This him on the left, clearing the city of Tamiyah.
He also spent 2 deployments in Afghanistan before getting out of the military and returning to university.
His company had several losses, some friends of his.
He said he's pissed their lives were wasted, but blames it on the lack of a clear mission when they were there. He went on to say that he feels they went in, created chaos, killed a lot of people, screwed up the little infrastructure they had, then said "good luck".
Anybody got an opinion?
I think we concentrated the chaos to the mid-east and away from home, but I don't think it has been worth the cost. Perhaps the mission was stated to high, attempting to convert and bring stable democracies. We should have just gone into Afghanistan with the stated intention to kill bad people, discourage incursions into our country with assurances that they would not be allowed immunity to blow up our people, and then get the hell out of Dodge.
ReplyDeleteI don't think your son's and his comrade's sacrifice were for naught, but we probably stayed too long.
Now about our Veterans in combat...$50,000 income tax exemption for 20 years, first in line for any Government job, free health care for life, a $6000 pension for life and the never ending thanks of all our citizens.
In regard to the tax exemption, you should research that a bit more, it's not even close to what you've written.
DeleteAs to the first in line, actually it's if they have the same qualifications, etc, and the only difference is they are a veteran, then they do get preference. Otherwise, a HS grad could apply for a gov't position needing a PhD and get it.
Free health care for life.....read anything about the VA lately?
My last paragraph is what I THINK we should provide (at the very least) not what I believe is currently provided. I should have said free "QUALITY" health care and that life pension suggestion is probably low.
DeleteSorry that was not more clear. We can not do enough for our brave Veterans!
Like Joe, I believe the only place we should have been was Afghanistan, for the reasons he said.
ReplyDeleteThe arrogance of imposing our standards on another nation is beyond the pale.
I agree with Joe; we should have been in Afghanistan for the reasons he stated, and no more.
ReplyDeleteThe arrogance of imposing our standards on another nation is beyond the pale.
Personally, I think the Bush/Cheney cabal should have to appear before the court in the Hague.
DeleteUnlike the time I served, there were no draftees in the conflicts in the Middle East. It was an all-volunteer force. Those that joined did so for various reasons.
ReplyDeleteDuring my tours in Nam, I was never in a position to see or judge what was happening outside of the immediate area where I served. I’m of the opinions that if the military gets involved, it should go in, kick ass and leave.
I have never been in a position to say where the military should be deployed or used. Only through hindsight can I form an opinion.
As for military benefits. If you serve twenty years you can receive a monthly retirement. If you are medically retired, ditto. The amount varies. Income tax has different rules while in a combat zone, not 20 years. Mike is correct about the Veteran’s preference for Government jobs
.
I didn’t serve in the Middle East, but thank those that did. Right or wrong they did their duty.
What drove me nuts in VN was having to take, then re-take, over and over the same place. Marble Mt. was north of DaNang, and we went in there at least 6 times I remember.
DeleteI don't know that you can really call our military fully voluntary, though. There is a significant amount of coercion, both direct and indirect. Why else would it be mostly lower- and lower-middle class people who volunteer? For a lot of enlistees, it is, or at least is perceived to be, the only way to get guaranteed health care and a college education, not to mention a ticket out of economically depressed areas. And that's coercion. If Senators' sons were joining the front lines at the same rate as waitresses' sons, then I'd call it an all-volunteer fighting force, but that is so very far from reality.
DeleteMy grandson was in Mosul back in the day, also Bosnia and a couple of tours in Afghanistan. I'm sure he's got a pretty dim view of what is going on now in Iraq. More and more, war after war, it seems more and more true that the U.S. cannot impose democracy anywhere with any hope of it continuing.
ReplyDeleteNo, we haven't had much success in that regard. Largely tribal societies don't seem to accept it.
DeleteI am overwhelmed with learning that some societies in this world function 500 years behind others
ReplyDeleteWhat do you refer to, John? The Middle East treatment of women? The new push in the US by our right wing parties to suppress women? The world as a whole? It's unclear.
DeleteWell it was on a false pretext to begin with, redolent of unfortunate Vietnam from the beginning. And there is never a winner in such matters. This time it was all about the oil and Cheney++ making untold billions on every hole his finger was in including the paramilitary forces. I could go on but won't. There is much talk of the loss of US life but Iraqi lives and over a million children displaced? Unforgiveable.
