Desert Air

Some weeks, like last week, there is little to say. Other weeks, there is too much. This would be one of those weeks. The votes on last week’s post came from Eddy’s mom and sister. Since I will see them in a week, I’ll go ahead and answer their questions off-line. In politics, there is the news that Joe Biden is the first candidate to receive and endorsement from a newspaper, but I’ll let that speak for itself. Instead, on the five month anniversary of Eddy's deployment, we are borowing a page from WHYY in Philadelphia and are pleased to bring you, Desert Air, with Kathy Schulz.

Kathy: How has your opinion of the war in Iraq changed in the last five months?
Ed: Based on some of the signs I'm seeing in Northern Iraq, I am more open to the possibility that we may pull a good outcome out of this, in spite of our less than stellar performance up to this point in many areas. I'd say the chances are about 1 in 3 maybe that the "good stuff" going on up here will be able to move the rest of the country in the right direction on a timeline that works for the people back home in the states.

Kathy: What is the hardest part of deploying?
Ed: The obvious, being away from home.

Kathy: What is the hardest part about serving in Iraq?
Ed: Take your pick, the weather most of the time sucks, my job bores the piss out of me (I could, literally, do 97% of my job from my living room and the other 3% isn't all that important anyway) and any number of other complaints I could rattle off. However, I suppose the hardest thing is getting the feeling that our country isn't really committed to what we are doing over here.

I hear talk of "struggle for our generation" and such, but really as a nation we're half-assing this fight and have been from the beginning. We have 300 million people in our country and an 11 trillion dollar a year economy. If this was *really* important we could certainly bring a lot more resources to bear on it than we currently are. Another thing that is hard is feeling like a good portion of the country is calling for us to get out of Iraq without really thinking through the consequences of what they are asking for, or without truly understanding the situation over here. I often visit left-wing chat rooms or message boards just to see how people are thinking. I've noticed that for most of them the only creative thinking is along the lines of figuring out who can come up with the most dire predictions for what is going to happen when we leave (without I might add allowing that to influence the question of whether or not we should leave), coming up with the most creative way of saying what a stupid idea it was to get involved over here in the first place, or seeing who can make the most anti Bush statement. No one on the left seems the least bit interested in figuring out how to succeed, only in asserting how we are going to fail. I find that disappointing to say the least.

No one can say for sure what will happen if we cry uncle and take off, but we've seen some historical precedents for what is likely to happen (think Yugoslavia, Sudan, Somalia, etc). There are some really sick people over here and they aren't just going to go away if we leave. They are likely going to take advantage of the power vacuum, much to the detriment of the average Iraqi. We have nutbars over here who will kidnap people and then, over the course of a couple of days, torture them to death by slowly drilling holes into their large bones. Then they will decapitate the body, put the body in the local square with the head in the lap and then booby trap the body so when the family comes to pick it up they die too. Or, as another example, the insurgents over here specifically train their snipers to shoot people in the hips. Why? Because there are several large bones (pelvis, hip joint), guts, nerve bundles and large veins/arteries in that area. In other words, best case is the victim is really f**ed up and paralyzed from the waist down. What usually happens is a horrendously painful death as the person bleeds out.

Now imagine what a person who has had that happen looks and sounds like as they die. It looks and sounds a lot like a dog or other large animal as it flops around screaming after having its back broken by a car. Personally, I don't understand how someone could advocate that we abandon the Iraqis to people who purposefully seek to inflict that kind of pain and suffering on another human being. I'm not suggesting that we keep banging our heads against the wall the way we have been in some sort of macho pissing contest sort of way, but there are some pretty smart people in our country (and in Iraq and the rest of the world too I might add). I'm sure if we put our minds to it we could figure something out. I don't know, we're in a pretty tough spot. It just looks to me like many people, the left in particular, have accepted as gospel that this thing is doomed and we should take off instead of doing anything in their power to figure out a way to succeed. My feeling is that leaving would have very bad consequences and it should therefore be the absolute last resort. We still haven't tried a true diplomatic surge or a true troop surge (it was more of a "troop trickle"), just to name two possibilities.

Kathy: What has been the most inspirational event that you’ve witnessed, or heard about from a reliable source, since deploying?
Ed: I haven't personally witnessed anything inspirational since I don't ever leave our base. I do however get to hear and read about some truly amazing Iraqis who, despite the improbability and in some ways sheer absurdity of what we are trying to accomplish, risk their lives and the lives of their friends and families to try and form a country and a government over here. We are seeing a lot of areas where the local citizens are basically pissed off and tired of extremist groups moving into their neighborhoods and terrorizing them. So, they band together and with our help in some cases and without it in others kick the bad guys out. We are also seeing some positive steps in ethnic/tribal/religious reconciliation efforts. Various local/regional leaders are realizing that the only real option they have, unless they want more violence and bloodshed, is to learn to get along. Despite decades or centuries of hostility, and despite the fact that leaders working for reconciliation are immediately targeted for assassination, we are seeing many who are saying enough is enough and starting to work together. Several have been killed as a result, but thus far all that has done is piss off the others, strengthen their resolve, and make them work even harder.

Also, in public affairs we get to hear about and do stories on some pretty amazing soldiers, both on the tactical side and on the "making Iraq better" side. For example, we just had a Captain receive a Silver Star. He was in a convoy that was ambushed, had a vehicle get blown up and disabled, he gets out of his vehicle under a hail of gunfire, immediately takes two rounds in the leg, returns fire on the machine gun position that is shooting at him, then recognizing that ultimately the machine gun was going to kill them all if something didn't change, leads a couple of soldiers in a charge of said machine gun and kills a bunch of bad guys. I have no idea how he's still alive.

