War Vets Chewed Up by Iraq Are Going Back!?

Veterans of the Gulf War II are being treated shabbily by the DOD. They are in tough psychological condition after multiple tours of Iraq and are being forced to go back. A few have anonymously spoken out. Thanks to Thomas Leavitt of Seeing the Forest for the link.
Coalition for free thought in media

The truth is all I am worried about right now. No one seems to be willing to listen to us soldiers who have been over there and then come home. We want to tell them to send someone else, but we can't say that in public or where anyone might hear it and report us.


I am redeploying for my second tour in Iraq and I am not real happy about it. In fact I'm quite angry that they are sending me back. I have been away from my family for almost three of the last five years, and I've had enough. Even though I'm fed up with it I can't refuse to go back. No way am I becoming a C.O. (conscientious objector) and doing time in Leavenworth. That's even worse than going back to Iraq.


You wanted some details about troops with PTSD. Okay, I can answer some questions for you.


I have PTSD that would probably qualify for at least 50% disability and maybe as much as 100%. They won't let me get through all the steps to get into the system and qualify me as having PTSD significant enough to be unable to perform my duty. I know I have it real bad, but they keep giving me the run around.


I feel I am unfit for combat. If I have to be completely honest I would be a danger to anyone serving with me. I am in no way capable of going back to Iraq and conducting operations for another year. There is no possible way I could do my duty in a normal manner, I am just having too many problems that will diminish my capacity in the field.


I am all messed up in the head and I am suffering from depression and other mental problems. I don't think I am fit to serve combat duty, but I could manage to do a non-combat job, because I have been doing all right for the last year. I can do my job as long as I am not involved with combat or high-risk operations. I think it would be a mistake on the part of the Army to expect other men to serve with me when they know I have reported my problems too many times to count. They hear it but they don't really want to listen to it.


[...]I was in one of the 1043s that got hit and even the supplemental armor was not going to stop that 155mm round. We got hit bad and our driver was killed instantly. The guy riding shotgun lost his eye and parts of his hands and feet, and got torso wounds that almost killed him right there. I got a few chunks of shrapnel in my face and hands, but I was real lucky to be behind the doorpost, which absorbed most of the blast. The other two guys in the vehicle didn't get hurt at all just shaken up.
AIRBORNE!

I would like to know what is the written policy about repeated tours of duty. Are wounded men routinely sent back to battle? Are men with significant PTSD symptoms routinely sent back? This man clearly has experienced the kind of trauma that will scar him for life. And they send him back?

I can't get the Army to admit that I have a disabling amount of PTSD and it has been very hard to get counseling or any treatment for it.


I am not to sure about writing to you, but I'll take a chance. What can they do, send me back to Iraq? I am going again so there's nothing they can really do to me. It's just my family I am worried about. I can deal with the heat if they find out about me, but my family can't get hurt. I need the housing benefits and the family benefits we get because I am serving this country.


The problem is those who speak up are harshly punished for it and pay the price for speaking up. We get in trouble while the ones who made us this way carry on as if nothing ever happened. I have seen that first hand and have been in trouble already for criticizing Bush and the Pentagon's civilian assholes. I know of some guys who wrote home and told the truth. They got so much sh_t that I don't think they wrote anything else the whole time in Iraq.


I can't relate to anyone that isn't in the military. Everything I think about brings back the horrors of Iraq. Things were so much clearer there; you didn't have to think about it, you just did what needed to be done. Now I have to think about things all the time, and it is simple stuff but I can't do it. My thought patterns are all f__ked up.


I am scared because I have a three month old daughter, and I don't know if I'll be coming back to see her. I have two sons and they are both under 10. My sons watched me leave once, now they will have to go through another year or more separated from their dad. My wife was almost ready to divorce me before I knew I had to redeploy.


This is hurting my family because I have to leave again and they worry about me all the time. I haven't been able to talk to my kids the right way. I have pushed them away so that they didn't see all the pain and sh_t I was going though. I didn't think I was going back, so I just knew I had plenty of time to get my sh_t straight, and then deal with my kids.


Now I don't have that chance because I just didn't get things accomplished like I thought I would. If I die over there then all this shit will be unresolved and be forever part of what they remember about their daddy. I don't want them to remember me as the f__ked up man who came home for a year and was yelling and freaking out all the time. I don't want them to remember me that way, as just coming home and then leaving again and not coming back.


