Methinks a few folks here've said they wanted to get some veteran's perspectives in discussions on the Iraq war. Just the other day in the Mil/Vets forum someone expressed an interest someone again expressed an interest in seein' more such discussion.

I and a couple other CGCSers who're also vets have expressed our thoughts on the subject in various threads, mainly here in this subforum where methinks any such discussion really belongs, eh? Maybe 'tis time to try it again and see if it gets more folks involved this time. Our last few attempts seemed to've not been too popular as the non vets who wanna talk 'bout the subject seem to wanna do so everywhere but here where 'tis on topic.

To start it off let's consider what a couple straight talkin' vets I happen to respect had to say on the Russert show last Sunday. You can read the transcript here, eh?

Good idea, Doc.

I'm about halfway through Woodward's Bush at War, which is mostly about the lead-up and conflict in Afghanistan. I'm not real impressed with the way Woodward sugarcoats the incompetence of almost everything done by Rice and Rumsfeld; and it is obvious in retrospect that he actually documents the seeds of Iraq as having been sown in Afghanistan campaign. But one thing does come out clearly: Bush's response to 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan was done with a clear mind and good leadership. It is one of only three things this administration has done well, IMHO- the other two being his engagement in the war on AIDS in Africa, and the Dubai Ports deal.

I just got Jawbreaker the other day (a b'day present I got off Amazon) so have not had a chance to read it yet. Woodward does have some discussion of the Jawbreaker operation in Bush at War so it will be interesting to analyze the operations from two different perspectives: Woodward the Bush Apologist, and Bernsten the Jawbreaker operative.

Additionally, it appears in the context of Manning's new DSM's that Woodward sugarcoated the conversations with Blair and Straw in the spring of '02 through the winter of '03. Layer upon layer of concurrent records by those outside the administration seem to reaffirm a simple fact: the intelligence and policy were fixed around the agenda. Whether it was Cheney and the White House Iraq Group pushing the agenda, or Bush pushing Cheney into an agenda is not clear; Woodward says that Bush never wanted to go into Iraq- but he's the first credible source to say that in so many words. Zenni, O'Niel, Shenseki, and virtually all other primary sources either imply or actually state otherwise. Perhaps a House investigation by Rep. Conyers might be able to answer that question.

My question is, where did he go wrong? Things seemed to be going as planned in Afghanistan and, hell, as much as his social agenda disgusts me and with the distain I have for him personally, I would have had a hard time faulting him for Enduring Freedom had it been taken to a final solution. So why did he risk it all on something that virtually every advisor he had- from the Joint Chiefs, his father, Powell, and most of the congressional leadership- implore him to forget Iraq? I really want to know. I honestly believe, as I've said before, Bush is too stupid to be evil, but Iraq is an evil task created by evil men.

How did something as noble as Enduring Freedom become bastardized into the nightmarish Iraq quagmire? How could the tragedy of 9/11 breed maggots like Abu Grahib?

Thanks, Doc.

I'm not a veteran but want to know more about what veterans think about Iraq. Just wanted to get more of an idea about it. So far the people I know who are veterans have been kind of "mums the word" regarding Iraq and I haven't had the time to ask them what they're thinking on the Iraq war.

I find myself wondering, however, what veterans must think about this whole Iraq war thing.

Methinks I'll go ahead and restate what I've said in other places, like the "Background" threads in this sub forum. Y'all gotta remember though, I'm a bit different than most vets in that although I served for 30 years I've been anti war pretty much that whole time and then some. Because I served as a noncombatant and provided medical care to those on both sides in combat my conscience was clear in doin' this.

IMHO almost every war situation comes about 'cause the diplomats didn't do their damn job! Iraq was no different, and diplomats from the USA and a few other permanent members of the UN Security Council are all equally to blame. Unfortunately methinks the reality of American political situations also came into play.

The USA wasn't patient enough, methinks France and probably Germany & Russia actually encouraged Saddam's noncompliance and lack of cooperation in the WMD & ballistic missile inspections, while Saddam and his government was complicit in cooperatin' with and fundin' terrorists, includin' al Queda related groups.

