[Note: I submitted this essay for the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) 2009 essay contest. The MOAA panel selected the essay as one of three finalists, and it won the contest after a month of open online voting. I was proud to donate the top prize of $1,000 to the recovery fund of my friend Blake Smith, a Marine helicopter pilot recently injured in Afghanistan. You can read more about Blake here.]
In 2006 I served as a convoy commander with 3d Battalion, 3d Marines during a seven-month deployment to Haditha, Iraq. I was responsible for transporting scores of detainees from our area of operations (AO) to the Regimental detention facility at Al Asad. We felt every second of each two-hour drive down the western bank of the Euphrates River. Every moment we stared ahead intently at the road, fully aware of what might happen, and hoped our mission was worth it. These detainees often showed up again on our streets in the following weeks, and many Marines felt exasperated and betrayed. What was the point, they’d ask? Why risk our lives going on raids and transporting detainees across our AO only to see them released in a matter of days or weeks? We called it the “catch and release” program, and it crushed morale.
This is the unheard voice in the current discussion about the future of the United States’ military detainment policy, the voice of the grunt. When considered, it can bring a valuable measure of reality to esoteric philosophical debates and political rhetoric. While lawyers, activists, and politicians argue about balancing American values, international opinion, and strategic objectives, those who execute these policies watch with trepidation. Our experience demonstrates that shifting to a criminal justice framework for military detentions during combat operations will significantly increase the danger to U.S. troops and dramatically decrease their effectiveness.
The criminal justice framework makes the combat environment hazier rather than clearer. Even under the most lenient of protocols, detentions would be subject to myriad technical challenges on the validity or sufficiency of evidence, interpretations of rights and jurisdictions, and the legality of “arrests” and time limits for detention. The individual grunt and his team leader, already conducting the most difficult small-unit operations in our history, would be burdened with substantial evidence-gathering requirements and exceedingly restrictive rules of engagement.
During my first tour in Iraq in 2006, we already required documentation such as photographs, witness testimony, and lengthy reports for every detainee. These requirements were time consuming and tedious, and they pushed the limits of tactical feasibility. Combined with the frequency of detainee releases, the process could be incredibly frustrating to team leaders and platoon commanders anxious to secure an area from constant unseen threats. Asking more for less is change in the wrong direction.
Proponents of the criminal justice approach argue that adjustments can and will be made to accommodate the realities of the combat environment. This is doubtful considering the legal limitations of adjusting our criminal justice system while utilizing its courts, but even if it were true, the result would be a patchwork policy with a flimsy foundation. Inventing a system that confuses our warfighters, restricts their tactical capabilities, and breeds inefficiency through loopholes and technicalities does not constitute an improvement.
The alternative to criminal prosecution is the law of war construction, which uses the international law of armed conflict as the backbone of a system that acknowledges the differences between military operations and domestic law enforcement. All combatants have clearly defined rights and responsibilities under the law of armed conflict, and there are clear guidelines that illustrate the relationship of these rights and responsibilities. Rights are maintained by those who abide by their responsibilities. Because of this, there are clear incentives to abide by the law’s parameters, a fact that both we and our enemies understand quite well.
Perhaps the most significant benefit of this framework is that it is designed for combat operations, and therefore ties together the various dimensions of detention operations with a comprehensive policy and common language. Among other rights, these internationally accepted guidelines give us the explicit right to hold enemy combatants until the completion of hostilities. This may or may not be in our best tactical or strategic interests, but under this system we have the right to make that determination, not civilian courts. Rules of engagement are determined by commanders who understand the necessities on the ground, the parameters of allowable conduct, and the moral imperatives represented by the American public through their elected officials. Unlike the criminal justice paradigm, this system can easily adapt to a variety of conflicts without dramatically changing its core components.
To the grunt, this debate is not philosophical. The decision to shift to a criminal justice framework for detention policy would not only undermine the effectiveness of military detentions, it would needlessly and dramatically heighten the risks for those who already shoulder the heaviest burden.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
Embedded and Unvarnished
A Marine lieutenant’s book provides a bracingly candid picture of Iraq.
By Gabriel Ledeen
"Everyone’s Iraq is different.” Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom use that saying to describe the great variety of experiences encountered by those who served there. There are many reasons for this phenomenon. Timing is one important factor: Someone who deployed in 2003 might not have much in common with someone who served in the same area in 2006. Location is critical, as well: My tour in Haditha in 2006 was quite different from a buddy’s tour at the same time in Rawah, or another’s in Baghdad. One’s unit can be determinative, but even more important is the individual’s job. The point is: What you hear about Iraq will largely be determined by the individual to whom you are listening.
I raise this point partly as an introduction and partly as a warning to my review of Wesley Gray’s stimulating new book, Embedded: A Marine Corps Adviser Inside the Iraqi Army. I served in Haditha with the battalion that supported Gray’s team for several months of its deployment. As explained above, my own experience differed substantially from Gray’s by virtue of the differences in our jobs and responsibilities. If I can learn a great deal about my own area of operations from this book, I’m sure it has much to offer readers of disparate backgrounds.
This book’s value lies in the uniqueness of Gray’s experience, and his remarkably clear-eyed recognition of that uniqueness. Wes was a Marine lieutenant, embedded with an Iraqi Army unit for seven months as the intelligence officer for a Military Training Team (MTT). Its mission, like that of most MTTs, was to train and advise its assigned Iraqi Army unit and prepare that unit’s members to assume full responsibility for the security of their country. Unlike most American servicemen assigned to MTTs, Lt. Gray spoke nearly fluent Iraqi Arabic. He had graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in finance and was working on his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago when he joined the Marine Corps in 2004.
Gray’s Arabic skills, and his awareness of his unique position, helped him to understand his Iraqi counterparts in a way that others could not. He eventually became “Mulazzim Jamal,” the Iraqi rank (roughly equal to lieutenant) and name given to him by his Iraqi comrades whose trust and friendship Gray had earned. The result is an eye-opening book that gives the reader a view of Iraqi psychology and society in raw form, one that is vastly different from what one finds in analytical texts.
Unlike most other books of this genre, Embedded was not co-authored with an established professional writer. As a result, the writing and organization don’t flow quite as smoothly as one would like, and Gray’s personal and professional opinions can be a bit heavy-handed. On the other hand, the book is brutally honest; this Marine pulls no punches. There are no attempts at equivocation, and it is clear that Gray prides himself on his straight talk and honesty.
The conversations Gray recounts are priceless and make a fascinating study for anyone trying to understand the war, the Iraqis, or Iraqi society. Here are a few excerpts from Gray’s conversations with Iraqi soldiers:
“In Iraq, it is mandatory to beat your wife! To not beat your wife is considered unmanly. Men who do not beat their women allow their women to take advantage of them through their powers of seduction. I think Western pressure to stop wife beating will only lead to a systematic weakness in Iraqi men.”
“First Division is paid at a higher rate than everyone in our division because their pay officers know even more people than Captain Tseen does at the Ministry of Defense. Americans like to call this corruption. We call this getting things done. . . . All pay officers skim pay. Why do you think being the pay officer is such a highly regarded position in the Iraqi Army?”
“Jamal, there is a beating chain of command in Iraqi society. The oldest males sit at the top of the chain of command and the youngest sit at the bottom . . . Say you are around the dinner table and the youngest son calls the oldest son a weakling. The eldest son, the middle son, and the father, whose honor and respect have been violated, are obligated to beat the offender. And the instigator is obligated to let the beatings happen without a struggle . . . [If they didn’t,] this would effectively show the community that the males of the household can’t even take care of their own internal affairs.”
“The only Marine I have seen that really understood Iraqi people was Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the 3/1 commander. Do you know what happened to him? The Marines fired him for the ‘Haditha Massacre.’”
After one such conversation, Gray considers the consequences of these major cultural differences. “If Martin is correct, it will be difficult to accomplish our strategic mission in Iraq of creating a peaceful, stable, and democratic-based government that serves the people, especially if we let them decide how to do things. Paradoxically, if we let the Iraqis do things the way they want to do them, it means Iraq will end up as a tyrannical military dictatorship again. This would bring us full circle. And if we confine the Iraqis to using our methods, they will end up in the same situation our troops find themselves in: asking the locals where the IED makers are and getting blank stares.”
This was in 2006, when al-Anbar was considered “unwinnable” by the top intelligence officers in the province, but Gray’s concerns are perhaps even more relevant today in light of our ongoing early withdrawal from Iraq and the elusiveness of a definition of victory.
Gray’s sense of humor about his unusual, and at times absurd, situation keeps the pages turning and brings an authentic Marine voice to his narrative. Marines may be the funniest group of people I’ve ever encountered, and Gray channels that institutional quality masterfully. In one of his adventures, Gray rescues two 18-year-old male Marines from a crowd of Iraqi admirers. One Iraqi says to Gray, “Jamal, those two Marines are pretty and we want to have sex with them in the hut. We want to show them who is boss.” He turns to the two Marines and says, “Gents, the Iraqis think you’re cute and want to take you behind a swahut [barracks]. I’m going to get you guys the hell out of here before this gets out of hand.”
After evacuating the two distressed Devildogs, Gray is again accosted by the amorous Iraqi soldiers. This time he says to their ringleader, “Ayad, I realize you are too ugly to get women and must resort to men. If you need me to help you get some Iraqi women, let me know and I’ll make a few phone calls.” The Iraqis love the joke, and the ringleader hugs him through the window of his barricaded truck, “Jamal, you are an Iraqi. We love you.” You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
Wes Gray’s Embedded is a raw yet thoughtful account of his profoundly interesting experience, told from an honest and intelligent perspective. This is a book for anyone who wants to see Operation Iraqi Freedom from the point of view of our “main effort,” the Military Training Teams, a perspective we have lacked for too long.
By Gabriel Ledeen
"Everyone’s Iraq is different.” Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom use that saying to describe the great variety of experiences encountered by those who served there. There are many reasons for this phenomenon. Timing is one important factor: Someone who deployed in 2003 might not have much in common with someone who served in the same area in 2006. Location is critical, as well: My tour in Haditha in 2006 was quite different from a buddy’s tour at the same time in Rawah, or another’s in Baghdad. One’s unit can be determinative, but even more important is the individual’s job. The point is: What you hear about Iraq will largely be determined by the individual to whom you are listening.
I raise this point partly as an introduction and partly as a warning to my review of Wesley Gray’s stimulating new book, Embedded: A Marine Corps Adviser Inside the Iraqi Army. I served in Haditha with the battalion that supported Gray’s team for several months of its deployment. As explained above, my own experience differed substantially from Gray’s by virtue of the differences in our jobs and responsibilities. If I can learn a great deal about my own area of operations from this book, I’m sure it has much to offer readers of disparate backgrounds.
This book’s value lies in the uniqueness of Gray’s experience, and his remarkably clear-eyed recognition of that uniqueness. Wes was a Marine lieutenant, embedded with an Iraqi Army unit for seven months as the intelligence officer for a Military Training Team (MTT). Its mission, like that of most MTTs, was to train and advise its assigned Iraqi Army unit and prepare that unit’s members to assume full responsibility for the security of their country. Unlike most American servicemen assigned to MTTs, Lt. Gray spoke nearly fluent Iraqi Arabic. He had graduated from the University of Pennsylvania with a degree in finance and was working on his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago when he joined the Marine Corps in 2004.
Gray’s Arabic skills, and his awareness of his unique position, helped him to understand his Iraqi counterparts in a way that others could not. He eventually became “Mulazzim Jamal,” the Iraqi rank (roughly equal to lieutenant) and name given to him by his Iraqi comrades whose trust and friendship Gray had earned. The result is an eye-opening book that gives the reader a view of Iraqi psychology and society in raw form, one that is vastly different from what one finds in analytical texts.
Unlike most other books of this genre, Embedded was not co-authored with an established professional writer. As a result, the writing and organization don’t flow quite as smoothly as one would like, and Gray’s personal and professional opinions can be a bit heavy-handed. On the other hand, the book is brutally honest; this Marine pulls no punches. There are no attempts at equivocation, and it is clear that Gray prides himself on his straight talk and honesty.
The conversations Gray recounts are priceless and make a fascinating study for anyone trying to understand the war, the Iraqis, or Iraqi society. Here are a few excerpts from Gray’s conversations with Iraqi soldiers:
“In Iraq, it is mandatory to beat your wife! To not beat your wife is considered unmanly. Men who do not beat their women allow their women to take advantage of them through their powers of seduction. I think Western pressure to stop wife beating will only lead to a systematic weakness in Iraqi men.”