Or, we had a soldier at the base where I'm located who came up with a great idea to build a training facility to teach Iraqis to do a bunch of different construction type jobs and to build a rock crushing/gravel making facility. Reason 1) we need basic construction workers on the base and we need gravel for construction. Reason 2) it will be a huge shot in the arm to the local economy to have a couple hundred or so Iraqis working with us and getting paid by us but spending the money in Tikrit instead of sending it back to Pakistan or Bangladesh (where most of our third country guys are coming from) Anyway, this guy basically came up with the idea, visualized what needed to be done to make it happen, then did it. Now we're looking at making it a model for elsewhere in our area.

Of course I also get to see and hear about some truly heart rending stuff as well. Case in point, one of our Civil Affairs teams (think peace corps but with guns) worked with a local city government, using local sources, to fund and build a play ground because the local children didn't have a place to play. Some sick son of a bitch blew himself up in the middle of the playground and killed a bunch of kids. Now of course the playground is empty and the kids play in the (sewage and trash filled) streets.

Kathy: What is the most asinine message you’ve had to promote as a PAO?
Ed: The terrorists are in their last throes/this was a last desperate act of a desperate enemy/the brutality of this attack is an indication that the enemy will do anything in their final desperation to blah blah blah, pretty much all the same message. This has mostly died down but it will pop its head up every once in a while. Some people in the Army seem to think that you people on the homefront will believe anything we say simply because we said it. I've been trying to convince people that saying such things only makes them look like idiots.

Kathy: What do you think of the Republican Presidential candidates’ positions of ‘stay the course’ (exempting Ron Paul from that list of course)?
Ed: I'm not too smart on the Republicans' positions but I don't think any of them are using language like "stay the course". I could be wrong tho. "Stay the Course" is basically an impossibility. There will be a change to our current mission and force structure over here, or we will have to initiate a draft. That is just about certain. Most active duty types are on their 2nd deployment and many have done 3 or 4 between Afghanistan and Iraq, for a total in some cases of 4 of the last 6 years spent deployed. Also, keep in mind that when the soldiers are home between deployments they aren't really home. They are preparing for their next deployment. That means up to 3 months out of the year that they have off between deployments nowadays is spent in the field training, and they will usually spend 4-6 weeks at one of the military training centers right before they leave. So, of the year that they have "off", they probably spend 4 months gone. The country can keep asking these guys to continue such an operational tempo but not for much longer.

Kathy: The Democratic positions are more varied, from the front-runners’ indications that at least some troops would remain in Iraq into their second terms to Richardson’s vow that all would be home by the end of his first year; in your opinion do any of them seem to have a grasp on the situation?
Ed: My gut feeling, based on nothing more than my own intuition, is that it will be at least 2 years into the next administration before we may "leave" Iraq. I put leave in quotes because I don't think we will leave Iraq completely for at least a decade or so if not longer. While the surge troops will start leaving in the next couple months and we should be down to pre-surge levels by this summer, I don't anticipate any significant troop reductions while Bush is in office. If a democrat takes over the White House and they want us out as soon as possible, figure it'll take about 6 months to a year, if they still really want to pull us out, to put together a plan, then figure another year from the time someone says "go" for us to pack up and run for the exits. And that's if we want to abandon a good deal of our gear. If we want to take most or everything that we brought with us, it'll take a year and a half to two years (even longer if we keep pissing Turkey off and they close their borders to us). As far as Richardson's vow to get everyone out in a year from when he takes office, I don't think it's realistic. So I guess to answer your question, I think having most service members out by the second term is possible, and is a realistic goal. That allows time to 1) set the conditions on the ground here for a stable outcome, if it is in fact possible and 2) to break contact (one of the more difficult military maneuvers to accomplish) in an orderly fashion (think the exact opposite of the images of us leaving Saigon). In the short term tho, something has to give. The second term of the next administration is what? just over 5 years away? That is longer than it's been since this started. I can't imagine us or the Iraqis stomaching over 5 more years of what we've just had for the last 4 and a half.

Kathy: How safe would you feel if all the private security companies pulled out and left?
Ed: Personally it wouldn't impact me in the slightest. Our base is guarded by US soldiers and I never leave the wire with any of the people on base who use private contractors. In military terms however it would be a "significant emotional event" for a lot of people. Also, the requirement for that security wouldn't go away, so it would probably lead to more US soldiers deploying to provide a good portion of it.

Kathy: Of the books you read before going over – COBRA II, Hubris, Assassin’s Gate, etc., which in hindsight seems to you to be most accurate now that you’re over there?
Ed: Most of those books talk about the prep for and execution of the invasion. Nothing I've experienced over here has given me the least bit of insight one way or the other into the subject matter those books cover. Micheal Gordon (wrote COBRA II) did come up to our area last week to do research on his next book. I look forward to reading it when it comes out.

Kathy: Read any good books lately?
Ed: Nope, no time. I do however read Atlantic (the Atlantic Monthly ed.) when I can. There was an excellent article in there last month about Clinton using the power of the ex presidential soapbox and the ex presidential rollodex and the profit motive to leverage businesses to tackle some "humanitarian" projects like lowering the cost of AIDS drugs in Africa. Made for interesting reading and could provide a nifty model for working to save the world in the future. Also, before I came over here I read a pretty good article in Foreign Affairs on how conflicts end. Seems somewhat relevant to many places today, including Iraq.