ReplyDeleteXO
WWW
Yeah, the false pretext, WMD's, sucked a lot of people in, I don't think they were all liars, but the top ones were.
DeleteIt was similar to Viet Nam in some respects, both were unwinnable, both for bad reasons. But, very dissimilar in the reasons behind them. VN was about Kennan's theory of the "Domino Principal", and Iraq was about personal vindication (GW trying to finish the war his dad started), and Cheney and the money.....Haliburton and all the others.
The partition of Iraq is done.
ReplyDeleteThe Shiite government can't retake Anbar Province without outside help, either from Iran or the USA. Israel supports the Kurds. Turkey and Saudi Arabia support ISIS. The USA supports “moderate” Jihadists in Syria. The USA is trying to avoid having thousands of its citizens killed in Iraq, but by all its actions and rhetoric wants a regime change in Baghdad with Nouri al-Maliki getting the boot.
The interesting thing was that Obama called a special meeting with 'Congressional leaders' to tell them in person that he did not need to consult with Congress on anything he did with respect to military action in Iraq. (what?)
If America’s goal was peace, instead of supporting Jihadi movements, it and its allies would join with Iran and Syria and establish an Islamic Peacekeeping Force to subdue ISIS. But Israel does not believe it will survive a unified Islam and, besides, there is big money to be made building Drones and Hellfire missiles. So, more war is the policy rather than ending the Jihad even as it threatens to kill thousands more Americans and who knows how many more Iraqis.
Your son is quite correct.
First, great comment, thank you. A lot to cover:
Delete1st paragraph, agree. The US has never had a coherent middle east policy.
2nd paragraph, his attorneys have a legally reasoned arguement, it's just not what we'd like to think government by consensus should be. I'd like to think the 'framers' knew that by loose wording, of arguable circumstances, knew what they were doing. Times change, and needed actions change.
3rd paragraph..Yes, money, what Eisenhower called the 'military industrial complex', holds sway.
Isreal.....I came close to joining the IDF in 69, they found a loophole for me, I could. How would you view the world if you were them? Who's on their borders, anyone who hasn't pledged themselves to the elimination of Isreal? I go against the liberal grain with this one, but there it is.
geez, misspelled 'Israel' on every try.....
DeleteYou know that's an almost impossible question to answer that entire books have covered in far more detail (and knowledge) than I could answer. Israel is an oddity among modern nations not because it is a Jewish state and no one wants the Jews to have a state; but because it is a Jewish state in which one community - Jews - is set above others, in an age when that sort of state has no place. Israel is an anachronism.
DeleteThe fools who launched this war of choice are responsible for most of what has followed from their ignorance, hubris and incompetence. Let me list their names. Oh wait. Most know who they are and some have the wisdom now to keep quiet. Not Mr. Cheney though....:(
ReplyDeleteYep, TB, you got it. Enjoying your earlier voyages in your posts.
DeleteI've believed the Iraq war was a bunch of who shot john from the get go. If anything, it was a blood feud with a certain 'Merican president trying to one-up/impress his daddy.
ReplyDeleteThat's probably very political of me...
As for now? I don't have a clever one-off answer. It is said that part of the world has been unstable since time immemorial, and perhaps it was hubris of a nation-state in its terrible twos-not even three-hundred, let alone three thousand, years old-try to make an impression and force an equilibrium.
Robbie
ReplyDeleteYeah, probably you're right on the motivations....the justifications were WMD's, and they were never there.
I don't think there is an answer. At least none I can think of, it's been a third rail for anyone who's attempted.
The problem is that their wars with each other have spread, they are making it such that the rest of the world will have to deal with it, unless they are willing to let it happen in their country. Some countries, or country will deal with it finally, and they won't like it.
I remember one of my son's 8th grade teachers confronting him on his opposition to the war in Iraq - the teacher asked him to name one reason he was opposed to the war. My son said, "Ever hear of WMDs?"
ReplyDeleteSo much waste there for naught. Makes me sad.
It is tragic, but I think Henry is right.
ReplyDelete