Equal Time for Soldier's Truths

(Bear with me here, Kids, this'll be a pretty long read.)

"It's often said that there are two (at least- and sometimes more) sides to every story. These pieces are written by two different soldiers with different perspectives- and they've both "been there" and speak their realities from their own viewpoints. Which one do we subscribe to? Who and what do we believe? What is YOUR truth today? Will it be exactly the same tomorrow?

We are continuously influenced by the media, and by our communities, and now by the material available in cyberspace. We take it in, digest it then draw our own conclusions. If we are to effectively formulate our own opinions and assessments we have to keep opened minds (or not) and allow for views (or not) we may or may not share. All is open to interpretation and quite naturally skewed by our own unique conditioning. Differences yield dimension and unlimited possibility. All is not necessarily black and white! Do you have technicolor in your thinking?

At the end of the day, we'll 'decide' one, and 'choose' another. Another option is to just choose, then choose, then choose again. What I like about these stories and viewpoints is that they are generated by a first hand view...and what I don't like about 'em is that they are sometimes misused by others to justify a position that cannot or will not alter/falter.

What I love about my mind is that I can (and do) change it anytime I want to! It keeps other people on their toes! Can you change yours? Is it easy to do, or is it a struggle? What do you love about YOUR mind? Do you have the courage to take a stand and say, "I changed my mind..." in the face of "How dare you think for yourself"?

Warning: Some may disrespect the ability to think critically and quite possibly call you a 'flip-flopper' if you do (particularly if your view doesn't align with theirs)! Sound familiar? Thoughts? Comments?"

-eyes wide opened

************************************************************************
Media's coverage has distorted world's view of Iraqi reality
By LTC Tim Ryan
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Editors' Note: LTC Tim Ryan is Commander, Task Force 2-12 Cavalry, First Cavalry Division in Iraq. He led troops into battle in Fallujah late last year and is now involved in security operations for the upcoming elections. He wrote the following during "down time" after the Fallujah operation. His views are his own.

