Iraq In The Rear-View Mirror, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #184
August 23, 2010 Mike Gold 0 Comments
Last Wednesday, with neither herald nor fanfare, the United States pulled our remaining combat troops out of Iraq, two weeks ahead of schedule.
Don’t worry. You didn’t miss the party. Even if you were paying attention to the media on Thursday, you still might have missed the story. A few print reporters were on-scene, but only NBC/MSNBC had it live on the air because they are the only outfit with the technological capability to carry it live. I gather the rest of the media downplayed the story in a massive hissy-fit. Next war, buy a gyro-scope!
The lack of coverage is very sad. Our men and women in combat deserve better.
Of course, there will be a party that all the media can attend. It will happen in Baghdad a week from Tuesday. Just don’t expect a big “Mission Accomplished” banner. You can expect the Republicans to take credit for this “great victory” – it’s already started.
Let us leave aside the arguments of the wisdom of beginning this conflict and what we may have accomplished there and what we failed to do. My positions on these issues are a matter of record and I need not repeat them at this time. I’m sure I’ll get around to all that again in the near future.
No, instead I want to step back and breathe a deep, cleansing sigh of relief. At about 8:52 PM EDT Wednesday, August 18th, our last combat troops entered Kuwait. We need to appreciate that, and to honor their survival. They no longer will be at risk in Iraq, at least for the foreseeable future. Iraq’s population continues to live in a hot zone; I suspect the local body count will remain steady and possibly even increase, but the responsibility is no longer ours.
Most certainly, our 50,000 “advisors” will remain at risk, and we’re doubling the number of civilian contractors. No surprise there; we still have 37,500 troops in Korea and 47,000 in Japan. Some of these advisors will be on counter-terrorism missions. We need to remember these Americans remain at risk. Do you think these 50,000 will leave Iraq in 2012? Maybe, but I’m the guy who didn’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge.
We remain in Afghanistan, and we might very well find our kids in Yemen or Somalia in the coming years. Most certainly, before long we will be in combat somewhere. The United States has been on continuous war footing for 68 years and nobody is talking about ending that now. Our military budget has doubled in the past nine years and nobody is talking about returning to 2001 levels. We have to come to grips with the fact that we live in a world where we do not end wars conclusively… Vietnam aside.
We need to learn and remember the lesson of the Iraq War, in contrast to the way we did not learn the lessons of the Vietnam War. The entire concept of “advisors” raises the small hairs on the backs of the necks of those of us who were around for the beginning of the Vietnam War, pre-Gulf of Tonkin.
People on all sides of these issues, be they pacifists or hawks or somewhere in between, be they supporters of or in opposition to the Iraq War, be they policy makers or policy wonks, must remain vigilant and vocal. We must remain concerned and active, particularly on the local scene. As the late Speaker of the House “Tip” O’Neill said, all politics are local.
Most important, let’s take our fair share of pride, pleasure and relief that at least this slice of the madness that is war is behind us.
Media metaphysician and www.ComicMix.com editor-in-Chief Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking bizarro music and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com, every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, replayed three times during the week (check the website above for times). Likewise, his Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind political and cultural rants pop up each and every day at the same venue.
Martha Thomases
August 23, 2010 - 7:20 am
Alas, I saw on the news crawl this morning that a US soldier had been killed in southern Iraq. *sigh*
Doug Abramson
August 23, 2010 - 9:02 am
I was very glad to see those troops pull out last week, but also a little angry. Bush’s war, the one I will always believe was waged so he could show Daddy that he was the better man, has cost us dearly in blood. Thousands dead without a national security issue at stake. The real was against Al Qaeda gone FUBAR because Iraq sucked up too much time, man power, money and attention. Our men and women asked too much of, many beyond the breaking point; so much so that we are unable to go into Yemen or Somalia. A few dead warlords, food, clean water and medical attention now could cut terrorist recruiting off at the knees for many years. Our troops accomplished much with too little, at great personal sacrifice. As usual, they must be honored for a job well done. This was far from a victory. The Republicans should keep their mouths shut, for once.
Mike Gold
August 23, 2010 - 9:28 am
Martha, every once in a while somebody gets his head blowed off in Korea. It rarely makes the papers.
