Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Last night, TRMS aired the conclusion of Rachel's interview with Vice President Joe Biden. In that part of the conversation, the issue of combat operations in Iraq -- and the announced end of those operations -- came up. Since there have been soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq since that August 31 announcement, Rachel asked why the phrase "end of combat operations" was used at all. The Vice President had an answer:
[I]t was very important for the sovereignty of the Iraqis, to let them know we recognize the fact they are now capable. They are capable. We'll continue to train them. We'll continue to help them. But by the end of next year, we're out, we're gone. And so, it may be, you know, a bit of a misnomer. But in literal, military terms, we are no longer in a combat lead position. We are doing support. We are protecting American facilities, the embassies. We are protecting American personnel and American citizens. And we're training Iraqis.
Allowing that "end of combat operations" may be a misnomer was hardly an adequate explanation for the next TRMS guest, Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Not adequate at all:
What may be mere semantics in politics translates into real emotion, real loss and real consequences in war. Seems that we should demand more from our leaders than wars that end with misnomers.
Among the real losses since the "end of combat operations," Rieckhoff noted, were those of Private James McClamrock and Sergeant Phillip Jenkins.
Leave a Comment:
So Americans are participating in, killing, and being killed in a "non-war." How many other "non-war" is America involved in with American based private contractors? How many conflicts are American mercenaries involved with that can threaten to suddenly explode into the news that America has no "official policy" for? Like CIA involvement in the RUSSO-Afghan war were we woke up one day to discover that the World Trade center had been destroyed at the behest of a man trained by our own government? Exactly how good are these quiet little "non-wars" for American national security?
Oh, and let us not forget Vietnam, DQ.
Actually, my take on the Biden interview and this one leans more this way: I tend to think Joe "gets it" -- and so does the President -- that our soldiers in Iraq are still in combat, but the language and phrasing of diplomacy are delicately in control here at the behest of the State Department. After all, if we call the thing by a new name and never, never, never admit in public that those are combat soldiers, we have fulfilled the terms of the agreement President BUSH signed before he left office and we have some very nice leverage to bring to bear on the Iraqis to get their heads out of their collective butts and form an effective government before we DO pull the last 50k troops out, next year.
Parsing language is useful on both sides of the aisle. It's nice to see it done well and in a good cause for once.
Paul Rieckhoff exclaimed, something to the effect, that "one one" seems to care about what is really going on in Iraq and Afghanistan; of course, this is a consequence of having a volunteer, mercenary type military. Because people volunteer to go into the military, the generic mindset is "that they know what they are getting into." On the contrary, and back in the day of the military draft, widespread public involvement was the norm. I would venture to say that if we still had the military draft, Iraq would never have happened and the Afghan war would have been over years ago.
You must be too young to remember how unfair and horrible the draft was. No. No more draft. Never again. No way. No how. It didn't end war and it didn't have anything to do with the old men in Washington who begin war. All it did was ensure that if you were wealthy and connected, you didn't have to go. If you were in college, you didn't have to go. If you were neither wealthy, connected, nor in college, you were S.O.L. buddy!
Nobody talks about this on TV anymore but before the Iraq war started the Bush administration and the pentagon came together to put up a military report of what would be necessary to wage a war in Iraq. The Pentagon report said that we would need approximately 750,000soldiers in order to prevent a counterinsurgency and maintain peace, stability, and security long enough for a government to be formed in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld saw that number and had a metaphorical heart attack because he realized that in order to wage the war in Iraq that'd mean we'd have to draft or spend several years doing a giant military buildup before the war could be waged. Neither option would be politically popular enough to actually lead to war. From the winter of 2001-before we invaded Iraq in 2003, we were involved in combat operations in Afghanistan. These operations were primarily conducted with targeted air strikes, the mountaineer divisions of the Marine Corps, the mountaineer divisions of the army, and special forces. Those forces (our forces) teamed up with the Northern Army- which was Afghanistan's army- and pretty much crushed every enemy force (the Taliban who were in control and Al'Qaeda). The problem was in waging this campaign we completely obliterated the Afghanistan power structure both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of their government. Rumsfeld looked at the success of our combat troops getting Al'Qaeda in Afghanistan and said we can do this in Iraq and drafted his own war policy that would become The Rumsfeld Doctrine. Rumsfeld purposely and intentionally ignored the warnings about counterinsurgency by the US military. In Afghanistan our military wanted to have an increase in American and allied forcesuntil a government could be established and things like water and electricity could be returned to the country. Instead our forces were thinned out to a handful of special forces and marines and the rest were sent to Iraq. In Iraq our soldiers were told "they'll great you as liberators" which is a theory that Rumsfeld pulled out of his ass based on how the Northern Army helped rid Afghanistan of Al'Qaeda and Taliban control. Had Rumsfeld not interceded his "superior" military doctrine and had he followed the suggestion of the US military it is extremely likely that the war in Iraq would have been completed after 2 years (which was the time the Pentagon estimated it would take to take out the Iraq army and establish a legitimate government). It is likely that we would have only lost a couple hundred lives instead of a couple thousand. But because that option, the option of listening to our military, would have inconvenienced us spoiled brats here at home who haven't served, because we might've had to face a draft the administration came up with it's own cooky scheme to wage war and do so with the current force. Afghanistan and Iraq are a direct examples of what happens when we as Americans are too terrified to engage the conversation of a draft but too cowboy to double-take about a war.