All right, I've had enough. I am tired of reading distorted and grossly exaggerated stories from major news organizations about the "failures" in the war in Iraq. "The most trusted name in news" and a long list of others continue to misrepresent the scale of events in Iraq. Print and video journalists are covering only a fraction of the events in Iraq and, more often than not, the events they cover are only negative.
The inaccurate picture they paint has distorted the world view of the daily realities in Iraq. The result is a further erosion of international support for the United States' efforts there, and a strengthening of the insurgents' resolve and recruiting efforts while weakening our own. Through their incomplete, uninformed and unbalanced reporting, many members of the media covering the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy.
The fact is the Coalition is making steady progress in Iraq, but not without ups and downs. So why is it that no matter what events unfold, good or bad, the media highlights mostly the negative aspects of the event? The journalistic adage, "If it bleeds, it leads," still applies in Iraq, but why only when it's American blood?
As a recent example, the operation in Fallujah delivered an absolutely devastating blow to the insurgency. Though much smaller in scope, clearing Fallujah of insurgents arguably could equate to the Allies' breakout from the hedgerows in France during World War II. In both cases, our troops overcame a well-prepared and solidly entrenched enemy and began what could be the latter's last stand. In Fallujah, the enemy death toll has exceeded 1,500 and still is climbing. Put one in the win column for the good guys, right? Wrong. As soon as there was nothing negative to report about Fallujah, the media shifted its focus to other parts of the country.
More recently, a major news agency's website lead read: "Suicide Bomber Kills Six in Baghdad" and "Seven Marines Die in Iraq Clashes." True, yes. Comprehensive, no. Did the author of this article bother to mention that Coalition troops killed 50 or so terrorists while incurring those seven losses? Of course not. Nor was there any mention about the substantial progress these offensive operations continue to achieve in defeating the insurgents. Unfortunately, this sort of incomplete reporting has become the norm for the media, whose poor job of presenting a complete picture of what is going on in Iraq borders on being criminal.
Much of the problem is about perspective, putting things in scale and balance. What if domestic news outlets continually fed American readers headlines like: "Bloody Week on U.S. Highways: Some 700 Killed," or "More Than 900 Americans Die Weekly from Obesity-Related Diseases"? Both of these headlines might be true statistically, but do they really represent accurate pictures of the situations? What if you combined all of the negatives to be found in the state of Texas and used them as an indicator of the quality of life for all Texans? Imagine the headlines: "Anti-law Enforcement Elements Spread Robbery, Rape and Murder through Texas Cities." For all intents and purposes, this statement is true for any day of any year in any state. True — yes, accurate — yes, but in context with the greater good taking place — no! After a year or two of headlines like these, more than a few folks back in Texas and the rest of the U.S. probably would be ready to jump off of a building and end it all. So, imagine being an American in Iraq right now.
From where I sit in Iraq, things are not all bad right now. In fact, they are going quite well. We are not under attack by the enemy; on the contrary, we are taking the fight to him daily and have him on the ropes. In the distance, I can hear the repeated impacts of heavy artillery and five-hundred-pound bombs hitting their targets. The occasional tank main gun report and the staccato rhythm of a Marine Corps LAV or Army Bradley Fighting Vehicle's 25-millimeter cannon provide the bass line for a symphony of destruction. As elements from all four services complete the absolute annihilation of the insurgent forces remaining in Fallujah, the area around the former insurgent stronghold is more peaceful than it has been for more than a year.
The number of attacks in the greater Al Anbar Province is down by at least 70-80 percent from late October — before Operation Al Fajar began. The enemy in this area is completely defeated, but not completely gone. Final eradication of the pockets of insurgents will take some time, as it always does, but the fact remains that the central geographic stronghold of the insurgents is now under friendly control. That sounds a lot like success to me. Given all of this, why don't the papers lead with "Coalition Crushes Remaining Pockets of Insurgents" or "Enemy Forces Resort to Suicide Bombings of Civilians"? This would paint a far more accurate picture of the enemy's predicament over here. Instead, headlines focus almost exclusively on our hardships.
What about the media's portrayal of the enemy? Why do these ruthless murderers, kidnappers and thieves get a pass when it comes to their actions? What did the the media show or tell us about Margaret Hassoon, the director of C.A.R.E. in Iraq and an Iraqi citizen, who was kidnapped, brutally tortured and left disemboweled on a street in Fallujah? Did anyone in the press show these images over and over to emphasize the moral failings of the enemy as they did with the soldiers at Abu Ghuraib? Did anyone show the world how this enemy had huge stockpiles of weapons in schools and mosques, or how he used these protected places as sanctuaries for planning and fighting in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq? Are people of the world getting the complete story? The answer again is no! What the world got instead were repeated images of a battle-weary Marine who made a quick decision to use lethal force and who immediately was tried in the world press. Was this one act really illustrative of the overall action in Fallujah? No, but the Marine video clip was shown an average of four times each hour on just about every major TV news channel for a week. This is how the world views our efforts over here and stories like this without a counter continually serve as propaganda victories for the enemy. Al Jazeera isn't showing the film of the C.A.R.E. worker, but is showing the clip of the Marine. Earlier this year, the Iraqi government banned Al Jazeera from the country for its inaccurate reporting. Wonder where they get their information now? Well, if you go to the Internet, you'll find a web link from the Al Jazeera home page to CNN's home page. Very interesting.
The operation in Fallujah is only one of the recent examples of incomplete coverage of the events in Iraq. The battle in Najaf last August provides another. Television and newspapers spilled a continuous stream of images and stories about the destruction done to the sacred city, and of all the human suffering allegedly brought about by the hands of the big, bad Americans. These stories and the lack of anything to counter them gave more fuel to the fire of anti-Americanism that burns in this part of the world. Those on the outside saw the Coalition portrayed as invaders or oppressors, killing hapless Iraqis who, one was given to believe, simply were trying to defend their homes and their Muslim way of life.