Doug, our troops accomplished a great deal, given the circumstances. And those that came home alive and intact accomplished even more. But given their extremely high shell shock (what are they calling that this week — LSMFT?) suicide rates and the like, we’ve got an ongoing obligation to these folks.
In the best of all possible worlds, their medical tabs and living expenses would be paid for personally by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz — but I’d probably settle for simply tar and feathering them, on the reality show of their choice.
Doug Abramson
August 23, 2010 - 9:56 am
I’d go with the drawn and quartered route. I agree with you about our troops. The country owes these men and women a great debt. Everything that can be done for those that are sick or injured must be done. The least we can do is make sure that they have the highest quality of life medicine can give them. I don’t want to see another generation of PTSD vets on the streets, like after Vietnam.
Jonathan (the other one)
August 23, 2010 - 10:10 am
I confess that I’m surprised to hear that this was downplayed elsewhere. It’s been all over the local news for a while now. Of course, that may be because we live near Joint Base Lewis-McChord, home to the 4th Brigade, 2nd Division – those “last combat troops” finally coming home…
Mike Gold
August 23, 2010 - 10:24 am
Jonathan: Yep. It’s a big local story for you. It’s a big LOCAL story for the rest of us as well, but our put-out friends in the media are too childish to appreciate it.
Doug: Every war has its shell shock victims. We never really looked at the Korean vets. Korean, ‘Nam, and Iraq all have one thing in common: they were fought without a military conclusion. Well, I guess that’s not true in Vietnam. We lost that one; I’ll never forget the footage of those helicopters leaving the embassy. But we as a nation do not accept that; hence my point.
The real bitch about the Iraq War is that a whole lotta soldiers were sent there because they signed up for their National Guard. Yeah, that was part of the deal — there was always the risk of being sent to war, but damn, three, four, even five tours? For a totally bullshit war? And we wonder about all the shell shock and suicide???
R. Maheras
August 23, 2010 - 11:33 am
I don’t buy the “totally bullshit war” argument, and people do not endear themselves to veterans by making that a drumbeat response.
Let me say first off that if I were president, we probably would not have invaded Iraq at that point in time. I was never a big fan of the operation, and I thought from the very beginning it would sap our resources and divert our attention from the fight in Afghanistan. And I was right.
That said, once the decision was made to invade Iraq, it was our responsibility as a country to see it through quickly and professionally until the war was resolved. Unfortunately, however, there were a number of poor choices made at various levels that worked against this happening, and what should have been a relatively short war stretched out to more than seven years.
But in wartime, attitude and morale is everything, and the constant negativity by Democrats (and liberal media outlets)during the Bush administration, coupled with the constant Republican negativity during Obama’s tenure (coupled with that of conservative media outlets), was/is an albatross around the necks of servicemembers in Iraq trying to complete the mission they were tasked with.
It makes me bristle when someone says something like, “Hey, since Iraq was a ‘phoney’ war, we understand why military suicide rates and PTSD cases are a problem.”
That’s not helpful, and it may even exacerbate the problem. As Mike points out, suicide and PTSD is nothing new for combat troops, whether it’s a “good war” or not. I’ll never forget the sadness on my Dad’s face when he related the story of a bomber pilot in his WW II unit who crash-landed and was burned alive. “He curled up like a match,” my dad said in a broken voice more than 60 years after the fact. Despite the fact I spent 20 years in the military, getting my dad to talk about his wartime experiences in the Pacific during WW II was always extremely difficult.
My view of Iraq? Yeah, the WMD rationale turned out to be false, but by the time we were aware of that point, we’d already eliminated a long-time threat to the region where we DO, in fact, have an enormous strategic resources interest (unlike, say, in Vietnam). In addition, we were able to spread democracy to a part of the world that had never experienced democracy before. In the long run, it may or may not take (as it did in Germany, Japan and South Korea), but at least we gave it a shot.
Only time will tell if we, as a country (because the decision to invade Iraq was supported by both Democrats and Republicans) made the right decision.
In the meantime, it would be helpful if veterans (or surviving family members of those who didn’t make it home alive) were thanked for their service WITHOUT any unintentionally back-handed partisan caveates.