“First Division is paid at a higher rate than everyone in our division because their pay officers know even more people than Captain Tseen does at the Ministry of Defense. Americans like to call this corruption. We call this getting things done. . . . All pay officers skim pay. Why do you think being the pay officer is such a highly regarded position in the Iraqi Army?”
“Jamal, there is a beating chain of command in Iraqi society. The oldest males sit at the top of the chain of command and the youngest sit at the bottom . . . Say you are around the dinner table and the youngest son calls the oldest son a weakling. The eldest son, the middle son, and the father, whose honor and respect have been violated, are obligated to beat the offender. And the instigator is obligated to let the beatings happen without a struggle . . . [If they didn’t,] this would effectively show the community that the males of the household can’t even take care of their own internal affairs.”
“The only Marine I have seen that really understood Iraqi people was Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the 3/1 commander. Do you know what happened to him? The Marines fired him for the ‘Haditha Massacre.’”
After one such conversation, Gray considers the consequences of these major cultural differences. “If Martin is correct, it will be difficult to accomplish our strategic mission in Iraq of creating a peaceful, stable, and democratic-based government that serves the people, especially if we let them decide how to do things. Paradoxically, if we let the Iraqis do things the way they want to do them, it means Iraq will end up as a tyrannical military dictatorship again. This would bring us full circle. And if we confine the Iraqis to using our methods, they will end up in the same situation our troops find themselves in: asking the locals where the IED makers are and getting blank stares.”
This was in 2006, when al-Anbar was considered “unwinnable” by the top intelligence officers in the province, but Gray’s concerns are perhaps even more relevant today in light of our ongoing early withdrawal from Iraq and the elusiveness of a definition of victory.
Gray’s sense of humor about his unusual, and at times absurd, situation keeps the pages turning and brings an authentic Marine voice to his narrative. Marines may be the funniest group of people I’ve ever encountered, and Gray channels that institutional quality masterfully. In one of his adventures, Gray rescues two 18-year-old male Marines from a crowd of Iraqi admirers. One Iraqi says to Gray, “Jamal, those two Marines are pretty and we want to have sex with them in the hut. We want to show them who is boss.” He turns to the two Marines and says, “Gents, the Iraqis think you’re cute and want to take you behind a swahut [barracks]. I’m going to get you guys the hell out of here before this gets out of hand.”
After evacuating the two distressed Devildogs, Gray is again accosted by the amorous Iraqi soldiers. This time he says to their ringleader, “Ayad, I realize you are too ugly to get women and must resort to men. If you need me to help you get some Iraqi women, let me know and I’ll make a few phone calls.” The Iraqis love the joke, and the ringleader hugs him through the window of his barricaded truck, “Jamal, you are an Iraqi. We love you.” You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.
Wes Gray’s Embedded is a raw yet thoughtful account of his profoundly interesting experience, told from an honest and intelligent perspective. This is a book for anyone who wants to see Operation Iraqi Freedom from the point of view of our “main effort,” the Military Training Teams, a perspective we have lacked for too long.
Friday, June 12, 2009
War Supplemental
Fighting for the War Supplemental
NRO The Corner - June 12, 2009
Yesterday I joined Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and Representative Conway at the podium of a press conference on the “war supplemental.” Both senators are fighting furiously to make sure that the bill includes the provision that prohibits the release of the photographs allegedly documenting detainee abuse. It was a privilege to participate in the press conference with them. Here is what I said:
I served two tours in Iraq as an officer in a marine infantry battalion. I was a convoy commander in the Haditha area of Al-Anbar province in 2006, so I know from personal experience the kind of impact, both positive and negative, congressional politics can have on the battlefield. I recall two specific incidents. The first was obviously Congressman Murtha’s comments on the so-called Haditha incident. The second was an appropriations bill, similar to this one we are discussing now, that narrowly passed by two votes. These statements damaged troop morale, encouraged our enemies, and unnerved potential friends, and allies among the local population.
Here you have a bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Democrats oppose it simply because they don’t want to vote for a continuation of these wars, or these battlefronts of the larger war, however you see it, even with President Obama in charge of them. Fine. Other Democrats and Republicans want to vote for the funding, they want to give President Obama the funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It sounds relatively straightforward.
The addition of the $105 billion package of loans to the IMF brings a whole set of extraneous and contentious issues to a bill that is critically important to our efforts against international terrorism. Speaker Pelosi is allowing this unrelated and divisive issue to interfere with the funding of ongoing combat operations. This is irresponsible leadership, and our troops deserve more than that from Congress.
As I told you earlier, I was in Iraq when we went through this before, and the funding bill passed by just two votes. Vets For Freedom fought for responsible leadership in Congress then, and continues to fight today to give the president and the Secretary of Defense the funding they have requested to execute in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some Democrats want the extraneous IMF provision included, but demand the removal of the Lieberman/Graham provision blocking the release of the detainee photographs. Everyone agrees, both Republicans and Democrats, that these photos, if released, will help our enemies and endanger our troops engaged in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations around the world. That’s plain English. Even President Obama agrees and has said so publicly. They will be used to recruit new militant extremists, anger previously neutral individuals and groups, and undermine efforts to bring peace to areas battling Islamic fanaticism.
Senators Lieberman and Graham are doing the responsible thing. As leaders they are taking sensible action on what they know (and everyone knows) to be right. It is time for other representatives to do the same. Remove the IMF loans, protect our troops and our strategic efforts by blocking these photographs, and allow the war supplemental to be what it is supposed to be, not a tool for political maneuvering.
NRO The Corner - June 12, 2009
Yesterday I joined Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and Representative Conway at the podium of a press conference on the “war supplemental.” Both senators are fighting furiously to make sure that the bill includes the provision that prohibits the release of the photographs allegedly documenting detainee abuse. It was a privilege to participate in the press conference with them. Here is what I said:
I served two tours in Iraq as an officer in a marine infantry battalion. I was a convoy commander in the Haditha area of Al-Anbar province in 2006, so I know from personal experience the kind of impact, both positive and negative, congressional politics can have on the battlefield. I recall two specific incidents. The first was obviously Congressman Murtha’s comments on the so-called Haditha incident. The second was an appropriations bill, similar to this one we are discussing now, that narrowly passed by two votes. These statements damaged troop morale, encouraged our enemies, and unnerved potential friends, and allies among the local population.
Here you have a bill funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Democrats oppose it simply because they don’t want to vote for a continuation of these wars, or these battlefronts of the larger war, however you see it, even with President Obama in charge of them. Fine. Other Democrats and Republicans want to vote for the funding, they want to give President Obama the funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. It sounds relatively straightforward.
The addition of the $105 billion package of loans to the IMF brings a whole set of extraneous and contentious issues to a bill that is critically important to our efforts against international terrorism. Speaker Pelosi is allowing this unrelated and divisive issue to interfere with the funding of ongoing combat operations. This is irresponsible leadership, and our troops deserve more than that from Congress.
As I told you earlier, I was in Iraq when we went through this before, and the funding bill passed by just two votes. Vets For Freedom fought for responsible leadership in Congress then, and continues to fight today to give the president and the Secretary of Defense the funding they have requested to execute in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some Democrats want the extraneous IMF provision included, but demand the removal of the Lieberman/Graham provision blocking the release of the detainee photographs. Everyone agrees, both Republicans and Democrats, that these photos, if released, will help our enemies and endanger our troops engaged in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations around the world. That’s plain English. Even President Obama agrees and has said so publicly. They will be used to recruit new militant extremists, anger previously neutral individuals and groups, and undermine efforts to bring peace to areas battling Islamic fanaticism.
Senators Lieberman and Graham are doing the responsible thing. As leaders they are taking sensible action on what they know (and everyone knows) to be right. It is time for other representatives to do the same. Remove the IMF loans, protect our troops and our strategic efforts by blocking these photographs, and allow the war supplemental to be what it is supposed to be, not a tool for political maneuvering.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Heritage Foundation Panel On Iraq
Pete Hegseth and I discuss our experiences as active duty military officers in Iraq at a Heritage Foundation Panel, "The War in Iraq: Views from Two Veterans."
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Who Speaks For Veterans (Part III)
The Washington Times
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
LETTER TO EDITOR: Remember to speak for veterans themselves
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The Veterans of Foreign Wars national commander's lengthy, intemperate response ("The VFW speaks for veterans," Letter, Sunday) to my op-ed, "Who speaks for veterans?" (Opinion, April 30), confirms every major point I raised. Glen M. Gardner Jr. focuses exclusively on the benefits and funding that the VFW has helped secure for its members, praises the famously corrupt Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, and defends the Department of Homeland Security's recent anti-veteran report.
My generation of veterans is not willing to trade in our honor for handouts and has no interest in becoming welfare recipients at the expense of our legacy.
There is no excuse for endorsing a congressman who used his position to convict Marines of murder in the court of public opinion before the investigation was completed, as Mr. Murtha did with the eight Marines in Haditha. Mr. Murtha has never apologized for this slander even after the Marines were exonerated and veterans refuse to forgive or forget his betrayal. No sum of money and no quantity of benefits is worth the sacrifice of our values and our pride.
Mr. Gardner's continued defense of the infamous Homeland Security report is hollow and dangerous. This report creates a frame through which veterans and veteran-related incidents will be viewed by the media and subsequently by the public. It creates a false stereotype that will encourage generalizing the inevitable individual incidents to brand veterans as "extremists."
The VFW failed to defend Vietnam veterans from this type of public slander. We will not allow ourselves to be the victims of the same betrayal. We fought and continue to fight, honorably and successfully, and our legacy must reflect that. Veterans' service organizations exist to ensure that happens without compromise. Leaders like Mr. Gardner continue to fail us in this regard.
Mr. Gardner defends his organization's 110-year reputation and brags about its legacy. I wish he would do the same for veterans themselves.
GABE LEDEEN
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
LETTER TO EDITOR: Remember to speak for veterans themselves
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The Veterans of Foreign Wars national commander's lengthy, intemperate response ("The VFW speaks for veterans," Letter, Sunday) to my op-ed, "Who speaks for veterans?" (Opinion, April 30), confirms every major point I raised. Glen M. Gardner Jr. focuses exclusively on the benefits and funding that the VFW has helped secure for its members, praises the famously corrupt Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, and defends the Department of Homeland Security's recent anti-veteran report.
My generation of veterans is not willing to trade in our honor for handouts and has no interest in becoming welfare recipients at the expense of our legacy.
There is no excuse for endorsing a congressman who used his position to convict Marines of murder in the court of public opinion before the investigation was completed, as Mr. Murtha did with the eight Marines in Haditha. Mr. Murtha has never apologized for this slander even after the Marines were exonerated and veterans refuse to forgive or forget his betrayal. No sum of money and no quantity of benefits is worth the sacrifice of our values and our pride.
Mr. Gardner's continued defense of the infamous Homeland Security report is hollow and dangerous. This report creates a frame through which veterans and veteran-related incidents will be viewed by the media and subsequently by the public. It creates a false stereotype that will encourage generalizing the inevitable individual incidents to brand veterans as "extremists."
The VFW failed to defend Vietnam veterans from this type of public slander. We will not allow ourselves to be the victims of the same betrayal. We fought and continue to fight, honorably and successfully, and our legacy must reflect that. Veterans' service organizations exist to ensure that happens without compromise. Leaders like Mr. Gardner continue to fail us in this regard.
Mr. Gardner defends his organization's 110-year reputation and brags about its legacy. I wish he would do the same for veterans themselves.
GABE LEDEEN
Who Speaks for Veterans (Part II)
The Washington Times
Sunday, May 3, 2009
LETTER TO EDITOR: The VFW speaks for veterans
In the Op-Ed column "Who speaks for veterans?" (Opinion, Thursday), Vets for Freedom senior fellow Gabe Ledeen maliciously impugned the 110-year-old reputation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. because he disagrees with the VFW's response to a Department of Homeland Security threat assessment of radical extremist groups.
Had Mr. Ledeen actually read the report for what it was - and not for what he thought it meant - he would have seen that it is a poorly written report that merely states an inescapable fact: Extremist groups want to recruit veterans. The report is nothing more.
He then argues against the VFW Political Action Committee's endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, in the last congressional race. Mr. Murtha is certainly known to make foot-in-mouth statements, but he also is a strong advocate for veterans, service members and their families, which is one reason why his constituents have elected him to Congress 19 times.
Mr. Ledeen has the audacity to imply that the VFW needs to recognize its mission "and abandon the petty pandering that continues to stand in the way of real progress and honest representation."
Oh really?