Such perceptions couldn't be farther from the truth. What noticeably was missing were accounts of the atrocities committed by the Mehdi Militia — Muqtada Al Sadr's band of henchmen. While the media was busy bashing the Coalition, Muqtada's boys were kidnapping policemen, city council members and anyone else accused of supporting the Coalition or the new government, trying them in a kangaroo court based on Islamic Shari'a law, then brutally torturing and executing them for their "crimes." What the media didn't show or write about were the two hundred-plus headless bodies found in the main mosque there, or the body that was put into a bread oven and baked. Nor did they show the world the hundreds of thousands of mortar, artillery and small arms rounds found within the "sacred" walls of the mosque. Also missing from the coverage was the huge cache of weapons found in Muqtada's "political" headquarters nearby. No, none of this made it to the screen or to print. All anyone showed were the few chipped tiles on the dome of the mosque and discussion centered on how we, the Coalition, had somehow done wrong. Score another one for the enemy's propaganda machine.
Now, compare the Najaf example to the coverage and debate ad nauseam of the Abu Ghuraib Prison affair. There certainly is no justification for what a dozen or so soldiers did there, but unbalanced reporting led the world to believe that the actions of the dozen were representative of the entire military. This has had an incredibly negative effect on Middle Easterners' already sagging opinion of the U.S. and its military. Did anyone show the world images of the 200 who were beheaded and mutilated in Muqtada's Shari'a Law court, or spend the next six months talking about how horrible all of that was? No, of course not. Most people don't know that these atrocities even happened. It's little wonder that many people here want us out and would vote someone like Muqtada Al Sadr into office given the chance — they never see the whole truth. Strange, when the enemy is the instigator the media does not flash images across the screens of televisions in the Middle East as they did with Abu Ghuraib. Is it because the beheaded bodies might offend someone? If so, then why do we continue see photos of the naked human pyramid over and over?
So, why doesn't the military get more involved in showing the media the other side of the story? The answer is they do. Although some outfits are better than others, the Army and other military organizations today understand the importance of getting out the story — the whole story — and trains leaders to talk to the press. There is a saying about media and the military that goes: "The only way the media is going to tell a good story is if you give them one to tell." This doesn't always work as planned. Recently, when a Coalition spokesman tried to let TV networks in on opening moves in the Fallujah operation, they misconstrued the events for something they were not and then blamed the military for their gullibility. CNN recently aired a "special report" in which the cable network accused the military of lying to it and others about the beginning of the Fallujah operation. The incident referred to took place in October when a Marine public affairs officer called media representatives and told them that an operation was about to begin. Reporters rushed to the outskirts of Fallujah to see what they assumed was going to be the beginning of the main attack on the city. As it turned out, what they saw were tactical "feints" designed to confuse the enemy about the timing of the main attack, then planned to take place weeks later.
Once the network realized that major combat operations wouldn't start for several more weeks, CNN alleged that the Marines had used them as a tool for their deception operation. Now, they say they want answers from the military and the administration on the matter. The reality appears to be that in their zeal to scoop their competition, CNN and others took the information they were given and turned it into what they wanted it to be. Did the military lie to the media: no. It is specifically against regulations to provide misinformation to the press. However, did the military planners anticipate that reporters would take the ball and run with it, adding to the overall deception plan? Possibly. Is that unprecedented or illegal? Of course not.
CNN and others say they were duped by the military in this and other cases. Yet, they never seem to be upset by the undeniable fact that the enemy manipulates them with a cunning that is almost worthy of envy. You can bet that terrorist leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has his own version of a public affairs officer and it is evident that he uses him to great effect. Each time Zarqawi's group executes a terrorist act such as a beheading or a car bomb, they have a prepared statement ready to post on their website and feed to the press. Over-eager reporters take the bait, hook, line and sinker, and report it just as they got it.
Did it ever occur to the media that this type of notoriety is just what the terrorists want and need? Every headline they grab is a victory for them. Those who have read the ancient Chinese military theorist and army general Sun Tzu will recall the philosophy of "Kill one, scare ten thousand" as the basic theory behind the strategy of terrorism. Through fear, the terrorist can then manipulate the behavior of the masses. The media allows the terrorist to use relatively small but spectacular events that directly affect very few, and spread them around the world to scare millions. What about the thousands of things that go right every day and are never reported? Complete a multi-million-dollar sewer project and no one wants to cover it, but let one car bomb go off and it makes headlines. With each headline, the enemy scores another point and the good-guys lose one. This method of scoring slowly is eroding domestic and international support while fueling the enemy's cause.
I believe one of the reasons for this shallow and subjective reporting is that many reporters never actually cover the events they report on. This is a point of growing concern within the Coalition. It appears many members of the media are hesitant to venture beyond the relative safety of the so-called "International Zone" in downtown Baghdad, or similar "safe havens" in other large cities. Because terrorists and other thugs wisely target western media members and others for kidnappings or attacks, the westerners stay close to their quarters. This has the effect of holding the media captive in cities and keeps them away from the broader truth that lies outside their view. With the press thus cornered, the terrorists easily feed their unwitting captives a thin gruel of anarchy, one spoonful each day. A car bomb at the entry point to the International Zone one day, a few mortars the next, maybe a kidnapping or two thrown in. All delivered to the doorsteps of those who will gladly accept it without having to leave their hotel rooms — how convenient.