When I was over there I was always waiting for the next I.E.D or attack. I still expect to be attacked every time I walk outside or drive around in the car. I am always ready to jump out and take cover or to react with evasive moves with the car. I scared the sh_t out of my wife so much that I don't drive unless I am going somewhere alone.


I am drinking heavily and taking enough pills to kill Elvis. I just can't sleep unless I have passed out, and even then I wake up most of the time screaming and yelling or jumping out of bed and trying to hide under it.


[...]When I was in Iraq the attacks and expectation of dying were what I probably had the most trouble with. I was in several attacks and survived a few roadside bombs and IEDs. I almost died in one attack I have to tell you about.


I was in a cargo truck that got attacked by insurgents. We were in a supply convoy and were almost to our FOB when they jumped us. We never saw it coming and I can't remember all the details even now. They hit the back of my truck with an RPG and then opened fire on us with AKs.


When the RPG hit us it knocked me out for a few minutes. I was half awake and going in and out of consciousness but I was still aware of all the shit going on around me. I heard the bullets hitting the cab of the truck and felt the shrapnel and fragments hitting all over my body. Before I fully awoke, I heard another couple gunshots and figured that he got my driver as well. I came to and saw the f__kers shooting my driver, who had tried to pull himself out of the cab and return fire.


They killed three of us that day and wounded four more. I still wake up screaming and covered in sweat when I have that dream. I saw several more soldiers get killed after that, but it wasn't the same because I was able to shoot back at the assholes. That one attack was the hardest thing I went through over there because I was helpless the whole time they were attacking us.


Wish me luck and pray for me to come home safe,
WAR SUCKS WHEN IT HAS NO CAUSE OR ENDING!


GOD BLESS AMERICA
OOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! AIRBORNE!!!!!!!!

This man has all the symptoms of PTSD. Neither one of these soldiers are fit for duty. This is the reason Murtha and van Creveld have called for withdrawl. The Bush Administration is destroying our Army and Marine Corps for a political boondoggle.

The Man Who Sold The War In Iraq

As time goes on, more and more of the real story behind the Bush Administration propaganda machine run out of Dick Cheney's office through the Office of Special Plans. Use of propaganda is forbidden by the Smith-Mundt Act to be used against the American people. Of course, this President is above the law.
Thomas Leavitt at Seeing the Forest posted a link to a Rolling Stone article detailing a private CIA then Pentagon contractor who, at $300 an hour, had a major hand in creating the false basis for the Iraqi war by creating the Iraqi National Congress and selecting and assisting Chalabi as it's leader. Leavitt points out, this consultant had:

access to intelligence at the highest levels (probably better than most members of Congress) participating in policy shaping decisions at the highest levels... and a military/intelligence complex that has been thoroughly privatized and outsourced and has absolutely no compunctions about manipulating public opinion by any means necessary. An utterly corrupt government that does not trust the goodwill and common sense of the American people one whit.

RollingStone.com

[John] Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.


"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff."


Although Rendon denies any direct involvement with al-Haideri, the defector was the latest salvo in a secret media war set in motion by Rendon. In an operation directed by Ahmad Chalabi -- the man Rendon helped install as leader of the INC -- the defector had been brought to Thailand, where he huddled in a hotel room for days with the group's spokesman, Zaab Sethna. The INC routinely coached defectors on their stories, prepping them for polygraph exams, and Sethna was certainly up to the task -- he got his training in the art of propaganda on the payroll of the Rendon Group. According to Francis Brooke, the INC's man in Washington and himself a former Rendon employee, the goal of the al-Haideri operation was simple: pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.


As the CIA official flew back to Washington with failed lie-detector charts in his briefcase, Chalabi and Sethna didn't hesitate. They picked up the phone, called two journalists who had a long history of helping the INC promote its cause and offered them an exclusive on Saddam's terrifying cache of WMDs.


[...]The key element of Rendon's INC operation was a worldwide media blitz designed to turn Hussein, a once dangerous but now contained regional leader, into the greatest threat to world peace. Each month, $326,000 was passed from the CIA to the Rendon Group and the INC via various front organizations. Rendon profited handsomely, receiving a "management fee" of ten percent above what it spent on the project. According to some reports, the company made nearly $100 million on the contract during the five years following the Gulf War.