The VFW helped 95,000 veterans last year to recoup $1.2 billion in earned compensation and pension from the government - for free. We awarded $3.5 million in youth scholarships, volunteered 13 million hours in our communities and Veterans Affairs and military hospitals, gave out $2.5 million in grants to help 1,800 military families through temporary financial emergencies, and distributed 11 million free phone cards to deployed and recuperating military personnel.
On Capitol Hill, the VFW was the first veterans organization to support the Bush administration's war-on-terrorism objectives. Our lobbying efforts helped create traumatic injury disability insurance, helped devise a 21st-century GI Bill and provided special payments to Vietnam veterans whose children developed spina bifida. The VFW helped defeat the Obama administration's proposal to bill private health insurance for service-connected care, and it also was instrumental in thwarting previous attempts to create VA enrollment fees and increase prescription co-payments and military Tricare premiums. In addition, the VFW single-handedly got all U.S. airlines to waive third-checked-luggage fees for military travelers.
The VFW takes a back seat to no one. This is why we routinely are asked to testify before Congress on legislation that affects programs for America's veterans and service members.
Never has a Vets for Freedom representative been seated next to us at the witness table, which leads me to restate Mr. Ledeen's original question: "Who speaks for veterans?"
Success in Washington requires being pragmatic about issues without leaving enemies in your wake. I would suggest the next time Vets for Freedom - or one of its members - decides to challenge a military or veterans service organization, he or she does it in person and does not sit on the sidelines using the press as a shield.
GLEN M. GARDNER JR.
National commander
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
Round Rock, Texas
Sunday, May 3, 2009
LETTER TO EDITOR: The VFW speaks for veterans
In the Op-Ed column "Who speaks for veterans?" (Opinion, Thursday), Vets for Freedom senior fellow Gabe Ledeen maliciously impugned the 110-year-old reputation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. because he disagrees with the VFW's response to a Department of Homeland Security threat assessment of radical extremist groups.
Had Mr. Ledeen actually read the report for what it was - and not for what he thought it meant - he would have seen that it is a poorly written report that merely states an inescapable fact: Extremist groups want to recruit veterans. The report is nothing more.
He then argues against the VFW Political Action Committee's endorsement of Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, in the last congressional race. Mr. Murtha is certainly known to make foot-in-mouth statements, but he also is a strong advocate for veterans, service members and their families, which is one reason why his constituents have elected him to Congress 19 times.
Mr. Ledeen has the audacity to imply that the VFW needs to recognize its mission "and abandon the petty pandering that continues to stand in the way of real progress and honest representation."
Oh really?
The VFW helped 95,000 veterans last year to recoup $1.2 billion in earned compensation and pension from the government - for free. We awarded $3.5 million in youth scholarships, volunteered 13 million hours in our communities and Veterans Affairs and military hospitals, gave out $2.5 million in grants to help 1,800 military families through temporary financial emergencies, and distributed 11 million free phone cards to deployed and recuperating military personnel.
On Capitol Hill, the VFW was the first veterans organization to support the Bush administration's war-on-terrorism objectives. Our lobbying efforts helped create traumatic injury disability insurance, helped devise a 21st-century GI Bill and provided special payments to Vietnam veterans whose children developed spina bifida. The VFW helped defeat the Obama administration's proposal to bill private health insurance for service-connected care, and it also was instrumental in thwarting previous attempts to create VA enrollment fees and increase prescription co-payments and military Tricare premiums. In addition, the VFW single-handedly got all U.S. airlines to waive third-checked-luggage fees for military travelers.
The VFW takes a back seat to no one. This is why we routinely are asked to testify before Congress on legislation that affects programs for America's veterans and service members.
Never has a Vets for Freedom representative been seated next to us at the witness table, which leads me to restate Mr. Ledeen's original question: "Who speaks for veterans?"
Success in Washington requires being pragmatic about issues without leaving enemies in your wake. I would suggest the next time Vets for Freedom - or one of its members - decides to challenge a military or veterans service organization, he or she does it in person and does not sit on the sidelines using the press as a shield.
GLEN M. GARDNER JR.
National commander
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.
Round Rock, Texas
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Who Speaks For Veterans?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
In its second major misstep with veterans in as many months, the Obama administration gave our representative organizations another opportunity to step up on our behalf and defend us from misguided government action.
The meek response from the national leadership of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) stood in stark contrast to the strong statement from the American Legion's national commander, David K. Rehbein. At issue was the recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that profiled returning veterans as potential recruits for right-wing extremist organizations and urged law enforcement personnel to recall the military service of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
This seemed like an easy call for veterans service organizations (VSOs), much like the recent White House proposal to charge wounded veterans' insurance providers for the treatment of service-connected injuries that prompted universal condemnation from veterans and non-vets alike.
The American Legion, an organization open to all servicemen and women regardless of combat experience, stood alone among these leading VSOs in its commander's criticism of the DHS report. Mr. Rehbein cautioned, "I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are." VFW and IAVA, organizations dedicated to combat veterans, apparently could not see what all the fuss was about. It was left to civilians like Powerline blogger John Hinderaker to expose the empirical emptiness of the report, while even then IAVA sat on its hands with lips sealed.
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the VFW and a Vietnam veteran, actually defended the report. "The report proves that DHS is doing its job, and that's to protect America and Americans." Had he analyzed it, Mr. Gardner might have observed that the report's empirical flimsiness and overtly political language rather suggests that the DHS is issuing law enforcement advisories without viable evidence-based justification.
Furthermore, as the senior representative of more than 2 million American combat veterans, Mr. Gardner ought to consider that many of them, despite their heroism and success, are already facing stigma and stereotypes in their homes, schools and workplaces. There is real damage in contributing to the perception that veterans should be feared and monitored, and Mr. Gardner should know better.
One wonders what it will take for the members of the VFW to confront their leadership for betrayals such as this. In 2008, the VFW's Political Action Committee endorsed John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, in his re-election campaign for Congress against 28-year Army veteran Bill Russell, who had served in Operation Desert Storm, Kosovo and Iraq and heroically participated in rescue efforts at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. This endorsement came despite the congressman's infamous repeated slander of Marines in Haditha, Iraq, at a critical point in the war.
While at the time Mr. Murtha proclaimed that "there was no doubt" about the guilt of the Marines involved, seven of the eight accused Marines were exonerated and the prosecution against the final defendant remains indefinitely postponed. No matter, Mr. Murtha continued to rant against the war and used Haditha as evidence of our inability to win Iraqi hearts and minds.
These wounds were reopened by the recent decision by former Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter to give Mr. Murtha the Navy's highest award for public service. This decision sparked an outcry among veterans and led to a current online petition garnering more than 55,000 signatures demanding an apology from Mr. Murtha or a retraction of the award.
Mr. Murtha's official Web page lists the 2008 endorsements, where one can read from the VFW letter, "In addition to comments received from VFW leaders in your state, this endorsement is based on your strong support for veterans, national security/defense, and military personnel issues." In other words, because you continue to serve as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the defense subcommittee, and you continue to direct taxpayer dollars to programs we support, we endorse you for re-election.
This attitude is pervasive, evident in methods used by the VFW and IAVA to endorse or evaluate political leaders and candidates for office. In IAVA's 2008 "Congressional Report Card," issues such as health care, GI Bill, mental health, and support for homeless veterans were taken into account, with no consideration given to whether the representative's actions had a positive or negative effect on the war effort and the troops serving in combat.
These benefits are earned, and appreciated. But they are a poor substitute for the faith, encouragement and support we deserve from our Congress while fighting our nation's enemies. If we are only concerned with obtaining benefits, and believe that appropriations are the only relevant metric with which to measure a legislator's performance, then we deserve Mr. Murtha, IAVA and the VFW.
On July 4, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke these famous words: "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterward. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." It is time for veterans' organizations to recognize this mission, and abandon the petty pandering that continues to stand in the way of real progress and honest representation. It is up to veterans to force the VSOs to represent us, or to replace them.
Gabe Ledeen is a former Marine captain and two-tour veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a freelance writer and senior fellow with Vets For Freedom.
In its second major misstep with veterans in as many months, the Obama administration gave our representative organizations another opportunity to step up on our behalf and defend us from misguided government action.
The meek response from the national leadership of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) stood in stark contrast to the strong statement from the American Legion's national commander, David K. Rehbein. At issue was the recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report that profiled returning veterans as potential recruits for right-wing extremist organizations and urged law enforcement personnel to recall the military service of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.
This seemed like an easy call for veterans service organizations (VSOs), much like the recent White House proposal to charge wounded veterans' insurance providers for the treatment of service-connected injuries that prompted universal condemnation from veterans and non-vets alike.
The American Legion, an organization open to all servicemen and women regardless of combat experience, stood alone among these leading VSOs in its commander's criticism of the DHS report. Mr. Rehbein cautioned, "I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are." VFW and IAVA, organizations dedicated to combat veterans, apparently could not see what all the fuss was about. It was left to civilians like Powerline blogger John Hinderaker to expose the empirical emptiness of the report, while even then IAVA sat on its hands with lips sealed.
Glen M. Gardner Jr., the national commander of the VFW and a Vietnam veteran, actually defended the report. "The report proves that DHS is doing its job, and that's to protect America and Americans." Had he analyzed it, Mr. Gardner might have observed that the report's empirical flimsiness and overtly political language rather suggests that the DHS is issuing law enforcement advisories without viable evidence-based justification.
Furthermore, as the senior representative of more than 2 million American combat veterans, Mr. Gardner ought to consider that many of them, despite their heroism and success, are already facing stigma and stereotypes in their homes, schools and workplaces. There is real damage in contributing to the perception that veterans should be feared and monitored, and Mr. Gardner should know better.
One wonders what it will take for the members of the VFW to confront their leadership for betrayals such as this. In 2008, the VFW's Political Action Committee endorsed John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, in his re-election campaign for Congress against 28-year Army veteran Bill Russell, who had served in Operation Desert Storm, Kosovo and Iraq and heroically participated in rescue efforts at the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. This endorsement came despite the congressman's infamous repeated slander of Marines in Haditha, Iraq, at a critical point in the war.
While at the time Mr. Murtha proclaimed that "there was no doubt" about the guilt of the Marines involved, seven of the eight accused Marines were exonerated and the prosecution against the final defendant remains indefinitely postponed. No matter, Mr. Murtha continued to rant against the war and used Haditha as evidence of our inability to win Iraqi hearts and minds.
These wounds were reopened by the recent decision by former Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter to give Mr. Murtha the Navy's highest award for public service. This decision sparked an outcry among veterans and led to a current online petition garnering more than 55,000 signatures demanding an apology from Mr. Murtha or a retraction of the award.
Mr. Murtha's official Web page lists the 2008 endorsements, where one can read from the VFW letter, "In addition to comments received from VFW leaders in your state, this endorsement is based on your strong support for veterans, national security/defense, and military personnel issues." In other words, because you continue to serve as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the defense subcommittee, and you continue to direct taxpayer dollars to programs we support, we endorse you for re-election.
This attitude is pervasive, evident in methods used by the VFW and IAVA to endorse or evaluate political leaders and candidates for office. In IAVA's 2008 "Congressional Report Card," issues such as health care, GI Bill, mental health, and support for homeless veterans were taken into account, with no consideration given to whether the representative's actions had a positive or negative effect on the war effort and the troops serving in combat.
These benefits are earned, and appreciated. But they are a poor substitute for the faith, encouragement and support we deserve from our Congress while fighting our nation's enemies. If we are only concerned with obtaining benefits, and believe that appropriations are the only relevant metric with which to measure a legislator's performance, then we deserve Mr. Murtha, IAVA and the VFW.
On July 4, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt spoke these famous words: "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterward. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." It is time for veterans' organizations to recognize this mission, and abandon the petty pandering that continues to stand in the way of real progress and honest representation. It is up to veterans to force the VSOs to represent us, or to replace them.
Gabe Ledeen is a former Marine captain and two-tour veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He is a freelance writer and senior fellow with Vets For Freedom.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Echoes of the '30s in Caracas
Mar. 30, 2009
THE JERUSALEM POST
It is one thing to read reports about state-sponsored anti-Semitism from the comfort and security of the United States, but it is entirely different to step into the world of those who are persecuted and experience their fear as your own.
On a recent mission of discovery, I traveled to Caracas, Venezuela, to visit with the Jewish community as it responded to the latest attacks against two synagogues. Throughout my short visit I was repeatedly urged to bring the community's story back to the US and tell others of its plight, conscious of the heavy responsibility of speaking for those whose speech is restricted by a vengeful and suspicious government.
