Wash Post: U.S. veterans despondent over al-Qaeda’s resurgence in Iraq

[Redskins Diehard]

The towering former three-star general keeps a wooden box on his desk with the photos of 257 service members who died in Iraq under his command, sorted by date. During quiet moments, usually a couple of times a week, Mark Hertling opens the lid, inscribed with the words “Make it Matter,” flips through the laminated portraits of uniformed troops and reflects on their loss.

“I try to keep track of anniversaries of the deaths and say a prayer for them and their families,” said Hertling, who now works at a hospital in Orlando. “During the holiday season, you think about the young men and women killed in 2003, 2004 and figure they would have been in their 30s now, with a couple of kids.”

 

The ritual was never easy. It has become increasingly painful over the past two years, as Hertling and a generation of troops and civilians indelibly shaped by harrowing tours in Iraq have watched the country unravel from afar.

The Iraq war may have never been declared lost. But the stunning surge in violence over the past year — and the return of al-Qaeda in the western province of Anbar this month — is forcing Americans who invested personally in the war’s success to grapple with haunting questions.

“Could someone smart convince me that the black flag of al-Qaeda flying over Fallujah isn’t analogous to the fall of Saigon?” former Army captain Matt Gallagher asked on Twitter. “Because. Well.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-veterans-despondent-over-al-qaedas-resurgence-in-iraq/2014/01/10/ad692918-7a2a-11e3-af7f-13bf0e9965f6_story.html?hpid=z5

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10 years ago I had no idea the Skins coach had quit, what was going on with the coaching search, or who was the frontrunner until it was all over.  Sometimes it is hard to believe that it was so long ago and other times it feels like yesterday.

 

This article resonates with me and I hope the discussion can not be about sticking up for whatever commander in chief you feel closest to.  Nobody I knew came back the same as they went over.  Some it is obvious to the world and others it is only apparent to those who know them best.  Some of course never came home at all. 

 

I thought some of the same things mentioned in this article when I read about the AQ flag going up in Falluja. 

[twa]

certainly a bitter pill for many,the Saigon analogy doesn't work for me though(aside from emotional impact)

 

it will be interesting to see the shakeout.

 

 

forget link?

[The Sisko]

Please, please just get over it. I understand that we left a lot of blood and treasure there. However the drama over AQ in Fallujah ignores two important points. First, AQ wasn't in Iraq before we invaded and most likely never would have been otherwise. Second, and most importantly we left and it's not our country, and hence not our problem. It's sort of like getting upset because your kid broke the bike you gave him for Xmas doing wheelies. It's his bike, not yours.

[Redskins Diehard]

certainly a bitter pill for many,the Saigon analogy doesn't work for me though(aside from emotional impact)

 

it will be interesting to see the shakeout.

 

 

forget link?

Thanks.  I sure did.  Added now

Please, please just get over it. I understand that we left a lot of blood and treasure there. However the drama over AQ in Fallujah ignores two important points. First, AQ wasn't in Iraq before we invaded and most likely never would have been otherwise. Second, and most importantly we left and it's not our country, and hence not our problem. It's sort of like getting upset because your kid broke the bike you gave him for Xmas doing wheelies. It's his bike, not yours.

The post and the article are not about the money you spent. 

[twa]

It's his bike, not yours.

 

Well we certainly gave them a valuable gift, one Maliki has screamed mine,mine over a bit much.

 

they got some growing pains to go thru.

[The Sisko]

Thanks. I sure did. Added now

The post and the article are not about the money you spent.

Neither was my post. It was about letting go of things that aren't your problem anymore. We handed over a relatively stable situation there, comparitvely speaking. What Maliki and the Iraqii govt. did afterwards is on them. Again, not our problem.

[Redskins Diehard]

Neither was my post. It was about letting go of things that aren't your problem anymore. We handed over a relatively stable situation there, comparitvely speaking. What Maliki and the Iraqii govt. did afterwards is on them. Again, not our problem.