The scene is repeated all too often: an attack takes place in Baghdad and the morning sounds are punctuated by a large explosion and a rising cloud of smoke. Sirens wail in the distance and photographers dash to the scene a few miles away. Within the hour, stern-faced reporters confidently stare into the camera while standing on the balcony of their tenth-floor Baghdad hotel room, their back to the city and a distant smoke plume rising behind them. More mayhem in Gotham City they intone, and just in time for the morning news. There is a transparent reason why the majority of car bombings and other major events take place before noon Baghdad-time; any later and the event would miss the start of the morning news cycle on the U.S. east coast. These terrorists aren't stupid; they know just what to do to scare the masses and when to do it. An important key to their plan is manipulation of the news media. But, at least the reporters in Iraq are gathering information and filing their stories, regardless of whether or the stories are in perspective. Much worse are the "talking heads" who sit in studios or offices back home and pontificate about how badly things are going when they never have been to Iraq and only occasionally leave Manhattan.
Almost on a daily basis, newspapers, periodicals and airwaves give us negative views about the premises for this war and its progress. It seems that everyone from politicians to pop stars are voicing their unqualified opinions on how things are going. Recently, I saw a Rolling Stone magazine and in bold print on the cover was, "Iraq on Fire; Dispatches from the Lost War." Now, will someone please tell me who at Rolling Stone or just about any other "news" outlet is qualified to make a determination as to when all is lost and it's time to throw in the towel? In reality, such flawed reporting serves only to misshape world opinion and bolster the enemy's position. Each enemy success splashed across the front pages and TV screens of the world not only emboldens them, but increases their ability to recruit more money and followers.
So what are the credentials of these self proclaimed "experts"? The fact is that most of those on whom we rely for complete and factual accounts have little or no experience or education in counter-insurgency operations or in nation-building to support their assessments. How would they really know if things are going well or not? War is an ugly thing with many unexpected twists and turns. Who among them is qualified to say if this one is worse than any other at this point? What would they have said in early 1942 about our chances of winning World War II? Was it a lost cause too? How much have these "experts" studied warfare and counter-insurgencies in particular? Have they ever read Roger Trinquier's treatise Modern Warfare: A French View on Counter-insurgency (1956)? He is one of the few French military guys who got it right. The Algerian insurgency of the 1950s and the Iraq insurgency have many similarities. What about Napoleon's campaigns in Sardinia in 1805-07? Again, there are a lot of similarities to this campaign. Have they studied that and contrasted the strategies? Or, have they even read Mao Zedung's theories on insurgencies, or Nygen Giap's, or maybe Che' Gueverra's? Have they seen any of Sun Tzu's work lately? Who are these guys? It's time to start studying, folks. If a journalist doesn't recognize the names on this list, he or she probably isn't qualified to assess the state of this or any other campaign's progress.
Worse yet, why in the world would they seek opinion from someone who probably knows even less than they do about the state of affairs in Iraq? It sells commercials, I suppose. But, I find it amazing that some people are more apt to listen to a movie star's or rock singer's view on how we should prosecute world affairs than to someone whose profession it is to know how these things should go. I play the guitar, but Bruce Springsteen doesn't listen to me play. Why should I be subjected to his views on the validity of the war? By profession, he's a guitar player. Someone remind me what it is that makes Sean Penn an expert on anything. It seems that anyone who has a dissenting view is first to get in front of the camera. I'm all for freedom of speech, but let's talk about things we know. Otherwise, television news soon could have about as much credibility as "The Bachelor" has for showing us truly loving couples.
Also bothersome are references by "experts" on how "long" this war is taking. I've read that in the world of manufacturing, you can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product — cheap, fast or good. You can produce something cheap and fast, but it won't be good; good and fast, but it won't be cheap; good and cheap, but it won't be fast. In this case, we want the result to be good and we want it at the lowest cost in human lives. Given this set of conditions, one can expect this war is to take a while, and rightfully so. Creating a democracy in Iraq not only will require a change in the political system, but the economic system as well. Study of examples of similar socio-economic changes that took place in countries like Chile, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russia and other countries with oppressive Socialist dictatorships shows that it took seven to ten years to move those countries to where they are now. There are many lessons to be learned from these transfomations, the most important of which is that change doesn't come easily, even without an insurgency going on. Maybe the experts should take a look at all of the work that has gone into stabilizing Bosnia-Herzegovina over the last 10 years. We are just at the 20-month mark in Iraq, a place far more oppressive than Bosnia ever was. If previous examples are any comparison, there will be no quick solutions here, but that should be no surprise to an analyst who has done his or her homework.
This war is not without its tragedies; none ever are. The key to the enemy's success is use of his limited assets to gain the greatest influence over the masses. The media serves as the glass through which a relatively small event can be magnified to international proportions, and the enemy is exploiting this with incredible ease. There is no good news to counteract the bad, so the enemy scores a victory almost every day. In its zeal to get to the hot spots and report the latest bombing, the media is missing the reality of a greater good going on in Iraq. We seldom are seen doing anything right or positive in the news. People believe what they see, and what people of the world see almost on a daily basis is negative. How could they see it any other way? These images and stories, out of scale and context to the greater good going on over here, are just the sort of thing the terrorists are looking for. This focus on the enemy's successes strengthens his resolve and aids and abets his cause. It's the American image abroad that suffers in the end.
Ironically, the press freedom that we have brought to this part of the world is providing support for the enemy we fight. I obviously think it's a disgrace when many on whom the world relies for news paint such an incomplete picture of what actually has happened. Much too much is ignored or omitted. I am confident that history will prove our cause right in this war, but by the time that happens, the world might be so steeped in the gloom of ignorance we won't recognize victory when we achieve it.