The delay in resolvin' this thing diplomatically probably forced our hand in invadin' 'cause any further delay woulda probably made it impossible for our forces to protect themselves on a chemically and/or biologically contaminated battlefield. The hot months were drawin' near, eh?

Once we did go the interference of American civilian leadership made a hash outa the operation. This was further complicated by French and other European influence on the Turks which kept us from bringin' a heavy Army division down from the north and thus precludin' much of the insurgency we're still tryin' to deal with in Iraq today.

After that we really screwed up in tryin' to reconstitute a viable Iraqi military force and lost at least a year of progress in the process. Once our military convinced the powers that be to train a strong NCO component then we saw some real improvement. Now those trained and experienced NCOs are bein' moved around and so the operational readiness of many Iraqi units changes, mainly bein' downgraded.

The conjecture and hyperbole we see and hear from our politicians on both sides of the aisle today only serve to complicate matters. From what I hear it has affected the morale of our military folks servin' in the region. Methinks if they'd cut the crap, knock off the rhetoric and concentrate on realistic solutions instead of what appeals to their political base we could probably have all but a division out of Iraq in a year, and those still there would be a quick reaction force to back up the Iraqi military if/when needed.

How's that for a startin' point?

Hope you feel I didn't edit out anything important or change your meanings with my edit job.

I just wanted to add that except for the clause I put in italics, I agree nigh on 100% with your description of the cluster that is now Iraq. I'd also add that I don't think, if you look at his original proposal for troop withdrawls from Iraq (Des knows the bill number, I don't), Feingold has been trying to do just what you recommend in the end.

Methinks the references I've previously posted here regardin' the Zamboanga bombin' in October 2002 by Abu Sayef and the Davao City bombin' in February 2003 by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, both of which resulted in the deaths of Americans, showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Saddam's government was complicit in them. In fact I'd previously provided links to stories 'bout how in March 2003 the Philippine government started expellin' Iraqi diplomats 'cause they were shown to've provided fundin' and technical support to these two al Queda connected groups. What part of that do you so vehemently disagree with, eh?

Notice, even back then, I could see reason's the invasion was warranted, even though I was against it. Too many diplomats and politicians in too many countries playin' too many games resulted in a FUBAR situation!

Methinks Iraqi vets, while over there, wanna put the politics of it outa their mind and concentrate more on doin' their job and stayin' alive, not necessarily in that order, Once they come back 'twould seem many of 'em would rather put it outa their mind than relive it, as unfortunately so many probably do anyway.

Those of us that're vets, but not of this conflict, may tend to not want to sound like we're second guessin' them that were, or are over there. Methinks that'd be especially true of any of us who've made love to the ground in other conflicts.

Well, even though 'twas requested there's been little discussion here, eh? Methinks maybe my previous note went over like a fart in church or somethin', 'cause 'tis sure been quiet here since.

Maybe this one should be put to bed in the archives too. Then methinks anytime anyone wants to do it again we'll just point to this and the others like it, none of which seemed to get anything goin', eh?

I see that it has been almost one year since anyone has added their thoughts to this topic.

I am a Vietnam veteran (68-69 U.S. Army). I bought into the idea of pre-emptive war in Iraq, because that is what the USA did against Hitler in World War II, justifying American military action in Europe by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Sure, Iraq did not directly attack the USA, nor did the Germans.

For nearly 40 years, I have held a belief that if the U.S. Military had unleashed its full force in Vietnam, we would have won. Well, that is exactly what we saw in Baghdad on March 20, 2003. The U.S. Military called it “Shock and Awe” - it was spectacular and we did win. I was proud of the U.S. Military. But, the war did not end... just like Vietnam, we can win the battles but we cannot successfully “occupy” a country that does not want us. (Not without using brutal suppression that would violate our own values.)

If the Iraq war had ended within 18 months, as the supporters of the war believed it would, then the Bush Presidency would have been honored as visionary. But, that did not happen. Perhaps if the Vietnam War had ended successfully within a year or two, then President Johnson would be considered a hero and a visionary today, but that did not happen either.