Alright dude.  You don't get it.  And certainly appear like you don't want to.  It isn't the country's problem anymore...you are right about that. 

[Larry]

How about instead of calling out the poster for something which your telepathic powers allow you to pronounce he "doesn't get", you actually state whatever it is that you think people "don't get"?

Change "you don't get it" to "you don't get <x>".

Or even better, simply leave off your claims about what you think somebody else "doesn't get", and simply stick to pointing out whatever it is that you think is important?

Change "you don't get <x>" to "I think <x> is important".

(Thus changing the statement from something where the other guy is much more qualified than you, (whether he "gets" something), to something which you are actually qualified to talk about (your own feelings)?)

[Redskins Diehard]

How about instead of calling out the poster for something which your telepathic powers allow you to pronounce he "doesn't get", you actually state whatever it is that you think people "don't get"?

Change "you don't get it" to "you don't get <x>".

Or even better, simply leave off your claims about what you think somebody else "doesn't get", and simply stick to pointing out whatever it is that you think is important?

Change "you don't get <x>" to "I think <x> is important".

(Thus changing the statement from something where the other guy is much more qualified than you, (whether he "gets" something), to something which you are actually qualified to talk about (your own feelings)?)

how about you comment on the subject of the thread or move along

[TheGoodBits]

how about you comment on the subject of the thread or move along

Perhaps folks would be more apt to reply to the subject of the thread if you didn't respond to the previous replies with an insistence that they don't get "it." Just saying. What is "it?"

[Redskins Diehard]

Perhaps folks would be more apt to reply to the subject of the thread if you didn't respond to the previous replies with an insistence that they don't get "it." Just saying. What is "it?"

the content of the article. It isn't about whether or not aq was in iraq before we were. And it isnt about whether their presence is our problem. Perhaps if people would read the article, consider it, and comment on it then there could be a discussion. Just saying looks like you didn't read it either.

[The Sisko]

Actually Larry I understood what he meant and I think he's right, and wrong. He's right that I don't "get" the obsession many combat veterans have with places they fought. I don't think anyone who wasn't there can. What I do get, from personal experience, is the importance of not getting stuck in the past, reliving things you can't change and ascribing importance to current events based on your past experience.

[Renegade7]

The only way we're going to win the war on terror is if countries like Iraq can win their own battles so we don't have to do everything ourselves.

The bad intel and irresponsible long-term planning for the Iraq War have already been documented and debated. Moving forward, we can't do this by ourselves. We need these countries (especially in the Middle East) to not only be able to fight terrorists in their own country, but provide an environment where becoming a terrorist becomes less of an understandable option: sort of like encouraging kids to focus on schools and get jobs instead of joining gangs, in which case the country needs stability to provide its citizens a respectable economy to join in on.

Iraq doesn't need our help the same way countries like Mali did, so it wouldn't make sense on our part to put our boots back on the ground now. I'd support almost anything except for that in Iraq now, and they have to remember they wanted us gone as soon as possible as well.

[TheGoodBits]

the content of the article. It isn't about whether or not aq was in iraq before we were. And it isnt about whether their presence is our problem. Perhaps if people would read the article, consider it, and comment on it then there could be a discussion. Just saying looks like you didn't read it either.

I just didn't find Yusuf's comment to be off topic or indicative of someone who doesn't get "it." Seemed relevant.

[visionary]

I can only imagine how disappointing and disheartening this must be to those who fought and lost comrades there.

On the other hand, this was probably inevitable with the way things in Iraq have been trending under Maliki.

It's telling that a lot of tribal leaders there are torn on who to support.

[twa]

Actually Larry I understood what he meant and I think he's right, and wrong. He's right that I don't "get" the obsession many combat veterans have with places they fought. I don't think anyone who wasn't there can. What I do get, from personal experience, is the importance of not getting stuck in the past, reliving things you can't change and ascribing importance to current events based on your past experience.

 

those past experiences create bonds,both to what you left behind and what you brought back.