[...]Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world's perception of a war. "It was not just bad intelligence -- it was an orchestrated effort," says Sam Gardner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College. "It began before the war, was a major effort during the war and continues as post-conflict distortions."


[...]In the first weeks following the September 11th attacks, Rendon operated at a frantic pitch. "In the early stages it was fielding every ground ball that was coming, because nobody was sure if we were ever going to be attacked again," he says. "It was 'What do you know about this, what do you know about that, what else can you get, can you talk to somebody over here?' We functioned twenty-four hours a day. We maintained situational awareness, in military terms, on all things related to terrorism. We were doing 195 newspapers and 43 countries in fourteen or fifteen languages. If you do this correctly, I can tell you what's on the evening news tonight in a country before it happens. I can give you, as a policymaker, a six-hour break on how you can affect what's going to be on the news. They'll take that in a heartbeat."


The Bush administration took everything Rendon had to offer. Between 2000 and 2004, Pentagon documents show, the Rendon Group received at least thirty-five contracts with the Defense Department, worth a total of $50 million to $100 million.


[...]Last year, he attended a conference on information operations in London, where he offered an assessment on the Pentagon's efforts to manipulate the media. According to those present, Rendon applauded the practice of embedding journalists with American forces. "He said the embedded idea was great," says an Air Force colonel who attended the talk. "It worked as they had found in the test. It was the war version of reality television, and for the most part they did not lose control of the story." But Rendon also cautioned that individual news organizations were often able to "take control of the story," shaping the news before the Pentagon asserted its spin on the day's events.


"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war." MORE

When Is a Chemical Weapon Not a Chemical Weapon

It would appear that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon believed it is using tactics in the Iraqi war in violation of international law. The Bush Administration was planning to go to war with Iraq since it was sworn into office in 1991. It refused to support the International Criminal Court because it fully intended to violate international law in propagating this war with Iraq. Specifically, The international court will try individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and other war crimes. So it would appear the Bush Administration fully intended to propagate a war in a way that even allies might consider war crimes.
I believe a voluntary war is immoral. Targeting civilians voluntarily is also immoral in my book. Some weapons effectively exterminate all living things in a target area. White phosphorus (WP) is one such weapon. The Pentagon has admitted using WP in Fallugah. Whether WP is a chemical weapon or not, is not as important to me as it is to the International Criminal Court given the Geneva Convention banning chemical weapons.
What the Pentagon believes is a chemical weapon is important in view of international law. Contrary to recent news releases, the Pentagon has called WP a "chemical weapon" when used by Saddam. Hat tip to Seeing the Forest
Think Progress

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren’t technically “chemical weapons.”


The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are “incendiary muntions” that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”


But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature. A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS […] IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991

What To Do About Iraq

Bush began his Administration in January 2001 with National Security Council discussions focused on regime change in Iraq, planning an invasion and invisioning the occupation process and components, including the distribution of oil wealth. Clearly this is not simple contingency planning, because the planning involved the highest levels of the Administration: George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Iraqi National Congress, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Paul O'Neill, and Richard B. Myers. Facts such as these make Bush recent assertions that the decision was made with Congress using the same intelligence whole inadequate. Not even some of his defenders believe he was telling the truth about Iraq.
This week, Democrats have been offered an opportunity to step out of their silent support for the war in Iraq. One of the Democratic hawks from blue collar 12th Congressional District in Pennsylvania surrounding Pittsburgh, John Murtha, a retired and highly decorated Marine veteran says its time to get the troops out of Iraq now. In reviewing the discussion on both sides of the argument about what to do in Iraq, it's clear there is very little understanding of Murtha's point.
Congressman John Murtha - Press Releases

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq.


My plan calls:

• To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.


• To create a quick reaction force in the region.


• To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.


• To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

Meteor Blades at The Next Hurrah has some well placed statements in support of Murtha and then joins the debate on the right course in Iraq.