Postscript: I have had my staff aggressively pursue media coverage for all sorts of events that tell the other side of the story only to have them turned down or ignored by the press in Baghdad. Strangely, I found it much easier to lure the Arab media to a "non-lethal" event than the western outlets. Open a renovated school or a youth center and I could always count on Al-Iraqia or even Al-Jazeera to show up, but no western media ever showed up – ever. Now I did have a pretty dangerous sector, the Abu Ghuraib district that extends from western Baghdad to the outskirts of Fallujah (not including the prison), but it certainly wasn't as bad as Fallujah in November and there were reporters in there.


***************************************************************************
"I Will Continue To Speak Out Until the Last Soldier Leaves Iraq":


Interview with Antiwar Veteran of the Iraq War http://www.lefthook.org/Interviews/SeidmanResta011905.html
Patrick Resta, Specialist/E4 Interviewed by Derek Seidman Patrick Resta, Specialist/E4, served as an Army medic in Iraq with the
30th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division.

He was stationed in Iraq for eight months in 2004, returning home just about two months ago. He has recently begun speaking out against the war and occupation, and he is involved with Iraq Veterans Against the War. Left Hook's Derek Seidman was recently able to catch up with Patrick Resta to ask him some questions about his experiences in Iraq, his reasons for making vocal his opposition to the war and occupation, his current activism, and his thoughts on several other topics.

Patrick Resta can be reached at eosonifilic@aol.com. You can also see a gallery of his photographs from Iraq.

Thank you for doing this interview Patrick. Can you begin by telling us when you were in Iraq? Where were you and what were you doing?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to have my voice heard. I think it's vital that veterans of this conflict speak out about what it's really like out there.
I was at my camp in northeastern Iraq from March 12, 2004 to November
15, 2004. My camp was located in the Diyala province, the capital of which is Baqubah. To make that a little more understandable, we were about 100 miles northeast of Baghdad and roughly 30 miles from the Iranian border.
I was a medic, so that was my main focus. I would work shifts in our 3 bed ER sometimes, where we would see everything from the common cold to gun shot wounds and shrapnel injuries. I also accompanied patrols into towns and convoys to get supplies in case anyone was injured during the accomplishment of the mission.

When did you enter the military, and why did you join?

I joined the military shortly after high school. My main motivation was always money for college and to get some training in the medical field. I was in a position where my parents had made it clear that they were not in a position to assist me with college tuition. I think that the vast majority of people that enter the military do it for the educational benefits.

You said that you think it's very important that vets speak out about what it's really like over there in Iraq. I'd like to ask you a few questions about this. First, speaking from your own experience, what's daily life like for most soldiers over there? What do you want people here to know about what's really going on?

Your daily life as a soldier varies greatly by where you are in Iraq. Soldiers at the bigger camps have better and more numerous amenities than I ever did. These range from movie theaters, to swimming pools, to fast food restaurants, and stores. Living conditions also vary widely from barracks (almost like one would see here in the States), to trailers, and even tents. Daily activities also vary wildly depending on what your job is and what kind of unit you are in.
I myself lived in a trailer with three other medics. If you can picture one of the metal shipping containers at a port you have a good idea of the size. It was slightly smaller. It had fluorescent lights, air conditioning, and several power outlets. I rarely, if ever, had a day off for the entire time that I was over there. As I mentioned earlier, my days consisted of working in our clinic, going on patrols or missions, or going on convoys to other camps.
The thing that is most troubling to me about what is going on in Iraq is the public's reaction, or lack thereof, to it. It seems to me that the public is a little too accepting of whatever the media feeds them and unwilling to research things for themselves. I think the misconceptions harbored by the public about how things are going in Iraq are dangerous. By this I refer to the following ideas: that the Iraqi people want us there, that we are rebuilding the country, that we are helping the Iraqi people, that the Iraqi security forces are anywhere near capable of taking over, and the list goes on and on. I cover each of these topics extensively in my comments I have readied for public speaking engagements. (Contact Patrick Resta at eosonifilic@aol.com).
There are also the troubling ideas the American public still harbors about soldiers in Iraq. A huge one is that most soldiers support the war and are happy to be there. During my time in Iraq, "The Stars and Stripes", which is a military newspaper, released a poll that showed a clear majority of soldiers in Iraq as unsupportive of the policies. The paper also ran many letters to the editor that were critical of the administration and the war in general. The lack of armor on vehicles continues to be a problem that costs soldiers their lives and limbs. My unit had a huge problem with this issue. I have plenty of pictures of our vehicles with plywood "armor"
being sent into combat.

