 |
|
| July 23, 2003 | ||||
Respect the Troops – Not Their Spineless Leaders |
||||
| by Christopher Deliso | ||||
|
On Sunday, the Washington Post released the first of a two-part report from Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington, which has hosted almost 650 American soldiers wounded in Iraq during the past 4 months. In it we are made graphically aware of soldiers enduring horrific pain, psychological trauma and never-ending operations. And we understand how their lives have been impaired forever – ultimately on the orders of politicians who are never themselves endangered. We read: "…One Sunday afternoon, the nurse's station on (Ward) 57 gets word that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is coming for a visit. Counters are scrubbed, a hot rod magazine on the front desk gets stashed and nurses patrol the halls, making sure patients and rooms are presentable. An hour later, Rumsfeld cancels. He has a cold." What's It All About? And that about sums up the hollow support America's leaders have given throughout this whole rotten affair. That George Bush can say things like "bring 'em on" and talk about "unbroken resolve" show that he is not listening to what his troops are saying: they have had enough. Too many of them have already been killed or crippled; it's time for the rest to come while they still can. Indeed, the disillusionment of the "no visitors" soldier above is being felt by not only in hospital wards, but primarily on the battlefield. Of course, it's true that America's is a professional army, and its soldiers were aware of the dangers – even if they'd never experienced them for real – before going to Iraq. However, it's not the danger that is dragging down morale: it's instead the question of, "what is the purpose of this war? And who will it benefit, anyhow?" The ongoing pressure of daily attacks and casualties has intensified such nagging doubts and misgivings. As one soldier in Iraq recently said, "we have a lot of unanswered questions." Reporting Certain Casualties Every single day, more soldiers die or are wounded. Early on Tuesday, a US soldier was killed in yet another grenade attack. On Sunday, two other soldiers were killed. These casualties brought the "official" death toll to 153 in just over 4 months. However, Editor and Publisher's Greg Mitchell pointed out Thursday that these tallies only include "combat" deaths, and that the total number of deaths – from accidents, "friendly fire" and even a few suicides – is actually pushing 230. However, these "non-combat" casualties are being downplayed – provoking irate Americans to demand the truth. As a follow-up to this piece, Mitchell revealed yesterday that the article "has drawn the heaviest e-mail response of any article from E&P in the nearly four years I have worked for the magazine." Judging from some of the fan letters he reprints, it's clear that discovering this policy of suppression has indeed hit a "raw nerve" in the public. Indeed, now not just antiwar critics but also concerned family members and the soldiers themselves are starting to wonder if there is – or ever was – any purpose behind all of this chaos and suffering. Morale Sinks From all accounts, morale has hit rock bottom in Iraq. Underpaid American troops are suffering from the intense heat, stifling dust, dangerously insufficient water, and the psychological stress of living in constant fear of an attack, far away from their loved ones. They are forced to operate on little sleep, and are constantly on edge: "I hate these people" is a now-common epithet for soldiers who see little point in staying where they're clearly not wanted. Waiting and wishing to go home, troops are stuck holding angry protesters at bay instead. In addition, disturbing news of soldiers suffering from mysterious diseases – perhaps caused by their own radioactive munitions – have been deliberately hidden from the already downtrodden troops. Is this becoming a quagmire, like Vietnam? "It could be (getting) worse" predicts one veteran of that war. Injuries and Fatalities: a Fine Line Like football, Iraq seems to be a game of inches. In other words, there is a very fine line between partial and total disaster. Take for example the US base at Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. Troops there are coming under daily mortar fire, something which is inflicting "psychological damage" – but not only that: "..On the one occasion so far when the mortars struck U.S. soldiers, only a thin layer of camouflage netting prevented fatalities, soldiers said. "It was about 10:30 p.m. at the camp of the 3rd Brigades's 915 Forward Surgical Team when the mortars began landing. The soldiers were watching 'Major Payne,' a 1990s comedy about military life, when the mortar struck, said Lt. Leonard 'Chip' Sell, an Army doctor. "Twenty were injured and seven flown to Germany for medical treatment. "The camouflage netting is designed to blow shrapnel up and away. 