Doug Abramson
August 23, 2010 - 12:17 pm
R. Maheras: I don’t know if your comments have anything to do with mine, but if they do let me assure you that my remarks regarding our current vets are not back handed or partisan. I grew up in Orange County and San Diego. A very large part of the homeless population were Viet Nam vets that never got the mental health care they needed. I do not want to see this repeated today. I would feel this way even if I had supported the war.
Mr. Gold: I know that all wars leave mental scars on the troops, but most untreated WWII and Korea vets seemed to find enough of a support system at home that allowed them to cope. Your comment about the National Guard brings up another sore point from this mess. The National Guard is supposed to be called up to help their neighbors in a time of need. They are only supposed to see combat in a time of war. Congress hasn’t declared war since 1941.
Marc Fishman
August 23, 2010 - 12:27 pm
I’ll be brief since I’m a dove at heart. I’m glad troops will return home. There will be continued bloodshed in Iraq and it’s sad that it will happen. I hate that America chooses to be the world’s police at times, and that it costs the lives of kids younger than me; Which is scary, given I still consider myself a kid.
Most days I wish I could buy the world a coke, and make everyone get along.
ed zarger
August 23, 2010 - 11:01 pm
I was surprised to see the news showing the military pulling out, not having heard about it in days and weeks upcoming(unlike elections and SupperBowls, which are always touted far far too much ahead of the fact).(That should have been SuperBowls. Most of us don’t think that far ahead about supper.)
Not sure we can call the war useless. As soon as the administration started labeling an Axis of Terrorist states, the military bigshots were surely concocting contingency plans for how to deal with each country. That’s what they do.
In (fear &)revenge for 9-11, they (repubs and demos)wanted to go after each terrorist country, but not have to take them all on at once. Iraq was supposed to be really short,in and out, then ready for the next one. The invasion did have some quick results — Libya and Pakistan both started doing what they could to get on our good side.
Maybe Bush actually didn’t have the insight to realize Saddam was full of it in claiming to have WMDs. Poor Colin Powell followed the party line, and got the blame for believing the bad intel. Saddam WAS sponsoring terrorism – suicide bombers, at least. The WMDs were an excuse, which Saddam stupidly encouraged.
But we always have to support our troops, during and after conflicts.
End of marginally-solicited history review.
Whitney
August 24, 2010 - 12:16 pm
Mike Gold –
Embarassed to say that I first read about the pullout in your column. From the local media, I know more about Lindsey Lohan’s time behind bars than about what our soldiers are going through.
MOTU
August 24, 2010 - 7:49 pm
THAT’S the solution we have all been waiting for! WHITNEY, you hit the nail right on the head!
Send Lindsey Lohan to Iraq!!! D U H !!!!
DUH, DUH, D U H !!!
Rick Oliver
August 24, 2010 - 7:53 pm
Heaven forbid we should ever refer to a “bullshit war” as a “bullshit war” because it might have a negative effect on our troops who sacrificed for that “bullshit war”. Of course, if we don’t acknowledge that it was a “bullshit war”, then the next time we get into a “bullshit war”, we won’t point that out because we’ve previously acknowledged that that is bad form. So even more troops can die in “bullshit wars”. I’m sure our men and women in uniform — who don’t get to choose their wars — will thank us for that.
R. Maheras
August 24, 2010 - 11:34 pm
If you studied U.S. history, you’d realize that ALL wars in the past were “bullshit wars” to significant blocs of the contemporary population.
There were plenty of people in colonial times who thought the American Revolution was a “bullshit war.” The same goes for the Civil War, WW I, WW II, and all of the rest.
The last “good war” — WW II — was something a huge number of Americans did not want. As a matter of fact, most people today seem unaware that during WW II, there were more than 70,000 conscientious objectors, and tens of thousands of military members who went AWOL. And I’ll bet almost every single one of them thought WW II was a “bullshit war,” and didn’t care one bit what the Japanese were doing to Asia, or what the Germans and Italians were doing to Europe.
So who was right? Roosevelt and the others who pushed so hard for war, or the pacifists and those who wanted to stay neutral?
Ditto for any war — including Iraq. Who was right, and who was wrong? Generally, such moral clarity for a war does not become evident to historians for decades afterwards — or longer.