You said that it was troubling to you that most Americans still believe that a most soldiers still support the policies our government is carrying out in Iraq. Soldiers' opinions on the war vary, naturally. You were in Iraq for several months, and now you're involved with Iraq Veterans Against the War. Are a good number of soldiers questioning the war and occupation and getting fed up with what's going on?

I feel that plenty of soldiers don't see the point of the efforts they're making in Iraq. As my time wore on in Iraq more and more people were getting increasingly frustrated with being there. It becomes even more frustrating when you're getting attacked pretty frequently, having people get injured, and even members of other units get killed. For a while after I first got there I would try to think of a reason for being in Iraq before I went to bed every night. I couldn't think of one. I finally saw two pictures in National Geographic that made it pretty clear why I was there, and I taped them above my cot as a reminder. The first picture shows about
30 Marines guarding the Ministry of Oil in Baghdad. The second picture shows Navy personnel escorting an oil tanker through the Persian Gulf.
Being placed in that situation is only made worse by the lack of equipment.
I realized rather quickly what my life was worth to this administration and to the American public. That being said, we all took our mission seriously and tried to have some positive impact to make our time in Iraq worth something. However, this was made pretty difficult with the rules that were put in place, such as only being allowed to treat Iraqis that were in danger of losing life or limb. It's depressing to realize that for the next several months or even year of your life you will be risking your life for nothing. Any rocket or mortar coming in could take your life, or arms, or legs and there is little point to it. The vast majority of the Iraqi people don't want you there, the reasons given for the war have proven false, and your continued presence only inflames the situation.

You mentioned the issue of the armor on your vehicles (or lack of). This has become a more prominent issue after Donald Rumsfeld's visit to Iraq several weeks ago, when he was confronted on it by a soldier. I read about this issue well before the Rumsfeld event-- soldiers and their families had been complaining about this for a while, to little avail. What's really going on? How do soldiers feel about all this, and why do you think the government has been so neglectful?

The lack of armor continues to be a problem that soldiers are paying for with their lives and limbs. It all goes back to this administration only listening to people that tell it what it wants to hear. Like Ahmed Chalabi's continuing assertions that Americans would be greeted as if they had just liberated Paris. Part of it was wanting to keep the already ridiculous cost of this war down. Part of it was wanting to make sure as much money as possible went directly to corporations. Part of it was this administration sticking its head in the sand. To this day they still have not admitted or addressed the total lack of pre war, post war, and exit strategy planning. Truthfully, this administration never wanted an exit strategy. A long occupation of Iraq had been planned from the get go. This administration has already drawn up plans to occupy Iraq that go beyond the summer of 2006.
About a week after the story broke, one of the companies that makes the armor came forward and said that they hadn't even been asked to increase production. As I said, this administration and the American public largely don't care, they don't have kids in Iraq facing RPG's with plywood armor. When the draft returns it will be interesting to compare how well soldiers are equipped then to how they were pre-draft. I have included some pictures detailing the problem. My unit of 4,000 people rolled into Iraq with between 75% to 90% of our vehicles unarmored. To give you a rough idea of the number, it would be in the range of 500 to 700.
Once inside Iraq we slowly started to receive armored doors only for our vehicles. Even when I left after 8 months in Iraq we still had vehicles that were unarmored. My brigade lost its first soldier during the drive north from Kuwait. He was in an unarmored vehicle that was hit by a roadside bomb. My camp had a soldier lose part of his arm from riding in an unarmored vehicle that was hit by a roadside bomb. His arm was saved and after numerous surgeries he was told it would be a year before he would get most movement and sensation in his arm back. Situations like these are repeated daily through out Iraq.

You said "when the draft returns". You think that this will happen? What are your thoughts on it?