Congressman John Murtha’s stunning remarks Thursday may have finally broken the logjam of posturing, triangulating, and hemming and hawing that has plagued certain Democrats ever since the Dubyanocchio Administration let it be publicly known that the United States was going into Iraq 41 months ago. That is, if those Dems can keep from being cowed by anti-American pissants like this one. For smacking down such creatures, all they need follow is Murtha’s superb roundhouse kick to the head of chickenhawk Cheney.


Not that we’ll necessarily see a complete withdrawal from Iraq in six months or even a year. George Walker Bush still has 1158 days to serve. But Murtha, the decorated Marine, has left other far more liberal Democrats with no further excuse for continuing to shy away from discussing the inevitable: America will leave Iraq before that country is democratized, rebuilt or even stabilized because efforts to do so have failed. Even if the Administration was to yield in its obstinacy and change course along the lines suggested by, say, General Wesley Clark, it’s too late to turn the situation around.

I don't see Murtha saying this at all. I see him supporting something close to the strategy laid out by Juan Cole last August. Cole called for a redeployment of US troops to a supporting role, the use of special forces advisors and air support in the model of Afghanistan. Presumably, the Iraqi government would need some time to build a coalition force amongst the various Shiite and Kurdish militias. This would very likely involve partitioning up parts of the country by assigning the militias geographically. Iraq would be left without an invasive force for the Sunni provinces, something will allow the Sunni's some breathing space to consider their political options. Naturally there would be an expectation that the US troops would be gradually drawn down, but not until the status quo is stabilized for some time. Contrary to what many Republicans are shrieking, there is no "cut and run" philosophy, it's simply a disengagement and repositioning of US troops to a position they could be called upon to defend the Iraqi government if necessary.
Meteor Blades then launches into a discussion comparing the positions of two generals who have been opponents of Bush's Iraqi strategies from two different points of view. He presents General Wesley Clark position and General William Odom both from August of 2005. Now that it's November, I suspect Clarke anyway is reconsidering his view in response to Murtha. Clarke seems to rule out disengagement but working on the training and support of Iraqi army, and political and diplomatic emphasis. Odorn, the head of the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, believes the war is lost and we should go home and give Iraq to the insurgents. I don't hear anyone else advocating this position which is truly a "cut and run" strategy. But he does suggest some good talking points for Democrats.
Ask This > What’s wrong with cutting and running?" href="http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00129">Nieman Watchdog

Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.


As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

Ok, so these are complex talking points, but why haven't I heard them before? I'm interested in the complex arguments. The Dems have been sitting on their hands. The Dems need substance to counter Bush character assasination.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda’s Robespierre

DHinMI at The Next Hurrah has a great article on Zarqawi. However, I think he along with most of the world tends to buy the hype created by the news media and the Bush Administration spin masters looking for someone to focus on as a bad guy in Iraq. How much of the information in the press is true is unclear. But there are some hints that imply differences that few seem to notice.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi has typically been represented as a lieutenant of Osama bin Laden, when in fact he’s probably more aptly described as a Jihadist “fellow traveler,” with many common goals but important differences.

He's on the mark on this observation. The connections with Al Qaeda may well have been an after thought by a man wanting to grab media attention while pursuing what maybe different goals.

Zarqawi dropped out of school at 17. He arrived in Afghanistan in 1989, just in time to see the Soviets retreat back north. He does not appear to have undergone much tutelage in Islamist theory. After leaving Afghanistan he spears to have circulated through European Jihadi circles before landing in a Jordanian prison from 1992 to 1999 for plotting to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy. Upon release he went to Afghanistan, but instead of joining with Al Qaeda, he set up a rival training operation. Instead of planning sophisticated attacks in Western locales, or networking with Jihadis throughout Western Europe to work on financing and logistics, Zarqawi focused instead on more guerrilla-oriented tactics. Rather than bin Laden or Zawahiri, [Zarqawi] lacked any theoretical sophistication, but was known as a fierce, brutal but charismatic tactical leader of guerrilla insurgency, [who] espouses a regeneration of the Caliphate, of neccesity by violent means.