MOTU
August 26, 2010 - 4:08 am
R,
I did study American History…but I went to public school so don’t ask me anything hard.
Vinnie Bartilucci
August 26, 2010 - 7:12 am
“That should have been SuperBowls.”
Actually, I believe the proper plural is “SupersBowl”
Rick Oliver
August 26, 2010 - 1:51 pm
Let’s define “bullshit war” as one our leaders got us into under knowingly false pretenses. Let’s further define “bullshit war” as one that had no real connection to our national security. Let’s further define “bullshit war” as one that has become overwhelming unpopular but we keep fighting because it would look bad if we stopped now even though we clearly aren’t going to “win”. Depending on which historians you listen to, WWII might fall in the first category, and the Revolution might fall in the last category. Iraq and Vietnam (and probably eventually Afghanistan) fall into all three of those categories.
R. Maheras
August 26, 2010 - 3:32 pm
The bottom line is all wars are “bullshit wars.” In addition, all involve mind-numbing mistakes and stupidity, all involve people playing fast and loose with the facts because they believe it’s in the “best interests” of the cause, and all involve unrealistic levels of optimism.
These same human characteristics are endemic to all large-scale human endeavors, but what makes war so different is that the stakes in human life are almost always far greater.
Which is why war should never be entered into lightly. It should always be the choice of last resort.
Rick Oliver
August 26, 2010 - 5:42 pm
re: “Which is why war should never be entered into lightly. It should always be the choice of last resort.”
Fine, let’s add that to the list of conditions that qualify a war as a “bullshit war”. Both Iraq and Vietnam qualify.
And BTW: I have studied history…extensively, particularly the second world war. Your ad hominem criticism lacks substance since you know nothing about me.
The bottom line is not that “all wars are ‘bullshit wars.'” The bottom line is that some wars are necessary and some are matters of economic or political convenience. And it is our job as responsible citizens to perceive the difference and hold our leaders accountable when the overwhelming evidence condemns their actions. And waiting until after the fact simply condemns more of our men and women in uniform to unnecessary risk, pain, and death.
R. Maheras
August 26, 2010 - 11:03 pm
So far, the only war in U.S. history that was fought as a “last resort” — where our existence as a nation was directly threatened — was ARGUABLY World War II. And I say arguably because Roosevelt violated our neutrality laws overtly and covertly numerous times in Europe prior to Pearl Harbor, and he poked at the Japanese with embargoes and other actions in the Pacific until they felt compelled to attack. In short, Roosevelt made the choices he did because he wanted to enter the war.
Every other war in U.S. history was a choice made for moral, political, financial, or expansionist reasons, or to “defend our honor” — NOT to repel some marauding invader. Even the War of 1812, where the British burned parts of Washington, D.C., was a war WE initially declared on the British.
Which is why your moral indignation for wars like Iraq and Vietnam is hollow and self-centered. It fits your definition of what you think is “right” and “wrong.” But death is death, so why should your “pet” wars of choice any more justifiable than, say, a conservative’s “pet” wars of choice? Think of the millions of people who died as a result of your “pet” wars of choice and ask yourself: “Was entering a war that could have been avoided ultimately worth it?”
If you think it was, and you think the millions of people who died did so for what you consider a good cause, then you have absolutely no room to criticize other Americans who opt to enter a “war of choice.”
I can’t really fault Bush for doing what he thought was right regarding Iraq, any more than I can fault Clinton for Bosnia, Kennedy for Vietnam, Truman for Korea, etc.
But there’s no denying that in every case, each president had other options.
Rick Oliver
August 27, 2010 - 10:28 am
No one is denying that war sucks and is preferably avoided. And some wars are certainly fought because of some moral conviction, often misguided. I fault Bush and Johnson for deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally deceiving us to provide justification for their wars )(yes, Johnson inherited Vietnam, but he turned it into a serious shooting war). I fault Nixon for continuing Johnson’s war primarily because he didn’t want to be remembered as the guy who “lost” the war in Vietnam.
And, of course, we all have our own opinions (sometimes informed and sometimes not) concerning what is right and what is wrong. And I think it is wrong to outwardly support a war merely for the sake of morale. We’d still be in Vietnam if we all did that.