'If the mortar would have hit the ground in front of us, it could have killed all of us,' said Sell." The chances of such a catastrophe only increase the longer they stay. It is clear that the Bush Administration is only one major attack away from a political disaster. That said, it seemed fairly reckless of Paul Wolfowitz to directly contradict top Iraq commander, Gen. John Abizaid, by euphemistically insisting that no Iraqi "resistance" exists. Wolfowitz seems obsessed with sugar-coating the situation – correcting soldiers on the ground by calling these well-planned guerrilla attacks mere "forces of reaction." Perhaps he should go out on patrol with the grunts and then decide. The White House Squirms No wonder that White House spinmeisters can do nothing but gape in horror as the troops on the ground start to tell it like it is. Antiwar.com's Mike Ewens has collected last week's most embarrassing quotes from the field. They show that, in the unforgiving chaos of Iraq today, all decorum is going out the window: "'…The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz,' (one US soldier) said. "'…If Donald Rumsfeld were sitting here in front of us, what would you say to him?' I [ABC reporter Jeffrey Kofman] asked a group of soldiers who gathered around a table, eager to talk to a visiting reporter. "'If he was here,' said Pfc. Jason Punyahotra, 'I would ask him why we're still here, why we've been told so many times and it's changed.' "In the back of the group, Spc. Clinton Deitz put up his hand. 'If Donald Rumsfeld was here,' he said, 'I'd ask him for his resignation.'" Save the Campaign – Throw the Critics Off the Trail Bush's election war chest is now tipping the $40 million mark. For campaign planners, it is imperative that nothing go wrong which might disturb his carefully-cultivated image of strength. And so, even though he's obviously bit off more than he can chew in Iraq, our fearless leader recently laid into 6 other "rogue states": Myanmar, Belarus, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe. Presumably, the Commander-in-Chief is planning to go in and personally topple all of those nefarious regimes – 'cause his soldiers sure as hell ain't. Actually, Bush has perhaps other young recruits in mind, at least for "mopping up" in Iraq. Desperately striving to limit the damage to morale and American lives, the White House is accepting anyone and everyone– including real live mercenaries – in a clearly disingenuous effort to limit political liability. Now, the Americans plan to use Iraqi militias as cannon fodder against their own people. Barely a week after arresting and expelling 11 of them from Iraq, the US also wants Turkish troops back to help out. Like France and Germany, India was asked for troops, but sensibly turned down the request. Perhaps the Indians were thinking of how the British once used them as cannon fodder in the 1917 attack on Baghdad. Finally, when everything else has gone to hell, the US now displays the sickening temerity to contemplate asking the UN for help, after spurning and bullying it for so long. Voracious American contractors thought that the unilateral approach meant more riches: to the victors belong the spoils. Yet, as the US is now finding out, to the victors belong only the casualties. The Bottom Line: Give Respect Where Respect is Due These past few months, American soldiers in Iraq have endured things beyond the average person's comprehension. While most will live to tell about it, they will never be free from the long-term shock and trauma of their experience. Yet many others will return with life-changing impairments – amputations, burns, mysterious diseases, probably even cancer. And hundreds more won't come back at all. If Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Co. really believe in the vaunted ideals which allegedly justified all of this bloodshed and misery, then by all means, let them change places with the soldiers on the ground – they'd be only too glad to come home. Yet the reason why the politicians are so terrified when soldiers open up to the press is because they know that the soldiers – and not themselves – possess the moral authority in this case. For all of the president's empty words about noble sacrifices, undaunted resolve and whatnot it is clear that he has no right to speak – much less punish those who do. Especially so, considering that the moral case for the whole war seems to be unraveling daily. Thrust into a chaotic, hellish situation for reasons only murkily understood, America's soldiers have exhibited bravery, tenacity and in many cases, plain heroism. They should be honored and respected by the rest of us. The same cannot be said for their political leaders – cozily ensconced out of harm's way in Washington. If, as seems more and more likely, their stated case for war turns out to have been based on lies, what then? Soldiers enlist, above all, to protect their country. Yet what if, in the case of Iraq, it turns out that they've been sacrificed for purposes having nothing to do with national defense? Will the architects of this disastrous war be willing to step forward then? |
||||
|
||||
Christopher Deliso is an American journalist, travel writer and author concentrating on the Balkans and Southeast Europe, where he has lived and traveled for almost a decade. His criticisms of interventionist foreign policy can be found in his writings for Antiwar.com, and in his recent work on the West's failures to eradicate foreign-funded Muslim extremists in the Balkans, The Coming Balkan Caliphate: The Threat of Radical Islam to Europe and the West (Praeger Security International, 2007). Mr Deliso directs the Balkan-interest news and analysis website, Balkanalysis.com and is also the author of a travelogue, Hidden Macedonia (Haus Publishing, London). He holds an MPhil with distinction in Byzantine Studies from Oxford University.
Reproduction of material from any original Antiwar.com pages
without written permission is strictly prohibited.
Copyright 2013 Antiwar.com