Loved Rachel's take on the "electrical" system in Bhagdad (sp), Richard was very clear about the lack of electricity on her visit and she really got to it with Biden. I guess we should be teaching the Iraqis to guard their electrical facilities as well as their families. It really is a crime to leave the country in the dark for years. I heard the VP's explanation, and would expect no less from him. This war is still going on no matter what anyone says. I suppose this means that Blackwater (XE) and Halliburton and the likes will be extracting more millions from us for construction work.
Did anyone else think the following: when Biden said there would be "increased civilian presence," that this means more contractors? (sinking feeling in pit of stomach)
The Defense Department and the CIA have announced that in the military's absence the DD and State Department will more than triple the amount of contractors, diplomats, and cia and state department officials operating in Iraq. We are not going to be leaving Iraq for another 10-20 years- the earliest we'll leave will be in 2020 and that's assuming we ever leave. We will stil have people dying there, they just won't be in the military. I believe that the Pentagon is hoping that because these people are dying as something other than US soldiers that the media will forget about Iraq and these deaths will go by secretly and quietly without public awareness.
In all due respect... and I have a husband, daughter, brother, Father who all served... people unfortunately lose lives in all kinds of jobs.. yes more so if working in a former war zone.. War is Hell.. Who said that? there is nothing wonderful about having to shoot others to protect oneself or one's friends, loved ones, or for a National security question... but the diplomats and those that are out there trying to make deals for us, and keep the wars from coming here must be given some support and understanding for using the language they need... 'cause word and reason have to keep the peace, not adding power on top of power.. nuclear attacks will end it all.
Both Viet Nam and Iraq are colonial wars fought at the behest of oil companies and other big businesses who want to control oil production potential in these countries.
Historically, the US is in throes of establishing its empire and world hegemony and this will take decades to accomplish at the expense of many thousands of lives of both military personnel and civilians.
As long as the oligarchs can buy the government and garner a large return in wealth and the masses are mollified with trinkets and diverted with xenophobic and racial threats applied by theocrats, the empire will grow and flourish.
However, if the cost of waging empire becomes too much, then the empire will collapse either from external forces or the eruption of the masses who will pull down the oligarchs in a blood bath that will bring about chaos and collapse into another dark age.
This is, however, forgetting that The USSR collapsed from economic pressure brought about by the Arms Race and the Russo-Afghan War. Rconomic weakness is an even more grave threat than any open border.
I am new to all this...I am starting to watch clips here and there. After watching Paul Rieckhoff's segment, I was reminded of an exchange I had the other day with a fellow co-worker. I saw her walking down the sidewalk just beaming. I asked her what possible great thing had her smiling so brightly. She told me that she was off to pick up her son at the airport. I knew she was referring to the one that was serving in Iraq. Sharing her obvious joy, I said, "So, it is over and he is finally getting to come home. How wonderful!" She quickly corrected me on that, saying that this was merely a short visit home and that he would be returning and possibly remaining in Iraq for a good year or more. Now, I should have known this...My father is a Korean and Vietnam veteran. My brother is a Persian Gulf vet. Many of my uncles served in the military. As a small child, I grew up on a military base, with a father that was traveling all around Southeast Asia. I am an auxiliary member to a veterans organization. So much of 'wars' for me has been that very personal connection of actually knowing someone that is away from home. Hearing that 'the troops are coming home' is such a longed for thing for many of my family and friends. So, why I assumed that it was over for my friend's son...I know better than to assume that...but I guess I wanted to believe the words. In truth though, as Mr. Rieckhoff implied, it really does not simply end, not for those that fought. And not for those left behind, the soldiers or the civilians on either side.
Christine O'Donnell in a witch hat. YES, WICCAN !!
http://thewackydeli.com/top-10-odonnell