I don't have a doubt in my mind that the draft will return. The general that runs the Army Reserve wrote a memo, which was subsequently leaked to the media, in which he described the Army Reserve as "a broken force". The numbers that the National Guard and Reserve have on paper don't add up. They are in a position now where they can no longer hide the problem. In the memo the general describes having 46,500 members on the books who are either untrained or unaccounted for. This makes no mention of the number on stop loss, non deployable due to illness or injury, and those awaiting discharge. I see the draft returning in the next two to three years, perhaps sooner.
The recruiting and retention problems the National Guard and Reserve have had over the years are only exacerbated by the situation in Iraq. The frequent call ups, lack of equipment that I described, and the lack of benefits when you compare what the full time military receives for the same work only serve to force people out. It reaches a point where it's clearly not worth it. I was called to active duty for two years in a three year period. Each time I had to leave school, leave my job, and leave my wife. And for what? Like I said earlier, having to put your life on hold repeatedly for no good reason gets old pretty quick. The National Guard and Reserve will begin to dwindle in the next few years and it's impossible to continue these types of occupations without them. The draft isn't a question of "if", it's a question of "when". We passed the "if" time frame a long time ago.

What about the relationship between US soldiers and Iraqis? From your experience, what type of relationship exists? How were you and your fellow soldiers told to deal with people?

Most Iraqi's are not overtly confrontational with American soldiers. However, if you engage them in conversation and ask their opinion (as I often did) they will not hesitate to tell you that you are not wanted in Iraq by anyone. After the WMD story turned out to be a hoax the war was then sold as a humanitarian mission. Shortly after arriving in Iraq we were instructed that we could not treat Iraqi's unless they were in danger of losing life or limb. Basically, the local nationals had to be in danger of dying before we could treat them. This was the official guidance that we received in writing, repeatedly, from way up the chain of command. The excuses ranged from not having the money/supplies to wanting the Iraqi's to get used to using their own healthcare infrastructure. Why were we there then? It was little things like this that served to quickly turn our opinion about what this war was really about.
Most of the sentiment voiced publicly by the local nationals all focused on the same few ideas. The war was sold to them as a way to get rid of Saddam, which they favored. But, it quickly became evident that that's not what this war was really about. They were lied to by this administration too. They are now being occupied and they know the war is all about oil. Not only are they being occupied, but they still have no security. I was told again and again that at least under Saddam they didn't have roadside bombs littering the country and gangs of insurgents roving and ravaging the country with impunity. Again, I could talk about this for hours. I will leave my contact information (eosonifilic@aol.com) and people can contact me with individual questions and/or requests to speak about my opinions and experiences in Iraq.

One thing that doesn't get enough honest attention is the number of soldiers wounded in Iraq, and what this really means. So far, well over 10,000 soldiers have been "wounded". You worked as a medic, so you have a good idea of what this means.

One thing I want to make absolutely clear is my skepticism that this number is anywhere near accurate. An injury can be anything from eardrums ruptured in an explosion, gunshot wounds, shrapnel injuries, blast injuries, and on and on. Obviously, this number makes no accounting for those that are mentally traumatized by what they have seen, and the numbers that have substance abuse problems or even end up taking their own lives. Just as in Vietnam it will take years before the true effects of this conflict are known. They will continue to manifest themselves in increasing numbers of individuals as more people return home. Or more importantly, return home for the second or third time from Iraq. The VA was under manned and under funded well before September 11th, and is simply not equipped to deal with what is coming in the next few years.

This interview is going to be read both by soldiers and civilians who support what you are doing-- speaking out against the war and occupation-- and by people who strongly oppose your actions. One of the arguments that your would-be opponents have is that antiwar soldiers joined the military with the knowledge that they might have to go to war even if they strongly disagreed with it-- you signed on for the job, and so you should stop complaining. This argument has come up a lot, and as the antiwar veteran and GI movement grows, it will surely go on. What's your response?

This war was sold to the American public the exact same way that Vietnam was. It's the same domino theory, except instead of stopping the spread of communism we're spreading democracy. Yeah, right. Vietnam somehow posed a threat to the US, much as Iraq somehow did. A quick history lesson if I may-- Iraq was involved in a brutal trench war with Iran from 1980-1988. Then the Persian Gulf War in 1991 was followed by twelve years of crippling sanctions and pretty regular bombing. A threat? Hardly. Vietnam had Agent Orange, Iraq has depleted uranium. Vietnam veterans returned and were not cared for properly by the VA; it's already happening to Iraq veterans. The only thing missing is the draft, and it won't be for much longer.
It's always those with the least to lose that speak out the loudest and beat their chests the hardest. You clearly saw that during the run up to this war, the initial invasion, and it continues to this day. We stayed the course in Vietnam until 58,000 US soldiers were dead, countless others were scarred for life, and three million Southeast Asians were dead. I don't hear too many people still preaching about our virtuous rationale for invading that country. Sadly, the draft is what ended Vietnam and I think it is the only thing that will end this war. While the American public seems to sleep fine at night while other's children are killed in Iraq, I doubt they will sleep as soundly when they are their own.
When I joined the military I took an oath that I took seriously. I just wish that my elected officials took it as seriously as I did. But, why should they? Few if any of them have ever taken it before themselves. In my oath I swore to defend the Constitution and the people of America, clearly that is not what I did in Iraq. In fact, if the Constitution needs defending anywhere it is in Washington, DC.
No one in the military signs up to die for nothing, I know I surely didn't. Soldiers aren't assembled at the Pentagon, they are real people with real families. Most come from poor and working class families and I believe that has something to do with the public's sick view that the life of a soldier is worth inherently less than the life of an average American citizen.
If you're going to commit hundreds of thousands of troops for something this ridiculous, at least equip them so they have a fighting chance of surviving and keeping all of their limbs. Supporting our troops?
Hardly.
Let me break it down for you real easy: most of the kids dying in Iraq, and they are kids, are between 18 and 22. These kids will never go to college, never get married, never have kids, never have grandchildren, never retire, and never get to enjoy life. They leave behind children that will never know their fathers and widows that will never know peace.
Too many people have suffered way too much already. I will continue to speak out until the last soldier leaves Iraq and the last veteran gets the care they are owed. Not another Vietnam.

