soon hate everything about Iraq. The hated the garbage along the roadsides that often was used to hide the IEDs and EFPs. They hated the open trenches of sewage, the smell, the heat, and their living conditions. Mostly they hated “…the way these people don’t care about freedom. I hate that human beings want to kill one another for nothing.” They didn’t understand why the Iraqis hated them as they risked their lives to make the country safe.

Not all felt that way. Bush said in a speech, “We’re helping the Iraqis take back their neighborhoods from the extremists…” Kauzlarich said, “I like this president.” Soldiers were beginning to refer to the “Lost Kauz,” and openly questioned how anyone could think they were winning. They began to openly admit to each other that they were hurting and scared.

General David Petraeus visited and acknowledged, “You never get used to the losses.” He went to Congress to present his report, and gave an optimistic outlook. He focused on the fact the number of combat deaths were declining. MoveOn.org bought a full page ad in The New York Times “…headlined GENERAL PETERAEUS OR GENERAL BETRAY US?”

Chapter 10 describes the soldiers from the battalion being treated for their devastating injuries at the Brooke Army Medical Center (BMAC) in the company of their wives or other family members. They had been told they hadn’t lost their arms, legs, or sight. “You gave your arm. You gave your leg. You gave your sight.” One of the soldiers had a specimen cup where he collected the pieces of metal and plastic shrapnel he had been pulling out of his wounds.

The soldiers had to attend a mandatory seminar on what to expect after they returned home. Many of them would have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). All of them were told to expect flashbacks, to have trouble sleeping, and to be angry and jumpy. They were warned that some would have broken marriages and to find bank accounts cleaned out. None of them were expected to be unaffected. As they were preparing to return to the United States Senator Barrack Obama was telling General Petraeus, “I’m not suggesting that we yank all of our troops out of the way. I’m trying to get to an end point.”

I think the author sums up his feelings about whether the surge was worth it on the last page. He describes how Kauzlarich doesn’t open his eyes as he is departing in a helicopter. He thought to himself that they had won, “But he had seen enough.”

The Appendix lists the roster of soldiers in the battalion and has pictures of those Killed In Action.