The Venezuelan Jewish community traces its roots back more than 200 years and has no history of tension with the local population. Before the rise of Hugo Chavez, the Jews were a welcome part of a society known for its warm temperament and amiable disposition, free from the discrimination and anti-Semitic violence in many other countries. Over the last 10 years conditions have worsened dramatically, and although 15,000 still remain, more than half the Jewish population has already fled.
CHAVEZ'S CAMPAIGN against the Jews has three principal components. The first is the systematic stigmatizing of Israel as a "bloodthirsty," "oppressive," "genocidal" and "monstrous" country (quoted from Chavez and his officials) that disregards basic human decency and arrogantly defies international law. The second is the objectification of Jews as Zionists, seamlessly tying the Jews to the imagined evils and horror of the Israeli state. Statements such as "Zionism is Nazism" abound, both on the streets and in parliament.
All of this takes place in the context of anti-capitalist class warfare, in which "enemies of the people" are labeled by the government-controlled media to provide both justification and an outlet for bitter frustration and anger. This strategy was used to great effect in the national socialist movements of the 20th century, where Jews were specifically targeted as "elitist" to subject them to the anger and resentment of collectivist masses.
With crime exploding to astonishing levels, and disastrous economic policies destroying the middle class, Chavez is applying this same model. He uses his charisma and populist appeal to instill hatred of Jews and capitalists in his supporters, who are mainly from the lower class, the military and those who profit from his power.
This process began years ago, but reached unprecedented heights (or depths) after Israel initiated its offensive against Hamas in Gaza. After his supporters staged demonstrations and vandalized the Israeli embassy, Chavez's government seized the opportunity to expel all Israeli diplomats on January 6.
There is public documentation of more than 400 anti-Semitic and anti-Israel public statements made by government officials since the expulsion, including a call to action in a state-run newspaper urging Venezuelans to "challenge Jews" where they live and work. "Denounce publicly, with names and last names, the members of the powerful Jewish groups present in Venezuela, indicating the companies they own to establish a boycott."
THIS CAMPAIGN is intensifying. I visited the Beit Shmuel synagogue and saw where a hand grenade exploded on February 26 outside the main entrance, damaging a vehicle and the building's exterior. I saw the Tifereth Israel synagogue where a highly coordinated and well-equipped team broke through extensive security, spray-painted hate messages throughout the house of worship, desecrated the holy texts in the sanctuary and, most ominously, stole the congregation's membership information from a locked safe and a desktop computer.
I visited the Hebraica school and community center, where Venezuelan police pushed past students on their way to class to raid the facility on November 29, 2004 and again on December 1, 2007. The latter raid occurred on the eve of an important referendum vote for Chavez, and the former occurred on a day for international solidarity with the Palestinian people - during which Chavez also met with Iranian leaders in Teheran.
Hugo Chavez continues to deny any involvement in these incidents and claims to have no antipathy toward the Jews. Instead, he cunningly offers them a Faustian deal by demanding their support in publicly denouncing Israel for its alleged misdeeds. Yet even these statements clearly promote a climate where anti-Semitism is not only tolerated, but is encouraged by his government.
Here is how he put it in a recent interview, "I ask Venezuelan Jews to speak out against these barbaric actions... Don't you forcefully reject any act of persecution? Don't the Jews reject the Holocaust? What do you think this is? The cowardly army of Israel attacks defenseless and innocent people, yet they boast they are defending their people."
His exterior minister called the Israeli army "the worst criminal armed forces known by humanity" and dramatically demanded a "change of attitude of the Jewish people worldwide."
The Jews of Venezuela are afraid, as well they should be. Walking their streets and visiting their homes and synagogues, I could feel the sense of foreboding that weighs heavier on them day by day. I could hear it in the urgency of their prayers during religious services, feel it in the embraces and handshakes I received when I introduced myself and my mission and see it in the eyes of the Hebraica high school students as I listened to their stories of frustrated youth. They are asking for our help, for our strength, and our voices. They cannot speak out; will we speak for them?
The writer is a former US Marine captain and two-tour veteran of the Iraq war. He currently travels as a freelance writer and senior fellow of Vets For Freedom, contributing to numerous on-line publications.
THE JERUSALEM POST
It is one thing to read reports about state-sponsored anti-Semitism from the comfort and security of the United States, but it is entirely different to step into the world of those who are persecuted and experience their fear as your own.
On a recent mission of discovery, I traveled to Caracas, Venezuela, to visit with the Jewish community as it responded to the latest attacks against two synagogues. Throughout my short visit I was repeatedly urged to bring the community's story back to the US and tell others of its plight, conscious of the heavy responsibility of speaking for those whose speech is restricted by a vengeful and suspicious government.
The Venezuelan Jewish community traces its roots back more than 200 years and has no history of tension with the local population. Before the rise of Hugo Chavez, the Jews were a welcome part of a society known for its warm temperament and amiable disposition, free from the discrimination and anti-Semitic violence in many other countries. Over the last 10 years conditions have worsened dramatically, and although 15,000 still remain, more than half the Jewish population has already fled.
CHAVEZ'S CAMPAIGN against the Jews has three principal components. The first is the systematic stigmatizing of Israel as a "bloodthirsty," "oppressive," "genocidal" and "monstrous" country (quoted from Chavez and his officials) that disregards basic human decency and arrogantly defies international law. The second is the objectification of Jews as Zionists, seamlessly tying the Jews to the imagined evils and horror of the Israeli state. Statements such as "Zionism is Nazism" abound, both on the streets and in parliament.
All of this takes place in the context of anti-capitalist class warfare, in which "enemies of the people" are labeled by the government-controlled media to provide both justification and an outlet for bitter frustration and anger. This strategy was used to great effect in the national socialist movements of the 20th century, where Jews were specifically targeted as "elitist" to subject them to the anger and resentment of collectivist masses.
With crime exploding to astonishing levels, and disastrous economic policies destroying the middle class, Chavez is applying this same model. He uses his charisma and populist appeal to instill hatred of Jews and capitalists in his supporters, who are mainly from the lower class, the military and those who profit from his power.
This process began years ago, but reached unprecedented heights (or depths) after Israel initiated its offensive against Hamas in Gaza. After his supporters staged demonstrations and vandalized the Israeli embassy, Chavez's government seized the opportunity to expel all Israeli diplomats on January 6.
There is public documentation of more than 400 anti-Semitic and anti-Israel public statements made by government officials since the expulsion, including a call to action in a state-run newspaper urging Venezuelans to "challenge Jews" where they live and work. "Denounce publicly, with names and last names, the members of the powerful Jewish groups present in Venezuela, indicating the companies they own to establish a boycott."
THIS CAMPAIGN is intensifying. I visited the Beit Shmuel synagogue and saw where a hand grenade exploded on February 26 outside the main entrance, damaging a vehicle and the building's exterior. I saw the Tifereth Israel synagogue where a highly coordinated and well-equipped team broke through extensive security, spray-painted hate messages throughout the house of worship, desecrated the holy texts in the sanctuary and, most ominously, stole the congregation's membership information from a locked safe and a desktop computer.
I visited the Hebraica school and community center, where Venezuelan police pushed past students on their way to class to raid the facility on November 29, 2004 and again on December 1, 2007. The latter raid occurred on the eve of an important referendum vote for Chavez, and the former occurred on a day for international solidarity with the Palestinian people - during which Chavez also met with Iranian leaders in Teheran.
Hugo Chavez continues to deny any involvement in these incidents and claims to have no antipathy toward the Jews. Instead, he cunningly offers them a Faustian deal by demanding their support in publicly denouncing Israel for its alleged misdeeds. Yet even these statements clearly promote a climate where anti-Semitism is not only tolerated, but is encouraged by his government.
Here is how he put it in a recent interview, "I ask Venezuelan Jews to speak out against these barbaric actions... Don't you forcefully reject any act of persecution? Don't the Jews reject the Holocaust? What do you think this is? The cowardly army of Israel attacks defenseless and innocent people, yet they boast they are defending their people."
His exterior minister called the Israeli army "the worst criminal armed forces known by humanity" and dramatically demanded a "change of attitude of the Jewish people worldwide."
The Jews of Venezuela are afraid, as well they should be. Walking their streets and visiting their homes and synagogues, I could feel the sense of foreboding that weighs heavier on them day by day. I could hear it in the urgency of their prayers during religious services, feel it in the embraces and handshakes I received when I introduced myself and my mission and see it in the eyes of the Hebraica high school students as I listened to their stories of frustrated youth. They are asking for our help, for our strength, and our voices. They cannot speak out; will we speak for them?
The writer is a former US Marine captain and two-tour veteran of the Iraq war. He currently travels as a freelance writer and senior fellow of Vets For Freedom, contributing to numerous on-line publications.
Friday, March 27, 2009
(Re-) Creating Anbar's Awakening
Posted March 27, 2009 | 11:53 AM (EST)
(Re-) Creating Anbar's Awakening
Signaling his commitment to campaign promises of a "surge" in Afghanistan, President Obama recently authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to reinforce our flagging efforts. While he is still awaiting the official "strategic review" of the war, the president undoubtedly believes that the additional troops are necessary to counter the resurgent Taliban in much the same way that our surge in Iraq succeeded in quelling violence and securing the apocalyptic Baghdad.
Such a comparison, with especially significant strategic implications, requires a more thorough understanding of our Iraqi successes than currently exists. The differences between Afghanistan and Iraq are myriad and meaningful -- that is clear -- but the focus on implementing our newly recast counter-insurgency doctrine in the "other" war should give us reason to consider what exactly we did to turn the tide in Iraq. As most now recognize, the change began in Iraq's most infamous province, al Anbar. The popular consensus regarding Al Anbar contends that the tribal movement known as the "Awakening" was an impromptu rejection by Sunnis of Al Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) brutal methods and radical rule. This consensus is wrong, or at best, only partially right.
I saw this dramatic transformation as a Marine officer deployed to Haditha in 2006 and Karma in 2007-2008. The Anbar Awakening was not a spontaneous uprising against the horrible brutality of the insurgents. Rather, it occurred and succeeded due to the conditions created by U.S. forces who steadily built the foundation for Anbar's stability. Through dynamic security operations, complex relationships with tribal leaders, and consistent moral authority, we successfully separated the population from the insurgency, demonstrated our potential for victory, and earned the support of Iraqis yearning for peace. It was only after we established these conditions that the Sunni sheiks could urge their tribes to awaken and stand together with U.S. forces against the AQI terrorists.
When I arrived in the Haditha area of Al Anbar in March of 2006, the local Sunnis had substantial reasons to distrust the U.S. military. The U.S. had dismantled the old Sunni dominated Iraqi Army, Shi'ites dominated the new government, and there was no cooperation from Baghdad. The Sunnis concluded that they had little hope for the future under Coalition/Shi'ite rule. We had been unable to protect those who worked with us as AQI's murder and intimidation campaign grew to horrific levels. Sunnis couldn't choose between the apparently impotent Coalition and the vicious insurgency and were paralyzed by uncertainty. As Marine General Mattis told author Bing West for his book The Strongest Tribe, "Not one man in a hundred will stand up to a real killer. It's ruthlessness that cows people." Our ruthless enemy used fear as a weapon; we needed to give the Iraqis reason to hope.
The most critical condition required for the emergence of the tribal Awakening movement was a dynamic and effective security infrastructure. American military forces could not achieve such an impact alone, due to inadequate force levels and an inability to effectively distinguish insurgents from civilians. Good security required the active participation of screened and trained local Iraqi police and army units, partnered with U.S. forces, focused in the population centers.
We increased our presence in these population centers by establishing combat outposts and remaining in neighborhoods for duration operations. Our Marines patrolled continuously, which disrupted the enemy's freedom of movement and fostered relationships with the local population. We partnered with Iraqi Army units to develop them tactically and to mentor their leaders. Our embedded Military Training Teams lived with the Iraqi Army, developed close personal ties and fought side by side with them as the lessons gradually took hold. When locals were afraid to join the police force, we went outside the area and brought in Iraqis who had previously fled to help us retake control. We built and provided protection for new police units, and together began a concerted offensive against insurgents who soon had nowhere to hide.
Security was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in Anbar. Other key conditions included empowering tribal leaders, maintaining moral authority, and cultivating confidence in our long term objectives and capabilities. Our commanders set a grueling operational tempo and we established these conditions day-by-day. We involved tribal sheiks in decisions and the distribution of projects and funds. We made them choose between us and the insurgents by rewarding those who worked with us and marginalizing those who did not.