 

What he wishes to focus on is that reliving and a investment is part of their lives....and the import from their experiences.(not the political aspects)

 

you find sort of the same connection in sports to events and places, only magnified.

[AsburySkinsFan]

how about you comment on the subject of the thread or move along

Someone tries to help by pointing out ways in which a productive and civil discussion can be had and you want to continue to act like an arse...that we get.

As for the article, no one wants to ever find that someone they loved died in vain, so they search for some meaning to justify their deaths. "For freedom" has been the most enduring since 9/11 but those justifications deteriorate as time and distance grows. Now you have a general grieving over the loss of hundreds of men and women who were under his command because it seems he's finding it harder and harder to justify their deaths. Honestly, I think it's a natural reaction.

[Redskins Diehard]

Someone tries to help by pointing out ways in which a productive and civil discussion can be had and you want to continue to act like an arse...that we get.

.

There's a capability here on the board called the private message. It allows you to say things to someone that is not relevant to a current thread.

[PeterMP]

I have 2 thoughts:

1.  I'm never keen to call these sorts of things failures, even if they don't appear to turn out well.  While on the surface, Vietnam was a failure, I think it is pretty likely/reasonable that the commitment and resources used there did modulate Soviet/Chinese behavior in some ways.  If we had just let Vietnam go, do I know that the Soviets/China would have tried to push into the Philippines or Twain and created a larger more broad conflict?  No, but I wouldn't sit here and say they didn't either.  If there hadn't been the conflict in Iraq, is it possible that AQ would have devoted resources else where (e.g. acquiring and using WMD)?  They are what they are and history is what it is with them having occurred.  The US/world might be better off if they hadn't occurred, but it might not be.  There is no way to go back and judge if things are better with or w/o them having happened.

 

2.  Our founding fathers were remarkable men.

[Larry]

Actually Larry I understood what he meant and I think he's right, and wrong. He's right that I don't "get" the obsession many combat veterans have with places they fought. I don't think anyone who wasn't there can.

A point I can certainly understand. I assume that there are few things, if any, that can cause a greater feeling of, well, I can't think of the right word, but I suspect "ownership" or "paternity" are kinda close, than actually fighting over a piece of land (and it's people).

Not sure what it's worth, but I'll happily add my vote to "I really hoped things would work out better". And still do.

[Mocountyskins]

If people are this upset about the fall of a city then I wonder how the jewish and palestinians feel about Jerusalem? Things like this happen in all wars. You lose friends taking a city in Iraq and then it gets taken back, You lose friends in a war in the 1500s taking a hill and then it gets taken back the next day, In WWI you lose friends fighting over 100 yards and the next day the enemy takes it back and kills more of your friends in the process. This is non sense I agree with Yusuf.

[s0crates]

It's sad to think our troops died in vain, but it is hard to escape the thought.

It seems likely that the world would be safer, and the Iraqi people would be better off, if we had never invaded.

The war in Iraq is a textbook example of an unjust war.

[twa]

It seems likely that the world would be safer, and the Iraqi people would be better off, if we had never invaded.

You are assuming quite a bit, or overlooking much.....the thread has gone about like I figured it would.

[Corcaigh]

The US, through invading Iraq and destroying the government there, created a new haven for Al Qaeda that didn't exist before. A new Afghanistan.

 

A total failure of politics (on both sides), and statecraft.

 

It's natural those who lost love ones shouldn't just be despondent, they should be angry at everyone responsible. But that's not healthy. They were betrayed badly and should do their best to move on.

[s0crates]

You are assuming quite a bit, or overlooking much.....the thread has gone about like I figured it would.

Yeah. It is next to impossible to play the "what if?" game with history, because all we can do is speculate, we cannot go back and try something different to see how it would have turned out.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the Iraqi people and the world were safer before the invasion.

Regardless of that, I stand by my claim that it was an unjust war, by almost any measure of just war you can name.

I do think it is sad that those who gave everything in the service of their country did so in such a misguided cause, but that is to blame their leaders, and not to blame them. They are part of the victims.