What made you decide to become active in opposing the war and occupation?

I think this will be my shortest answer. I don't want to see anymore of my fellow soldiers get killed, get maimed, or be mentally traumatized for nothing. I don't want to see anymore Iraqi civilians get killed or injured for nothing. This administration is just creating a new generation of insurgents. Mostly, I want to point out what our soldiers are being asked to do over there and how they are being asked to do it. I want to make it clear to the public that they aren't getting the full scope of what's going on in Iraq. Most of the reporters in Iraq are scared to leave the large camps they're in. They only report what they see from the camps or what the military reports to them. None of the attacks in my area where ever reported.

Can you briefly tell us about the organization your involved with, Iraq Veterans Against the War? Is the group growing? What type of activities do you do, and do you have any new future plans?

Iraq Veterans Against the War is a group of people who have been in Iraq since the current war began. The group is growing and in the process of setting up local chapters through out the country. The main focus of the group is to end the occupation of Iraq and make sure that the veterans of the conflict receive the care that they were promised and have earned. My main focus will be doing as many public speaking events as I can to get our message out to the public. I invite people to check out the web site, www.ivaw.net.

There's an organization of military family members who oppose the war and occupation, Military Families Speak Out (www.mfso.org). How has this group helped or affected you, and why do you think it's important?

My wife was involved with MFSO while I was in Iraq. They are actually the way that I first heard of IVAW. I think they are extremely important because they put a human face on what is happening in Iraq. They also point out that military members and families are not being taken care of the way they should be. Supporting our troops means a lot more than buying a $2 yellow magnet for your car and waving the flag. It means demanding answers and holding people accountable.

I want to finish up by asking you the same questions I asked Jim Talib, another antiwar vet I recently interviewed. What kind of role do you think antiwar soldiers and veterans can play in the broader antiwar movement? What can antiwar civilians and soldiers/vets do to build a healthy relationship, and how can the civilian antiwar movement make itself more welcoming to soldiers who want to speak out against the war and occupation?

I think that obviously as veterans of this war we are the most qualified to speak out about the conditions in Iraq. We were in Iraq and we lived it. We were at places other than the hand picked sites that reporters and Congressmen are shown. We talked to lots of soldiers and not just those that pre rehearsed interviews so they'd tell the media what the military and this administration wants the public to hear. We let the public know that lots of soldiers don't agree with this war. They don't agree with the reasons that this war was sold on, the lack of equipment, the lack of planning, and the continuing lies about conditions in Iraq put forth by this administration.
The second part of the question is harder to answer. Personally, I'm not a pacifist and I've never felt I belong in the various peace groups. I'm just a veteran who understands all too well the sacrifices that are made. I can't sit and let it continue. Too many soldiers have suffered and will continue to suffer for years to come. Most of us just want to end this suffering.
I can't tell you how many times I'm asked ridiculous questions about Iraq. If a veteran wants to speak about the war they will, when they are ready and able to do so. The public can't possibly ever imagine what some people go through in Iraq. Start by just introducing yourself and thanking them for coming out just like you would anyone else. A lot of veterans will never speak out against the war because they can be punished for doing so under military law. Other veterans don't want to admit that friends or family have been injured or even given their lives in an unnecessary war. They simply don't want to see it and will never admit it. I think that it is these veterans that have it the hardest.

Patrick Resta can be reached at eosonifilic@aol.com. The website for Iraq Veterans Against the War is www.ivaw.net.

Derek Seidman is co-editor of Left Hook (www.lefthook.org). He lives in Providence, Rhode Island, and can be contacted at derekseidman@yahoo.com.