Marine leaders insisted on maintaining moral authority and ordered Marines to act with kindness and compassion towards Iraqis whenever possible. "First, do no harm", and "Seek first to understand" were maxims that reinforced our respect for the humanity and dignity of the Iraqi people. We tried to improve their lives and give them hope in the future, as AQI murdered their neighbors to keep them in fear. Through our actions we convinced the Iraqis that we were there to provide them a chance for a better life, and through our persistence we showed them that together we were capable of succeeding.
As we developed these conditions, AQI became more desperate to regain control of the shifting population and increased the intensity of their murder and intimidation campaigns. When the enemy became more desperate they became more vulnerable. Through adaptive tactics, burgeoning local support, and increasingly effective Iraqi forces, we were able to damage their operations and separate them from the population. In their desperation insurgents turned against the population, and thereby gave the tribal sheiks the final push they needed to stand with us against the terrorists. This is indeed a model for counter-insurgency operations, as those of us who participated in it well know. Describing the Awakening movement as a miraculous Sunni uprising blinds us to the lessons we ought to have learned, and degrades the understanding we should be cultivating and applying to all theaters of this long war.
Gabe Ledeen served as a Marine officer in an infantry battalion from 2004-2008 and completed two tours in Al Anbar, Iraq.
(Re-) Creating Anbar's Awakening
Signaling his commitment to campaign promises of a "surge" in Afghanistan, President Obama recently authorized the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to reinforce our flagging efforts. While he is still awaiting the official "strategic review" of the war, the president undoubtedly believes that the additional troops are necessary to counter the resurgent Taliban in much the same way that our surge in Iraq succeeded in quelling violence and securing the apocalyptic Baghdad.
Such a comparison, with especially significant strategic implications, requires a more thorough understanding of our Iraqi successes than currently exists. The differences between Afghanistan and Iraq are myriad and meaningful -- that is clear -- but the focus on implementing our newly recast counter-insurgency doctrine in the "other" war should give us reason to consider what exactly we did to turn the tide in Iraq. As most now recognize, the change began in Iraq's most infamous province, al Anbar. The popular consensus regarding Al Anbar contends that the tribal movement known as the "Awakening" was an impromptu rejection by Sunnis of Al Qaeda in Iraq's (AQI) brutal methods and radical rule. This consensus is wrong, or at best, only partially right.
I saw this dramatic transformation as a Marine officer deployed to Haditha in 2006 and Karma in 2007-2008. The Anbar Awakening was not a spontaneous uprising against the horrible brutality of the insurgents. Rather, it occurred and succeeded due to the conditions created by U.S. forces who steadily built the foundation for Anbar's stability. Through dynamic security operations, complex relationships with tribal leaders, and consistent moral authority, we successfully separated the population from the insurgency, demonstrated our potential for victory, and earned the support of Iraqis yearning for peace. It was only after we established these conditions that the Sunni sheiks could urge their tribes to awaken and stand together with U.S. forces against the AQI terrorists.
When I arrived in the Haditha area of Al Anbar in March of 2006, the local Sunnis had substantial reasons to distrust the U.S. military. The U.S. had dismantled the old Sunni dominated Iraqi Army, Shi'ites dominated the new government, and there was no cooperation from Baghdad. The Sunnis concluded that they had little hope for the future under Coalition/Shi'ite rule. We had been unable to protect those who worked with us as AQI's murder and intimidation campaign grew to horrific levels. Sunnis couldn't choose between the apparently impotent Coalition and the vicious insurgency and were paralyzed by uncertainty. As Marine General Mattis told author Bing West for his book The Strongest Tribe, "Not one man in a hundred will stand up to a real killer. It's ruthlessness that cows people." Our ruthless enemy used fear as a weapon; we needed to give the Iraqis reason to hope.
The most critical condition required for the emergence of the tribal Awakening movement was a dynamic and effective security infrastructure. American military forces could not achieve such an impact alone, due to inadequate force levels and an inability to effectively distinguish insurgents from civilians. Good security required the active participation of screened and trained local Iraqi police and army units, partnered with U.S. forces, focused in the population centers.
We increased our presence in these population centers by establishing combat outposts and remaining in neighborhoods for duration operations. Our Marines patrolled continuously, which disrupted the enemy's freedom of movement and fostered relationships with the local population. We partnered with Iraqi Army units to develop them tactically and to mentor their leaders. Our embedded Military Training Teams lived with the Iraqi Army, developed close personal ties and fought side by side with them as the lessons gradually took hold. When locals were afraid to join the police force, we went outside the area and brought in Iraqis who had previously fled to help us retake control. We built and provided protection for new police units, and together began a concerted offensive against insurgents who soon had nowhere to hide.
Security was a necessary but not sufficient condition for success in Anbar. Other key conditions included empowering tribal leaders, maintaining moral authority, and cultivating confidence in our long term objectives and capabilities. Our commanders set a grueling operational tempo and we established these conditions day-by-day. We involved tribal sheiks in decisions and the distribution of projects and funds. We made them choose between us and the insurgents by rewarding those who worked with us and marginalizing those who did not.
Marine leaders insisted on maintaining moral authority and ordered Marines to act with kindness and compassion towards Iraqis whenever possible. "First, do no harm", and "Seek first to understand" were maxims that reinforced our respect for the humanity and dignity of the Iraqi people. We tried to improve their lives and give them hope in the future, as AQI murdered their neighbors to keep them in fear. Through our actions we convinced the Iraqis that we were there to provide them a chance for a better life, and through our persistence we showed them that together we were capable of succeeding.
As we developed these conditions, AQI became more desperate to regain control of the shifting population and increased the intensity of their murder and intimidation campaigns. When the enemy became more desperate they became more vulnerable. Through adaptive tactics, burgeoning local support, and increasingly effective Iraqi forces, we were able to damage their operations and separate them from the population. In their desperation insurgents turned against the population, and thereby gave the tribal sheiks the final push they needed to stand with us against the terrorists. This is indeed a model for counter-insurgency operations, as those of us who participated in it well know. Describing the Awakening movement as a miraculous Sunni uprising blinds us to the lessons we ought to have learned, and degrades the understanding we should be cultivating and applying to all theaters of this long war.
Gabe Ledeen served as a Marine officer in an infantry battalion from 2004-2008 and completed two tours in Al Anbar, Iraq.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Don't Honor John Murtha
Monday, March 23, 2009
Don’t Honor John Murtha [Gabe Ledeen]
A few days ago I was shocked to learn that the Department of the Navy had awarded its highest public service commendation for non-employees to Congressman John Murtha. According to the Department, “nominations for this award will be limited to those extraordinary cases where individuals have demonstrated exceptionally outstanding service of substantial and long term benefit to the Navy, Marine Corps, or the Department of the Navy as a whole.” The citation states:
Congressman Murtha’s selfless devotion to the Nation’s Sailors and Marines ensured they were provided the resources necessary to effectively conduct the Global War on Terrorism. His courageous leadership, vision, and loyalty to the men and women of the Department of the Navy greatly contributed to their quality of life and helped create the most modern and highly trained fighting force in history.
As a Marine deployed to Haditha, Iraq in 2006, I heard Congressman Murtha state several times on national television and the floor of Congress that we were “murdering innocent women and children in cold blood,” “intentionally executing civilians,” and that the war was forever lost due to our brutality and inhumanity. I was shocked. As I stated later in this ad, we expected to be attacked by our enemies in al Anbar province, not by U.S. Congressmen at home. Far from contributing to our quality of life or improving our effectiveness in the Global War on Terrorism, his comments undermined the United States military, slandered servicemen serving in combat, and caused irreparable damage to our international reputation.
This time though, as a civilian learning of the Secretary of the Navy’s betrayal, I realized that I could speak out. I created an online petition to allow others like me to express their outrage. Over the last few days the petition has garnered over 26,000 signatures, and I have received countless emails from Americans grateful for the opportunity to share their disgust with Congressman Murtha and the former Secretary of the Navy, Donald Winters. I encourage you to join us. You can read and sign the petition here.
— Gabe Ledeen is a former Marine Captain and two-tour veteran of the Iraq war. He currently travels as a freelance writer and Senior Fellow of Vets For Freedom, and contributes to numerous online publications.
Don’t Honor John Murtha [Gabe Ledeen]
A few days ago I was shocked to learn that the Department of the Navy had awarded its highest public service commendation for non-employees to Congressman John Murtha. According to the Department, “nominations for this award will be limited to those extraordinary cases where individuals have demonstrated exceptionally outstanding service of substantial and long term benefit to the Navy, Marine Corps, or the Department of the Navy as a whole.” The citation states:
Congressman Murtha’s selfless devotion to the Nation’s Sailors and Marines ensured they were provided the resources necessary to effectively conduct the Global War on Terrorism. His courageous leadership, vision, and loyalty to the men and women of the Department of the Navy greatly contributed to their quality of life and helped create the most modern and highly trained fighting force in history.
As a Marine deployed to Haditha, Iraq in 2006, I heard Congressman Murtha state several times on national television and the floor of Congress that we were “murdering innocent women and children in cold blood,” “intentionally executing civilians,” and that the war was forever lost due to our brutality and inhumanity. I was shocked. As I stated later in this ad, we expected to be attacked by our enemies in al Anbar province, not by U.S. Congressmen at home. Far from contributing to our quality of life or improving our effectiveness in the Global War on Terrorism, his comments undermined the United States military, slandered servicemen serving in combat, and caused irreparable damage to our international reputation.
This time though, as a civilian learning of the Secretary of the Navy’s betrayal, I realized that I could speak out. I created an online petition to allow others like me to express their outrage. Over the last few days the petition has garnered over 26,000 signatures, and I have received countless emails from Americans grateful for the opportunity to share their disgust with Congressman Murtha and the former Secretary of the Navy, Donald Winters. I encourage you to join us. You can read and sign the petition here.
— Gabe Ledeen is a former Marine Captain and two-tour veteran of the Iraq war. He currently travels as a freelance writer and Senior Fellow of Vets For Freedom, and contributes to numerous online publications.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Brothers at War: An Iraq Movie Worth Seeing
‘Brothers at War’: An Iraq Movie Worth Seeing
Posted By Gabe Ledeen On March 9, 2009 @ 9:57 am In Reviews, military | 19 Comments
As a Marine veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I care a great deal about how Americans perceive the war and those of us who served in it. It is no secret that Hollywood has exclusively produced films opposing the war, portraying us as criminals, mental-cases, victims, and simpletons. By and large these movies failed to attract audiences, even as they were praised by the anti-American European fraternities and their L.A. and New York groupies. The success of HBO’s “[1] Taking Chance” demonstrates that Americans are in fact interested in the Iraq War, are willing to watch movies about it, and want to know more about those who fought against incredible odds and proved the naysayers wrong.
I was recently privileged to attend a pre-screening of a film that shows Americans exactly what we’ve been missing. “[3] Brothers At War” dares to give viewers an honest and intimate look at a family that supports two brothers on the front lines, from the perspective of a sibling who decided not to serve in the military. Freshman filmmaker [4] Jake Rademacher follows his brothers to Iraq to try and understand their commitment, and to see for himself what they experience when they deploy “over there” for so many months at a time. Throughout the film we witness the tensions between the brothers as they try to discover a way to communicate with each other despite the ideological divisions. There are moments of frustration, anger, and skepticism as they confront each other, and there are moments of love, tenderness, and genuine respect as they come to understand one another through these shared experiences.
Jake brings the audience into the most intimate of moments, and allows unscripted access into the hearts of his family members and the soldiers he encounters. While out on a five day surveillance/reconnaissance patrol along the Syrian border, Jake documents the close fraternity of the team members and artlessly conveys their human qualities to viewers who may never have met men like these. He interviews several of the young men, and their sincerity belies a trust that is not easy to acquire in such a short time. They trusted him simply because he was not out there to prove some archetype of the American soldier, he was there to let them speak for themselves.
Most Iraq veterans will applaud the range of scenes portrayed in the documentary, which doesn’t fall prey to the temptation to go heavy on the action and skimp on character development. He shows us life on a large forward operating base, a duration patrol in the scorching desert heat, a family reuniting at a Midwestern airport, a sniper mission in an Iraqi town, a partnered patrol with Marines and Iraqi soldiers, and more. Each time, and with each new cast of characters, he allows his subjects to paint their own portraits in brilliant detail. It is evident that Jake is learning as he is filming, and he is not ashamed to show his own development from an action-seeking yet naïve journalist to one humbled and keenly aware of the courage and dedication of our servicemen and women. As I heard him say to another journalist, “I learned who my brothers were from their brothers-in-arms.”