Intelligence seems to be an oxymoron in Washington, especially during the run up to the invasion of Iraq. But every source I've seen believes Zarqawi received medical treat in Baghdad in 2002, with or without the knowledge of Saddam. It seems likely Saddam's hold on power was tenuous, so he was busy retaining power. Its unlikely Saddam would approve what apparently happened next. During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, some number of his associates set up a base of operations in the capital to move people, money and supplies throughout the country in support of Ansar al-Islam, ideologically, s rigid Salafi Sunni Muslim group, based in Kurdistan outside of Saddam's influence. Salafis consider Shiite Muslims to be apostates, a people who have rejected Islam and blasphemers in that they worship their Imams as if they are idols in the image of Allah. The combination of Ansar al-Islam and Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad became Ansar al-Sunna. Ansar al-Sunna claimed responsibility for sending suicide bombers to PUK and KDP headquarters in Erbil, detonating themselves almost simultaneously, killing 109 people in February 2004.
Zarqawi has acted consistent with his allegiance to Salafi beliefs. Later renaming his group to Al Qaeda in Iraq, he declared war on Shiites, decimated Kurdish leadership, and recruited significant numbers of Salafi Sunnis in Iraq, Jordan and Syria, and their cousins, Saudi Wahhabis, to support his goal of civil war. Its not clear Zarqawi is still alive, but his organization surely is. Although Al Qaeda in Iraq may wish to dominate Iraq again, presumably they are more realistically committed to a partition of Iraq intending to include very likely oil wells around Kirkuk.
DHinMI continues:

Zarqawi doesn't appear to care that the actions he sanctions, leads or claims were the work of his organization are often deplored by fellow Muslims. It's too soon to determine whether the Amman bombings will diminish his stature in the Arab and Muslim societies. But like fellow beheader Robespierre in the French Revolution, Stalin and Mao during their purges, or the deranged Khmer Rouge who perpetrated a savage, enormous class genocide in Cambodia, Zarqawi seems to be moving into a stage where he believes it's more important to pursue his vision of societal and culture-wide cleansing of impure elements, even if it results in the deaths of innocents.

As rabid Salafi, he and/or his organization, Al Qaeda in Iraq, believe they know what Islam is supposed to be and see apostates among Sunnis as well as Shiite. They have enemies in Jordan as well as Iraq. I believe Al Qaeda in Iraq has a regional perspective. It's goals are focused on the Salafi areas of western Iraq, eastern Jordan and Syria. They are seeking to further their own goals, not a pan Islamic movement. Once they've reached their goals, they will be more than willing to join the pan Islamic Caliphate Jihad.

Monotheism and Holy War (al-Qaeda in Iraq) Strikes in Jordan

Informed Comment

Jordanian authorities have captured Sajida Mubarak Atrous al-Rishawi, the wife of suicide bomber Ali Hussein Ali al-Shamari, who detonated his belt bomb at the Radisson in Amman. She turns out to be the sister of the Anbar leader of the Monotheism and Holy War (al-Qaeda in Iraq), who was killed at some point in Fallujah. His name was Thamir al-Rishawi


So this Amman operation really does seem to have come out of Zarqawi's group, rather than just using that group as a cover, as is so often done inside Iraq.


Ms. al-Rishawi's husband was from the Shamar tribe, the same large and important clan to which vice president Ghazi al-Yawir belongs. Shamar had benefited from the old Baath order, and was deeply entwined with it, and is a major locus of resistance to the new order imposed by the Americans. Reuters reported back in April of 2003, "Some media reports have said members of Saddam's family fled to Syria during the war and were later sent back to Iraq, where they were being sheltered by the Shamar tribe."

It would appear that Zarqawi’s organization Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad is alive and well, whether Zarqawi is or not. The woman's confession betrays nothing we didn't already know about suicide bombers. But it did provide proof of where she came from (Ramadi) and possible motivation for the act (connections with Baathists and relatives lost in Fallujah and the subsequent destruction of their home town and presumably further losses). I suspect she will be treated to one of those torturous interrogations for which the Jordanian authorities are known.
What is interesting is the timing of the attack. Cole talks about the meanderings of the Saddam's family and their period of sanctuary with the Shamar tribe. The Euphrates River valley that flows from Husaybah through Al Qa'im, to Ramadi and Fallujah, has been a major route for supplying the insurgency. Families for generations have traveled across the border into Syria and Jordan. Many family members resettled in the bordering countries. So there is a family and likely tribal basis to the travel across the border. I can't help but wonder if the US/Iraqi military offensive in Husaybah is related to the bombing.