I am a conservative. I am registered as a Republican, because I didn't want to be associated with the democrats when I turned 18, and I've just never changed it. But I consider myself an independent.
I was in Tikrit, Iraq from January 2009 - December 2009. Got there just after New Years', and made it home just in time for Christmas. As some of you know, I am an Engineer. 12B, Combat Engineer, Explosives Expert. But, as some of you know, for most of my tour in Iraq, I was in Intelligence. (Long story short, there was an explosives' expert slot in S2, and with a GT score of 141, they wouldn't NOT let me be Intel.)
I was there during an interesting time in the war's history. I was there after the surge, but before the drawdown, putting me there pretty much smack in the middle, during the stability operations.
One thing I don't like about the headline, "Veterans frustrated by presidential debate on Iraq war", is that it's too much of a broad brush. There are going to be veterans who are frustrated by it, sure. And they found some. But the guys that I know, myself included, are more sympathetic to the current situation. The question is, "Knowing what we know now...", which is a valid question, but one that shouldn't be considered for debate. We didn't know then what we know now.
Most veterans that I know weren't even in the military during the start of the Iraq war. I didn't join until 2008. Most of my officers didn't join until later than that, and all my joes joined later than that. The only ones currently serving who were in during that time are in command teams.
I decided long ago (and some of you might remember me posting something along these lines in late 2011 or early 2012, while I was in Afghanistan) that I wouldn't debate the legitimacy of the wars. I decided that it was the previous era that got us into them, and it was my job to do the best I could with what I was handed - namely, a war on terror fought in two countries.
I was told my mission was to keep our troops safe, and make Iraq/Afghanistan safer for the world. And in that mission, my company was successful. We were successful in hunting down High Value Targets (HVTs) and in neutralizing hundreds (literally, possibly into the thousands) of IEDs.
Now, way back in early 2009, I release a document into the intelligence community that was received by Colonels and Generals. This was a document that I, then PFC Presswood, had compiled, detailing how if we left Iraq that chaos would ensue. Higher ups found it interesting. But who was I? I was a PFC, not even Intel by occupational specialty. Some listened, some didn't. Obviously, I wasn't important enough for my document to go all the way to the top.
But, what happened? We left, and my predictions came true, almost to the letter. (To give credit where it is due, my section leader, then Captain Hallet, steered me into this direction, helping me decipher the intel that was coming in, but as it was my footwork, he allowed me to keep my name on it, instead of his. In hindsight, maybe if an Intel Captain had had his name on it, it might have been taken more seriously.)
Point is, this was known. If a Private could figure it out, surely someone on a higher paygrade could see it. We should have pulled out way earlier, or not at all (strategically speaking - I'm not in favor of occupation and annex).
So, now you know my viewpoint on it. Let's look at some claims:
There was victory under Bush. We went in and did what we said we were going to do. Then we decided that we needed to stay there for stability operations. With that decision, we should have committed to a much longer term strategy. We achieved our initial objective, but we never achieved stability for Iraq. As long as we have a presence there as a deterrent, there would be some stability, but only as a dam holds back a raging river. Remove the dam, and the town gets flooded.
BTW, your numbers mean nothing. We lost more men when there were greater numbers there, and when we were running more combat operations. It's simple, really. The more you push the enemy, and the more you expose yourself, the more you're going to lose. When you don't have to push as hard, and don't have to expose yourself as much, your losses will decline. It doesn't mean victory or loss.
This is true to a point. It was stable only because we were there. It didn't matter if we were there a year, a decade, or a century, this chaos would have happened whenever we pulled out. And that stability was only relative. There was still rampant lawlessness and terrorism. We just held in check those who wished to do greater harm.
For instance: while we were there, our interpreter came to us for help. His brother in law had told a police vehicle to slow down. The police responded by shooting him in the leg. Later that night, the police raided his house and took him to prison for being an insurgent. They had no evidence, and by all appearances were just angry that someone had challenged their authority. Now, there was nothing we could do for him. And so I don't know how he ended up. But this type of rampant lawlessness was common.
Or, the Iraqi Police (IP) would come to us asking for food when we drove through a checkpoint. If we gave them food, they'd show us where an IED was. If not, you could bet there was going to be an explosion just a little further down, in plain sight of the IP checkpoint. It was common. And by common, I mean at least once per week, in our company only. So, you know it was happening multiple times per week outside our area.
True and false at the same time. In the overall scheme of things, I'd say they're about the same. Our operating base was built on an old airfield. There was a soccer field where the Iraqi soccer team had played there in our base. After losing games, the soccer team was severely punished, made to kick concrete soccer balls, whipped on the soles of their feet, submerged in sewage, etc. Some details can be found here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...addams-son-tortured-defeated-footballers.html
Painting Saddam as anything but a monster who needed to be deposed is looking at the past through rose colored glasses. That he needed deposed is not in question. But, the debate should be, were we the ones to do it? And that is the debate I don't involve myself in. It was history before I had any say.
I do know that if our efforts to create a democracy in Iraq had succeeded, then the answer would have been a resounding YES!, we were the ones to do it. But, until and unless the Iraqi people decide they've had enough, there will always be either an evil dictator or terrorist group ready to take the place of the last.
No, and for that I am forever grateful. I wasn't alive during the Vietnam era, but I've talked to veterans who've served during that time. To go from serving your country, to return to be spat upon, it'd be enough to drive any man insane. One thing I can honestly say, is that even amongst those who disagree with our being over there, I have not personally encountered someone who hated me for being military.
A common, and I think appropriate show of gratitude today is, "Thank you for your willingness to serve." It doesn't condone the war, but it shows approval of the willingness of a young person to serve their country.
It goes both ways. The democrats do the same thing with Obama. And whoever takes the next office, it will continue. And then the office after that.
This is so true. Both Reps and Dems voted for the war, and pushed for regime change. That either side points the finger at the other is amazing to me. Again, I don't engage in the debate about whether it was justified or not. But to point the finger across the aisle is hypocrisy. Both sides called for it.
Well, I believe I've had my say.