The film tells the story of the Rademacher family on both sides of the ocean and chronicles the experience without an agenda. “There really didn’t seem to be an overt message,” said one viewer after the screening. “It’s just the story, and one that most people don’t know and really need to see.” It is this honesty and obvious lack of spin that elevates this movie and allows the audience to relax from the hyper-vigilance required to filter today’s media offerings. There is no need to come to this movie with an understanding of the “Anbar Awakening,” or the “surge,” and there is no cause to leave feeling angry or tricked. It’s a movie about Americans and their families, about who our soldiers and Marines are, and about what it’s like for them to go to war. It’s a movie that you should see, and a story that you need to hear.
“Brothers At War” opens in limited release March 13th, and and will open in wider release on March 27th. For more information, including theaters and showtimes, go to [5] www.brothersatwarmovie.com. The film’s trailer can be viewed [6] here.
Posted By Gabe Ledeen On March 9, 2009 @ 9:57 am In Reviews, military | 19 Comments
As a Marine veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I care a great deal about how Americans perceive the war and those of us who served in it. It is no secret that Hollywood has exclusively produced films opposing the war, portraying us as criminals, mental-cases, victims, and simpletons. By and large these movies failed to attract audiences, even as they were praised by the anti-American European fraternities and their L.A. and New York groupies. The success of HBO’s “[1] Taking Chance” demonstrates that Americans are in fact interested in the Iraq War, are willing to watch movies about it, and want to know more about those who fought against incredible odds and proved the naysayers wrong.
I was recently privileged to attend a pre-screening of a film that shows Americans exactly what we’ve been missing. “[3] Brothers At War” dares to give viewers an honest and intimate look at a family that supports two brothers on the front lines, from the perspective of a sibling who decided not to serve in the military. Freshman filmmaker [4] Jake Rademacher follows his brothers to Iraq to try and understand their commitment, and to see for himself what they experience when they deploy “over there” for so many months at a time. Throughout the film we witness the tensions between the brothers as they try to discover a way to communicate with each other despite the ideological divisions. There are moments of frustration, anger, and skepticism as they confront each other, and there are moments of love, tenderness, and genuine respect as they come to understand one another through these shared experiences.
Jake brings the audience into the most intimate of moments, and allows unscripted access into the hearts of his family members and the soldiers he encounters. While out on a five day surveillance/reconnaissance patrol along the Syrian border, Jake documents the close fraternity of the team members and artlessly conveys their human qualities to viewers who may never have met men like these. He interviews several of the young men, and their sincerity belies a trust that is not easy to acquire in such a short time. They trusted him simply because he was not out there to prove some archetype of the American soldier, he was there to let them speak for themselves.
Most Iraq veterans will applaud the range of scenes portrayed in the documentary, which doesn’t fall prey to the temptation to go heavy on the action and skimp on character development. He shows us life on a large forward operating base, a duration patrol in the scorching desert heat, a family reuniting at a Midwestern airport, a sniper mission in an Iraqi town, a partnered patrol with Marines and Iraqi soldiers, and more. Each time, and with each new cast of characters, he allows his subjects to paint their own portraits in brilliant detail. It is evident that Jake is learning as he is filming, and he is not ashamed to show his own development from an action-seeking yet naïve journalist to one humbled and keenly aware of the courage and dedication of our servicemen and women. As I heard him say to another journalist, “I learned who my brothers were from their brothers-in-arms.”
The film tells the story of the Rademacher family on both sides of the ocean and chronicles the experience without an agenda. “There really didn’t seem to be an overt message,” said one viewer after the screening. “It’s just the story, and one that most people don’t know and really need to see.” It is this honesty and obvious lack of spin that elevates this movie and allows the audience to relax from the hyper-vigilance required to filter today’s media offerings. There is no need to come to this movie with an understanding of the “Anbar Awakening,” or the “surge,” and there is no cause to leave feeling angry or tricked. It’s a movie about Americans and their families, about who our soldiers and Marines are, and about what it’s like for them to go to war. It’s a movie that you should see, and a story that you need to hear.
“Brothers At War” opens in limited release March 13th, and and will open in wider release on March 27th. For more information, including theaters and showtimes, go to [5] www.brothersatwarmovie.com. The film’s trailer can be viewed [6] here.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Obama Forgets Victory
Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:18 PM
Watching President Obama’s address at Camp Lejeune, I was struck by the significance of the moment. This was it. This was truly the transition point, when George Bush’s war became Obama’s war, and by extension, all of ours as well. This was the moment when those who opposed the war and those who believed in it would be brought together by the overriding necessity of sensible policy decisions and the irrefutable conditions on the ground in Iraq. For those of us who served in that country, in this war, the power of this pregnant moment dwarfed partisan sentiment or ideological contentions. For us, the opportunity to recognize our historic achievements and heal the internal rifts in our own country was evident and inspiring.
We have fought for many years against public perception here at home even while struggling against and eventually overcoming impossible odds in a foreign land. We know better than most, deep within our psyches, that many Americans still wish to deny us the victory that we have won. It is towards this goal that we have scratched and clawed through years of strife and turmoil, danger and death, anxiety and uncertainty. It is for this purpose that we have lost our brothers and sisters to the chaos of countless battlefields, and continued on in spite of our misery. But it is this word, victory, which was missing from our President’s speech on Thursday.
Perhaps this may seem to be a trifling issue to many, a mere quibble that can be explained by political pressures and the importance of avoiding incendiary words or expressions that could upset the President’s supporters. Have we now reached the day when victory is politically incorrect? Are we now so afraid of causing offense or appearing insensitive that we must refrain from using the word “victory” to describe the achievement of our military goals? Veterans are not the only ones to notice this tone, politically savvy but empty of the conviction and courage that define American volunteer military service. Tom Donnelly wrote:
This is a very subtle form of the soldier-as-victim trope that is fast becoming an Iraq legacy. For soldiers throughout history--those who have endured physical and emotional sufferings of an essential similar quality, if less clinically expressed--the trials of war were at least partially ameliorated by the salve of personal honor and, if the battle went well, the celebration of a victory.
Jennifer Rubin weighed in as well:
Still, his subordinates are left to confirm the obvious — the surge made our success possible. But the president does not come out and say what we virtually all know to be true: we are on the precipice of a remarkable accomplishment. The members of the armed services didn’t just suffer or carry a burden — they did so to achieve a great victory.
Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom know what we achieved. We watched the recent Iraqi elections and saw in the peaceful exercise of this basic human right a validation of our efforts and sacrifices. We were there during the confusion of 2003 and 2004, through the rise of al Sadr and his militia, through the Al Qaeda inspired Sunni insurgency and the horrific sectarian violence. We created the conditions for the Anbar Awakening movement and fueled it as it spread like wildfire to consume the enemies of democracy and freedom. We trained the Iraqi Army and police forces, and fought and bled with them to secure the population and defeat the foreign fighters hiding amongst them. We are the witnesses to history, and we will make sure it is told accurately.
It is now President Obama’s war, and he will be hard pressed to deflect the blame for future failures given the current conditions on the ground and the positive developments over the last year and a half. Political speeches may give him room to maneuver in Washington, but on the battlefield they are no substitute for wise leadership or prudent decisions grounded in an understanding of the conflict. I hope that in future addresses and strategic decisions President Obama remembers that victory is the objective of military campaigns, not withdrawal. If he is not sure that we have yet achieved it, then the proper way to honor us is to help us finish the job. It is in fact the only way to properly honor us, and those we have lost.
Semper Fi.
Published at New Majority
Watching President Obama’s address at Camp Lejeune, I was struck by the significance of the moment. This was it. This was truly the transition point, when George Bush’s war became Obama’s war, and by extension, all of ours as well. This was the moment when those who opposed the war and those who believed in it would be brought together by the overriding necessity of sensible policy decisions and the irrefutable conditions on the ground in Iraq. For those of us who served in that country, in this war, the power of this pregnant moment dwarfed partisan sentiment or ideological contentions. For us, the opportunity to recognize our historic achievements and heal the internal rifts in our own country was evident and inspiring.
We have fought for many years against public perception here at home even while struggling against and eventually overcoming impossible odds in a foreign land. We know better than most, deep within our psyches, that many Americans still wish to deny us the victory that we have won. It is towards this goal that we have scratched and clawed through years of strife and turmoil, danger and death, anxiety and uncertainty. It is for this purpose that we have lost our brothers and sisters to the chaos of countless battlefields, and continued on in spite of our misery. But it is this word, victory, which was missing from our President’s speech on Thursday.
Perhaps this may seem to be a trifling issue to many, a mere quibble that can be explained by political pressures and the importance of avoiding incendiary words or expressions that could upset the President’s supporters. Have we now reached the day when victory is politically incorrect? Are we now so afraid of causing offense or appearing insensitive that we must refrain from using the word “victory” to describe the achievement of our military goals? Veterans are not the only ones to notice this tone, politically savvy but empty of the conviction and courage that define American volunteer military service. Tom Donnelly wrote:
This is a very subtle form of the soldier-as-victim trope that is fast becoming an Iraq legacy. For soldiers throughout history--those who have endured physical and emotional sufferings of an essential similar quality, if less clinically expressed--the trials of war were at least partially ameliorated by the salve of personal honor and, if the battle went well, the celebration of a victory.
Jennifer Rubin weighed in as well:
Still, his subordinates are left to confirm the obvious — the surge made our success possible. But the president does not come out and say what we virtually all know to be true: we are on the precipice of a remarkable accomplishment. The members of the armed services didn’t just suffer or carry a burden — they did so to achieve a great victory.
Veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom know what we achieved. We watched the recent Iraqi elections and saw in the peaceful exercise of this basic human right a validation of our efforts and sacrifices. We were there during the confusion of 2003 and 2004, through the rise of al Sadr and his militia, through the Al Qaeda inspired Sunni insurgency and the horrific sectarian violence. We created the conditions for the Anbar Awakening movement and fueled it as it spread like wildfire to consume the enemies of democracy and freedom. We trained the Iraqi Army and police forces, and fought and bled with them to secure the population and defeat the foreign fighters hiding amongst them. We are the witnesses to history, and we will make sure it is told accurately.
It is now President Obama’s war, and he will be hard pressed to deflect the blame for future failures given the current conditions on the ground and the positive developments over the last year and a half. Political speeches may give him room to maneuver in Washington, but on the battlefield they are no substitute for wise leadership or prudent decisions grounded in an understanding of the conflict. I hope that in future addresses and strategic decisions President Obama remembers that victory is the objective of military campaigns, not withdrawal. If he is not sure that we have yet achieved it, then the proper way to honor us is to help us finish the job. It is in fact the only way to properly honor us, and those we have lost.
Semper Fi.
Published at New Majority
Friday, January 30, 2009
Be Not Afraid
January 30, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
Be Not Afraid
Terrorists rely on intimidation and deception. We can’t be fooled, and we must resist.
By Gabriel Ledeen
Evil’s strength lies in its ability to intimidate. I saw this truth play out during my two tours in Iraq, as al-Qaeda dominated the spirit of Anbar’s Sunni population. The mighty Sunni Awakening movement represented the rejection of the oppression and intimidation the population had been enduring at the hands of al-Qaeda. As Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha said of his movement, “We Sunnis had to convince ourselves.” After all, their instincts and traditions had told them that we were the outsiders and therefore had to be worse than al-Qaeda’s Muslim operatives. They first had to understand the evil that we—and they—were confronting, and then they could take responsibility for their lives and act decisively.
Our Islamist enemies can’t win when confronted directly with the truth because they are essentially hollow. As in Iraq, they will eventually wither. Their false jihad often relies on deception, bribery, and drugs to gain recruits and compel attacks. Their movement is founded on lies, as seen in the propaganda used to indoctrinate new followers to the culture of hatred. They oppose freedom and individual liberty, and reject the value of each human life, and therefore are at odds with the self-evident Truths that govern our existence.
It is imperative to recognize the central characteristics of our enemy’s ideology in order to expose its ontologically false foundation. As Americans observed in our struggles against the Soviet Communists and the Nazis, with the understanding of the threat comes an understanding of the necessity of a sufficient response. While such a response can be costly and difficult, such efforts can be powerfully exerted when fueled by the truth. Our enemy knows this, and strives to cloud our understanding and prevent us from exposing the reality. It is our reluctance to confront such enemies that emboldens them, allows them to perpetrate evil on the world, and causes extraordinary suffering. This is not merely a philosophical point.
I have spent the last two weeks in Israel trying to understand what exactly is going on here and what it means in the broader context of the global war on terror. I find myself dwelling on the question: Why do democratic and liberal nations condemn Israel for fighting against terrorists who deliberately target civilians?