The Middle East is not Vietnam. There is big difference between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq. The difference is the oil in the region and the importance of oil in the world economy; specifically the importance of oil as a source of energy (transportation fuels). Our dependence on oil to produce gasoline, diesel and jet fuel makes us vulnerable to shortages. An interruption of the supply of oil anywhere in the world affects everyone because oil is a global commodity. The Middle East has about 60% of the world's known oil reserves; if the U.S. Military pulls out of Iraq allowing civil war and sectarian violence to escalate, causing the region to fall into the hands of Islamic militants who hate the United States and western values, then Middle East oil would become a weapon of political extortion subjecting the United States and Europe to economic terrorism by threatening the global economy with oil supply interruptions.

The United States walked away from Vietnam with only a loss of national pride and nothing to show for the deaths of fifty thousand U.S. soldiers, but otherwise the loss of Vietnam had no influence on the U.S. or world economy. If we walk away from the Middle-East, we better have a plan to end the global economic influence of Middle East oil.

Is there anyone who still cannot see the connection between the flow of oil money into the Middle East and the flow of terrorism out of the Middle East?

Take a look at this:

Nexus—OIL and AL Qaeda, By Frank H. Denton, PhD www.AmericanEnergyIndependence.com/nexus.html
—an in-depth explanation of the connection between Middle East oil revenue and the worldwide expansion of Islamic terrorism.

Frank Denton has a PhD in foreign affairs and is the author of Knowing the Roots of War and several other books. He spent a decade with the RAND Corp. before joining the U.S. Foreign Service. He served in Afghanistan, Jordan, Egypt and the Philippines as well as in Washington. He is now retired.

The discussion paper reads like a History Channel documentary:

“The meteoric rise of oil revenues in the 20th century meant a new era for Islam; oil revenues were the catalyst that converted passive resentment into Islamic Terrorism.

“Oil provides the revenues for the Fundamentalists, but it as well represents their basic weakness. An examination of the economies of Middle Eastern nations shows that the removal of oil revenues will render these nations politically inert. Recognizing this economic weakness, a global embargo of oil imports from the Middle East is shown to be an attractive means for defeating Al Qaeda. Severely curtailing then eliminating the reliance on Middle East oil will decimate the Islamic terrorists by cutting off both emotional and financial support.”

Contents:

Part 1 - Oil, the catalyst for the formation of Al Qaeda
Part 2 - Financing the Jihadists
Part 3 - Islam’s Oil Addiction

This eloquent exposé on the connection between oil wealth and terrorism leads to the undeniable conclusion that energy independence is an imperative for achieving national and global security. Frank Denton brings a new depth of insight to this complex and multi-faceted subject.

Thought's:

1. The Army and more accurately the Department of Defense as it is currently structured is NOT set up for "rebuilding" or "nation building" or "insert key politico phrase here".

-- If this "type" of mission is to reoccur as it has in Vietnam, Somali and now Iraq perhaps we should be putting more emphasis on policing, infrastructure and economics at places like West Point or Annapolis.

2. The Government of Iraq; the processes, buearocracy and methods had been broken long before the invasion occurred. With out the strong man in the middle it is no doubt they are having trouble fixing anything.

-- Without a strong leader (and very possible one that is not P.C. nor Democratic) Iraq will continue to sputter and sink.

3. Fundamentalism is being fueled with Oil wealth.

-- Why isn't our government encouraging more development into alternates; taxing fossils and promoting conservation.... You want to support the troops and fight terrorism.. how about sticking the yellow magnet on a Prius instead of a Hummer, turing off the lights, using less, etc.. etc...

Just My 2 cents.

My two cents says we had no right to invade Iraq. They did not attack us and the inspectors were back in country until Bush threw them out. If the purported ties to terrorism were the criteria then we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Yemen. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, all the rest did. This invasion and occupation has created thousands of potential Bin Ladens for generations to come. Diverting our attention from Bin Laden and tying down our military in Iraq, bleeding our resources, and strengthening Al -Qeada is not my idea of leadership.