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.
Monday, March 30, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