The usual answer—anti-Semitism—is certainly justified in some cases, but I reject it as the categorical cause of this illogical (or pathological) but common response to Israel’s efforts to survive. No, the fundamental answer to this question is that we, as democratic and liberty-loving societies, are afraid to identify candidly the defining nature of our common enemies. Whether knowingly or through tragic manipulation, Westerners who attack Israel in effect join, support, and propel a force that makes this world worse. This force degrades humanity by denying the value of the individual human life, the essential basis for liberty. It is a force for evil that desecrates the holy, defiles the innocent, and denigrates those values that uplift the human spirit.
Israel has no choice but to confront the threats against its existence. When one is pushed into such a position, one must either fight back or die. Israel is unique as the only democratic, non-Muslim country that is continually confronting the brutal realities of radical Islamic terrorism within its borders. Because it is unique, Israel is constantly pressured by Western opinion makers to respond only to those threats that are immediate, and to define those threats through a limited and local perspective. This way, the world’s other democratic nations can maintain their distance and continue to promote the lie that Israel’s fight against terrorism is somehow completely different from everyone else’s. Certainly we would all be more effective at confronting this threat together, with a shared understanding of what we face and the determination to defeat it. So what are we afraid of?
Studying this fear is like peering uneasily into the dark after hearing an unusual sound. If we don’t have to, we’d rather not. Why are we afraid of candor? I see two connected reasons: 1) An honest understanding would require decisive action; therefore 2) it would make us feel weak. It would make us feel weak because we would sense that we were being compelled to do some unpleasant things in the belief that doing them would improve conditions enough to make up for the doing. We despise being coerced to do what we don’t really want to do, especially when it requires sacrifice and suffering. In this it is not only our love of liberty but also our love of comfort and leisure that causes our disquiet. The longer the period of sacrifice and concentrated effort is likely to be, the stronger is the resistance and hence the more troubling are the feelings of weakness.
It is common, even natural, for an individual to feel weak if he or she is afraid. The perception of helplessness translates into a loss of self-confidence, which is then processed in diverse ways. One popular defense mechanism is to convince oneself that the threat doesn’t exist. This allows the individual to ignore the unpleasant reality, embrace blissful ignorance, act as if there is nothing to worry about, and keep a false self-confidence intact. If you doubt that this process really occurs, I encourage you to look in on a women’s self-defense class. Instructors constantly preach awareness and preparation, and always emphasize the danger of giving in to the desire to pretend that the world is a safe place. These instructors know that too many victims are unprepared to meet real threats because they refuse to accept that the threats exist. In a society where self-confidence seems ever more important, but ever harder to attain, it is unsurprising that our minds would develop ways around such conflicts.
Of course the problem is that the illusion of strength is not strength, it is weakness. It allows fear to keep us from doing what it is right. True strength is doing what is right despite the fear. Do not give in to the temptation to ignore what is true and real because it threatens you and makes you feel weak or helpless. Recognizing evil is the first and most essential step in defeating it. Once you accomplish that feat, nature impels you on your course, and you have but to continue as you have begun, with strength and virtue. Let us confront our enemies with the knowledge that Truth is with us, and the recognition that they stand arrogantly on ice, denying the sun, awaiting the thaw.
Be not afraid, for fear will be our undoing.
— Gabriel Ledeen is a senior fellow with the Vets For Freedom Educational Institute. He served two tours in al-Anbar, Iraq, as an officer with a Marine infantry battalion.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been amended since its initial posting.]
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTYxMjIyMGE3MDhjMGNiZWRkMjg5Nzc0OGI4OWIxNTE=
Be Not Afraid
Terrorists rely on intimidation and deception. We can’t be fooled, and we must resist.
By Gabriel Ledeen
Evil’s strength lies in its ability to intimidate. I saw this truth play out during my two tours in Iraq, as al-Qaeda dominated the spirit of Anbar’s Sunni population. The mighty Sunni Awakening movement represented the rejection of the oppression and intimidation the population had been enduring at the hands of al-Qaeda. As Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha said of his movement, “We Sunnis had to convince ourselves.” After all, their instincts and traditions had told them that we were the outsiders and therefore had to be worse than al-Qaeda’s Muslim operatives. They first had to understand the evil that we—and they—were confronting, and then they could take responsibility for their lives and act decisively.
Our Islamist enemies can’t win when confronted directly with the truth because they are essentially hollow. As in Iraq, they will eventually wither. Their false jihad often relies on deception, bribery, and drugs to gain recruits and compel attacks. Their movement is founded on lies, as seen in the propaganda used to indoctrinate new followers to the culture of hatred. They oppose freedom and individual liberty, and reject the value of each human life, and therefore are at odds with the self-evident Truths that govern our existence.
It is imperative to recognize the central characteristics of our enemy’s ideology in order to expose its ontologically false foundation. As Americans observed in our struggles against the Soviet Communists and the Nazis, with the understanding of the threat comes an understanding of the necessity of a sufficient response. While such a response can be costly and difficult, such efforts can be powerfully exerted when fueled by the truth. Our enemy knows this, and strives to cloud our understanding and prevent us from exposing the reality. It is our reluctance to confront such enemies that emboldens them, allows them to perpetrate evil on the world, and causes extraordinary suffering. This is not merely a philosophical point.
I have spent the last two weeks in Israel trying to understand what exactly is going on here and what it means in the broader context of the global war on terror. I find myself dwelling on the question: Why do democratic and liberal nations condemn Israel for fighting against terrorists who deliberately target civilians?
The usual answer—anti-Semitism—is certainly justified in some cases, but I reject it as the categorical cause of this illogical (or pathological) but common response to Israel’s efforts to survive. No, the fundamental answer to this question is that we, as democratic and liberty-loving societies, are afraid to identify candidly the defining nature of our common enemies. Whether knowingly or through tragic manipulation, Westerners who attack Israel in effect join, support, and propel a force that makes this world worse. This force degrades humanity by denying the value of the individual human life, the essential basis for liberty. It is a force for evil that desecrates the holy, defiles the innocent, and denigrates those values that uplift the human spirit.
Israel has no choice but to confront the threats against its existence. When one is pushed into such a position, one must either fight back or die. Israel is unique as the only democratic, non-Muslim country that is continually confronting the brutal realities of radical Islamic terrorism within its borders. Because it is unique, Israel is constantly pressured by Western opinion makers to respond only to those threats that are immediate, and to define those threats through a limited and local perspective. This way, the world’s other democratic nations can maintain their distance and continue to promote the lie that Israel’s fight against terrorism is somehow completely different from everyone else’s. Certainly we would all be more effective at confronting this threat together, with a shared understanding of what we face and the determination to defeat it. So what are we afraid of?
Studying this fear is like peering uneasily into the dark after hearing an unusual sound. If we don’t have to, we’d rather not. Why are we afraid of candor? I see two connected reasons: 1) An honest understanding would require decisive action; therefore 2) it would make us feel weak. It would make us feel weak because we would sense that we were being compelled to do some unpleasant things in the belief that doing them would improve conditions enough to make up for the doing. We despise being coerced to do what we don’t really want to do, especially when it requires sacrifice and suffering. In this it is not only our love of liberty but also our love of comfort and leisure that causes our disquiet. The longer the period of sacrifice and concentrated effort is likely to be, the stronger is the resistance and hence the more troubling are the feelings of weakness.
It is common, even natural, for an individual to feel weak if he or she is afraid. The perception of helplessness translates into a loss of self-confidence, which is then processed in diverse ways. One popular defense mechanism is to convince oneself that the threat doesn’t exist. This allows the individual to ignore the unpleasant reality, embrace blissful ignorance, act as if there is nothing to worry about, and keep a false self-confidence intact. If you doubt that this process really occurs, I encourage you to look in on a women’s self-defense class. Instructors constantly preach awareness and preparation, and always emphasize the danger of giving in to the desire to pretend that the world is a safe place. These instructors know that too many victims are unprepared to meet real threats because they refuse to accept that the threats exist. In a society where self-confidence seems ever more important, but ever harder to attain, it is unsurprising that our minds would develop ways around such conflicts.
Of course the problem is that the illusion of strength is not strength, it is weakness. It allows fear to keep us from doing what it is right. True strength is doing what is right despite the fear. Do not give in to the temptation to ignore what is true and real because it threatens you and makes you feel weak or helpless. Recognizing evil is the first and most essential step in defeating it. Once you accomplish that feat, nature impels you on your course, and you have but to continue as you have begun, with strength and virtue. Let us confront our enemies with the knowledge that Truth is with us, and the recognition that they stand arrogantly on ice, denying the sun, awaiting the thaw.
Be not afraid, for fear will be our undoing.
— Gabriel Ledeen is a senior fellow with the Vets For Freedom Educational Institute. He served two tours in al-Anbar, Iraq, as an officer with a Marine infantry battalion.
[EDITOR’S NOTE: This article has been amended since its initial posting.]
National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTYxMjIyMGE3MDhjMGNiZWRkMjg5Nzc0OGI4OWIxNTE=
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sderot, Israel is Like Iraq Without the Body Armor
Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:48 PM
I am no stranger to the danger of rocket and mortar fire. As a Marine officer serving in Iraq in 2006, a 122mm rocket landed roughly 50 feet from where my Staff Sergeant and I were walking through our motor pool. Thankfully it was a dud and didn't explode, but the experience of hearing the incoming rocket and knowing that it was too late to take meaningful cover was truly and uniquely horrible. Of course, we were Marines fighting in a war and were fully aware of the threats we faced. We had body armor, armored vehicles, fortified buildings to live in, and aircraft and artillery to return fire when we were attacked. We were in a war, we were prepared for the danger, and we knew that eventually we would go home. For Israelis living in Sderot, Ashdod, Ashqelon, and nearby towns, it is much different. They live in normal homes, drive normal cars, and wear normal clothes. They eat at restaurants, watch movies, and go to school and work. They don't carry weapons, and they aren't at war. Yet they have endured over 6,500 rockets and mortars over the last three years, with 80 landing per day on the worst days. Roughly figured, every four hours these civilians have 15 seconds to find shelter from an incoming explosive. That is substantially more indirect fire than anything I, or anyone else that I know, ever experienced during tours in Iraq.
As I walk the streets of Sderot I am struck by the absurdity of this situation. These are civilians living normal lives in a normal town in a democratic country. Yet their bus stops were converted into blast-proof shelters, and every other block has a "Lifeshield" bunker. Camp Fallujah is the only place I've ever been with such "force protection" measures in place. How absurd that Sderot is in that kind of company. Sderot has no rocket launching pads or artillery equipment. There are no helicopters or jets based there. Not only is there no offensive military presence, but there is no mechanism to return fire either. If you told Marines that they would be living in a place that received regular mortar and rocket fire, had no counter-fire capability, and would never be allowed to return fire, they would tell you that you're completely insane…among other things.
I am told by Sderot's residents that there are typically two times per day that are most dangerous: when the children go to school in the morning and when the children return from school in the afternoon. The pre-school children learn to sing songs about the proper response to the "Code Red" siren warning of an incoming rocket. Imagine that, a child returning from school proud of the new song she learned, unaware that she lives in the only place where such songs are taught. In Haditha and Fallujah the youngest kids that I had to worry about were 18 years old, and that was a heavy enough burden to bear.
With only 2.5 miles between Sderot and the Gaza border, every resident remains keenly aware of the 15 second rule. Every action is taken with the nearest bunker in mind, and every trip to school is rushed to minimize the time spent outside. Baths and showers, bathroom breaks, wake-up times, naps, and exercise are all planned around the likely times of rocket attacks, but the residents are all too aware that there is no way to be sure. If one is observant, the signs are everywhere. Savage holes scar the walls of buildings, and larger holes in sidewalks and streets remind passersby of the ever-present danger. I pass a home destroyed by a recent Qassam rocket attack, and recall the 70 year old grandmother who lived there. She survived because she decided that morning to sleep in a bit longer; otherwise she would have been in the now non-existent kitchen or bathroom when the rocket crashed through her roof.
Such strikes are not accidental. These rockets are deliberately fired at civilian areas like Sderot with the intention of killing the residents as they go about their daily lives. Every one of the 9,400 rockets fired into Israel since 2003 is a war crime. The people of Sderot continue to wait for these charges to be made against the Hamas terrorists controlling Gaza. They believed that the withdrawal of all Israelis from Gaza in 2005 would improve the situation, and despaired when Hamas drastically increased the number of attacks. They live on with the hope that soon the rockets will stop. They dream of a day when their lives will more closely resemble those of citizens of other democratic nations, and less the experiences of those of us who must endure the risks of combat. They ask us why this dream is not possible, and we pretend not to hear.
Published at New Majority
I am no stranger to the danger of rocket and mortar fire. As a Marine officer serving in Iraq in 2006, a 122mm rocket landed roughly 50 feet from where my Staff Sergeant and I were walking through our motor pool. Thankfully it was a dud and didn't explode, but the experience of hearing the incoming rocket and knowing that it was too late to take meaningful cover was truly and uniquely horrible. Of course, we were Marines fighting in a war and were fully aware of the threats we faced. We had body armor, armored vehicles, fortified buildings to live in, and aircraft and artillery to return fire when we were attacked. We were in a war, we were prepared for the danger, and we knew that eventually we would go home. For Israelis living in Sderot, Ashdod, Ashqelon, and nearby towns, it is much different. They live in normal homes, drive normal cars, and wear normal clothes. They eat at restaurants, watch movies, and go to school and work. They don't carry weapons, and they aren't at war. Yet they have endured over 6,500 rockets and mortars over the last three years, with 80 landing per day on the worst days. Roughly figured, every four hours these civilians have 15 seconds to find shelter from an incoming explosive. That is substantially more indirect fire than anything I, or anyone else that I know, ever experienced during tours in Iraq.
As I walk the streets of Sderot I am struck by the absurdity of this situation. These are civilians living normal lives in a normal town in a democratic country. Yet their bus stops were converted into blast-proof shelters, and every other block has a "Lifeshield" bunker. Camp Fallujah is the only place I've ever been with such "force protection" measures in place. How absurd that Sderot is in that kind of company. Sderot has no rocket launching pads or artillery equipment. There are no helicopters or jets based there. Not only is there no offensive military presence, but there is no mechanism to return fire either. If you told Marines that they would be living in a place that received regular mortar and rocket fire, had no counter-fire capability, and would never be allowed to return fire, they would tell you that you're completely insane…among other things.
I am told by Sderot's residents that there are typically two times per day that are most dangerous: when the children go to school in the morning and when the children return from school in the afternoon. The pre-school children learn to sing songs about the proper response to the "Code Red" siren warning of an incoming rocket. Imagine that, a child returning from school proud of the new song she learned, unaware that she lives in the only place where such songs are taught. In Haditha and Fallujah the youngest kids that I had to worry about were 18 years old, and that was a heavy enough burden to bear.
With only 2.5 miles between Sderot and the Gaza border, every resident remains keenly aware of the 15 second rule. Every action is taken with the nearest bunker in mind, and every trip to school is rushed to minimize the time spent outside. Baths and showers, bathroom breaks, wake-up times, naps, and exercise are all planned around the likely times of rocket attacks, but the residents are all too aware that there is no way to be sure. If one is observant, the signs are everywhere. Savage holes scar the walls of buildings, and larger holes in sidewalks and streets remind passersby of the ever-present danger. I pass a home destroyed by a recent Qassam rocket attack, and recall the 70 year old grandmother who lived there. She survived because she decided that morning to sleep in a bit longer; otherwise she would have been in the now non-existent kitchen or bathroom when the rocket crashed through her roof.
Such strikes are not accidental. These rockets are deliberately fired at civilian areas like Sderot with the intention of killing the residents as they go about their daily lives. Every one of the 9,400 rockets fired into Israel since 2003 is a war crime. The people of Sderot continue to wait for these charges to be made against the Hamas terrorists controlling Gaza. They believed that the withdrawal of all Israelis from Gaza in 2005 would improve the situation, and despaired when Hamas drastically increased the number of attacks. They live on with the hope that soon the rockets will stop. They dream of a day when their lives will more closely resemble those of citizens of other democratic nations, and less the experiences of those of us who must endure the risks of combat. They ask us why this dream is not possible, and we pretend not to hear.
Published at New Majority
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A Firsthand Look at the Real Guantanamo
Posted By Gabe Ledeen On January 15, 2009 @ 6:35 am
I recently visited the detention facilities at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was dismayed at what I saw. The place was nothing like what I expected, and I was struck by how little we Americans actually know about these facilities and the conduct of our personnel there. With every new interview and every new area walk-through I hoped to find some validation of the certainties I brought with me from the hundreds of articles, documentaries, and speeches presented to the American people by our intellectual superiors.
Instead, my experiences at Guantanamo Bay illustrate the thoroughness of the miseducation of the American people and our willingness to assume the worst about our men and women in uniform. Furthermore, the visit clearly demonstrated that there is a widespread ignorance of the complexity of the situation that we face in the current war against our terrorist enemies. This ignorance results in a focus on superficial issues instead of core questions, and a naive trust in false stories and an astonishing proclivity to be misled.
Our willingness to believe the worst about our servicemen and women is evident in the popular beliefs about Guantanamo Bay, despite the facts. There are quite literally too many examples to choose from to represent the overwhelmingly negative and sensational views on what occurs at the hands of American citizens under direct supervision. Here’s one attempt: “Guantanamo Bay, in addition to Abu Ghraib, is a national disgrace and international embarrassment to us, to our country’s ideals, and a festering threat to our security. It is a legal black hole that dishonors the principles of a great nation.” These inaccurate and deliberately misleading comments made by Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) illustrate the point nicely. Never mind that the incident at Abu Ghraib was never excused by a single military or civilian leader, and that it stands out as an extreme and isolated example of the unfortunate effects that a few anomalous individuals can produce. Instead, he deliberately links Abu Ghraib with Guantanamo in an effort to demonstrate to his audience that there is a pattern of immoral behavior perpetrated by members of our military.
What I found at Guantanamo Bay was that the American servicemen and women there are committed to standards well above those of the average citizen. For twelve hours a day, four days a week, for at least a year, these soldiers with a median age of 22 demonstrate inspiring discipline and dedication to duty. There are multiple assaults on guards every day, mostly verbal and sometimes physical. At least once a week, every week, at least one soldier is doused with a “body fluid cocktail” of feces and urine as they attempt to perform their daily routine. I asked one young female non-commissioned officer what happens after such an event. She explained that the soldier washes off and changes into a clean uniform, and after a medical evaluation is permitted to choose whether or not to return to the cell block.
The option is given so the soldier has the opportunity to calm down, process what happened, and seek out a chaplain or mental health professional if desired. Without my prompting, the NCO added that in the year that she had worked there, not one soldier had decided to take the rest of the day off. Instead, they return to the cell block to show the detainee that no level of provocation will be sufficient to break the soldier’s will or provoke a reaction. Indeed, every soldier is obsessed with performing their duty in a manner worthy of America’s praise and support. As the Joint Task Force commander, Rear Admiral David Thomas, put it, “Of course we’re doing it this way; we’re Americans, and we want Americans to be proud of their military and the way we conduct ourselves.” In order to confirm that the nasal feeding tubes were humane and effective, Rear Admiral Thomas instructed the medical staff to feed him with the device — for a week.
During a brief, Rear Admiral Thomas made a point that all Americans should understand. He said, “The debate about the right policy and the right legal framework for handling unlawful enemy combatants is extremely important and complicated, and should absolutely continue to take place. But Americans do not have to worry about the treatment of these detainees. We are committed to the safe and humane, legal and transparent care and custody of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and we do so in a manner that Americans can be proud of.” These soldiers are dedicated to upholding our highest values in their daily conduct, and are committed to their mission because they know that it helps to protect our nation.
As an Iraq veteran who led convoys transporting detainees, I know firsthand that these men and women represent the norm in our armed forces, not those involved in the Abu Ghraib incident. Due to time limitations on holding detainees at the battalion level, we would brave the roads of Anbar province in the summer of 2006 at all hours to make sure we met these expectations. Despite the frustrations of detaining the same individuals multiple times because of the slowly maturing Iraqi justice system, our Marines showed tremendous integrity and discipline and set an inspiring example. When faced with impossible split-second decisions, Marines would put themselves at incredible personal risk to avoid potential civilian casualties and collateral damage. These men and women volunteered to serve our country at a time of war, and all but a tiny minority are performing admirably in the most challenging of circumstances. They have proven themselves in the face of overwhelming adversity. They deserve our support and respect, not more doubt and disbelief.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-firsthand-look-at-the-real-guantanamo/
I recently visited the detention facilities at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and was dismayed at what I saw. The place was nothing like what I expected, and I was struck by how little we Americans actually know about these facilities and the conduct of our personnel there. With every new interview and every new area walk-through I hoped to find some validation of the certainties I brought with me from the hundreds of articles, documentaries, and speeches presented to the American people by our intellectual superiors.
Instead, my experiences at Guantanamo Bay illustrate the thoroughness of the miseducation of the American people and our willingness to assume the worst about our men and women in uniform. Furthermore, the visit clearly demonstrated that there is a widespread ignorance of the complexity of the situation that we face in the current war against our terrorist enemies. This ignorance results in a focus on superficial issues instead of core questions, and a naive trust in false stories and an astonishing proclivity to be misled.
Our willingness to believe the worst about our servicemen and women is evident in the popular beliefs about Guantanamo Bay, despite the facts. There are quite literally too many examples to choose from to represent the overwhelmingly negative and sensational views on what occurs at the hands of American citizens under direct supervision. Here’s one attempt: “Guantanamo Bay, in addition to Abu Ghraib, is a national disgrace and international embarrassment to us, to our country’s ideals, and a festering threat to our security. It is a legal black hole that dishonors the principles of a great nation.” These inaccurate and deliberately misleading comments made by Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) illustrate the point nicely. Never mind that the incident at Abu Ghraib was never excused by a single military or civilian leader, and that it stands out as an extreme and isolated example of the unfortunate effects that a few anomalous individuals can produce. Instead, he deliberately links Abu Ghraib with Guantanamo in an effort to demonstrate to his audience that there is a pattern of immoral behavior perpetrated by members of our military.
What I found at Guantanamo Bay was that the American servicemen and women there are committed to standards well above those of the average citizen. For twelve hours a day, four days a week, for at least a year, these soldiers with a median age of 22 demonstrate inspiring discipline and dedication to duty. There are multiple assaults on guards every day, mostly verbal and sometimes physical. At least once a week, every week, at least one soldier is doused with a “body fluid cocktail” of feces and urine as they attempt to perform their daily routine. I asked one young female non-commissioned officer what happens after such an event. She explained that the soldier washes off and changes into a clean uniform, and after a medical evaluation is permitted to choose whether or not to return to the cell block.
The option is given so the soldier has the opportunity to calm down, process what happened, and seek out a chaplain or mental health professional if desired. Without my prompting, the NCO added that in the year that she had worked there, not one soldier had decided to take the rest of the day off. Instead, they return to the cell block to show the detainee that no level of provocation will be sufficient to break the soldier’s will or provoke a reaction. Indeed, every soldier is obsessed with performing their duty in a manner worthy of America’s praise and support. As the Joint Task Force commander, Rear Admiral David Thomas, put it, “Of course we’re doing it this way; we’re Americans, and we want Americans to be proud of their military and the way we conduct ourselves.” In order to confirm that the nasal feeding tubes were humane and effective, Rear Admiral Thomas instructed the medical staff to feed him with the device — for a week.
During a brief, Rear Admiral Thomas made a point that all Americans should understand. He said, “The debate about the right policy and the right legal framework for handling unlawful enemy combatants is extremely important and complicated, and should absolutely continue to take place. But Americans do not have to worry about the treatment of these detainees. We are committed to the safe and humane, legal and transparent care and custody of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and we do so in a manner that Americans can be proud of.” These soldiers are dedicated to upholding our highest values in their daily conduct, and are committed to their mission because they know that it helps to protect our nation.
As an Iraq veteran who led convoys transporting detainees, I know firsthand that these men and women represent the norm in our armed forces, not those involved in the Abu Ghraib incident. Due to time limitations on holding detainees at the battalion level, we would brave the roads of Anbar province in the summer of 2006 at all hours to make sure we met these expectations. Despite the frustrations of detaining the same individuals multiple times because of the slowly maturing Iraqi justice system, our Marines showed tremendous integrity and discipline and set an inspiring example. When faced with impossible split-second decisions, Marines would put themselves at incredible personal risk to avoid potential civilian casualties and collateral damage. These men and women volunteered to serve our country at a time of war, and all but a tiny minority are performing admirably in the most challenging of circumstances. They have proven themselves in the face of overwhelming adversity. They deserve our support and respect, not more doubt and disbelief.
Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-firsthand-look-at-the-real-guantanamo/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
