"...just how sorry this pointless war really was, and is."
This is flawed thinking. All war is equally pointless. There is always another way. War always ends in injustice at every level. Any attempt to show otherwise is pure revisionism.
Thank you, John. I gotta say you really hit your stride with this piece. I seriously hope we'll get to read more work like this from Gawker. You guys are capable of SO much that print, TV and even NPR just refuse to do and cannot do.
An inspirational and truly amazing scoop, John. Somebody get this man a lawyer pro-bono, hopefully this article gives him enough press to get a good lawyer but not too much that it would ruin his case. May your future be blessed and your sacrifices be compensated, Firas, for you have seen things no man should see and been through things no man should go through.
I cannot begin to imagine what it is like to live every day with violence and death, and to nevertheless do what you believe is the right thing, in spite of the very real risks to yourself and loved ones. And then to not only have the worst come true, but serendipitously survive, and end up in a foreign land, friendless, and barely able to speak the language? Unspeakable.
And this is just one story. Of likely millions now.
Kudos to you, John, for not just moving on to whatever article/document you were searching for. This story is harrowing, and it makes me feel kind of embarrassed to be a citizen of "the land of the free and the home of the brave."
@i'm a bottle: I would love to see this get some traction and make those officers answer for their failure to prevent American deaths and torture in general. I lost a family member in Iraq, and if I thought it was preventable in such an immediate way, I would absolutely lose it.
@ArmCandy: I'm really sorry for your loss. For me, this story really inspired me. I think this is the greatest sort of bravery, to sacrifice yourself for a worthy abstract goal like "restoring law and order" in the justice system. It's also refreshing to see that not all the Americans acted like mouthbreathers. It's what I imagine the situation is really like over there, some good smart people and some idiotic people looking for an easy way out, and that's why I like the story.
@i'm a bottle: Thanks, I think my personal experiences caused my knee-jerk reaction to certain points. But I really like the points you took away from the piece. It's an interesting snapshot of what most of us can only imagine that war is like.
I love the righteous indignation from the war hawks. You mean we get thousands more soldiers just like we wanted but not indefinitely?! How dare he etc.
The surge combined with a withdrawal timeline sends a message to our military: You wanted more troops for a new strategy, and you got them. Now make it work—and fast—because you're not getting a blank check to bankrupt the country with this bullshit forever.
It also sends a message to Karzai and Pakistan: We are committing more resources in the short term because we will not be around forever. Get your house in order ASAP or be screwed when we leave you to your own devices.
As for advertising to the Taliban that all they have to do is wait us out… First of all, we have gone from ~30,000 troops to now 100,000+ this year just to eradicate them. If 100,000 U.S. soldiers can’t deal with a few thousand cave-dwelling militants, this whole exercise is plainly not worth the cost. Second of all… does anyone actually believe the Taliban would just give up if Obama announced we’d be in Afghanistan indefinitely?
@flossy: "we will not be around forever" - unless we later decide it's in our nation's security interest to be around forever.
Last night hardly put the military "on notice"; they still got their surge (albiet slightly lower than asked for) and they still got the assurance that they would have a significant input as to when and how quickly real drawdowns ACTUALLY occur.
@dbett: You've never heard of a boss sending a message to his employees?
The military claims they have been under-performing due to lack of resources. Now that they don't have that excuse, they have to put up results or it's game over. Of course they don't like hearing that--it's nowhere near as fun as Bush's more wars, more troops, forever M.O. but you know what? That's how it is now that the adults are back in charge.
@flossy: No, I think the substance of what he did was right - he approved of a surge. He also built in the flexibility for his military commanders to set the conditions for any future drawdown. He should be forthright that this is a clear buildup meant to "finish the job".
The whole date of 2011 sets up false expectations. If that place is a complete shiatstorm in 2011, do you honestly think the White House will simply throw up its hands and say "oh well, times up, let's go home"?
@flossy: That's my biggest problem with the folks who are adamantly against committing any more troops - I've not seen any counter-option that's any better (and I've seen a number that are much worse).
I was watching Maddow after the speech last night and couldn't stand her smug, condescending insistence that Obama is exactly the same as Bush, and is following exactly the same plans that Bush did in regards to Afghanistan/Iraq. There are clear, substantive differences in their prosecution of the war, and I'm totally fed up with the "anti-war left" (whatever the hell that is) insistence that this thing is exactly like that thing.
@flossy: If it is a shitstorm in 2011, it would be highly unlikely that this President would be the one to pull the plug, since he was the one who approved the surge. It would be his successor (whether or not the successor will be a "finish the job" or "get out while we still can" person, is to be seen).
@Go Like Hell Machine: Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"
Yep, as far as the war goes I see a huge difference between the two.
@fuckingoldman: Okay, my original comment was too flippant, so I rewrote.
I guess I just don't understand exactly what people want out of Afghanistan. If it's to remove all troops, immediately, then fine, but be prepared for what comes afterward.
As far as your discussion downthread goes - I don't think this is about "winning", necessarily, at least in a clear, black-white way. If the President is to be believed, the "surge" is to buy Afghan and Pakistani police, militia, etc. time to prepare for US withdrawal. Which means training, leadership corps, etc. I can't really think of a time that Bush ever pushed this type of an agenda with any real plan (this was given a lot of lip service in the Bush admin, but I can't think of any time a clear strategy was pursued along these lines - correct me if I'm wrong!)
Ultimately, no matter what Obama does, there's going to be bloodshed and pain in Afghan/Pak. I suspect he's doing what he thinks is right to at least minimize this, or keep it managed. Immediate withdrawal leaves a lot of other countries on the hook for the mess and ensures a pretty high casualty rate for everyone involved.
@Go Like Hell Machine: I would like to agree with you about buying time for the Afghanis/Pakistanis to get their shit together, but I just don't see that ever happening. Karzai is corrupt as they come, and if the Iraqis are any example, they just don't care once we're not there. I'm for immediate withdrawl of all coalition troops. Let the Afghanis clean up their own mess.
I just don't think we should be involved anywhere in the Middle East. I'm as hawkish as they come, but I don't think there's any way to fight a politically correct war, which is what we're trying to do. I really liked the way Reagan handled terrorists. Remember when Libya was the terrorist stronghold? We went in and bombed the hell out of their oil platforms, and when that didn't work we bombed Mohamar Khadafi's palace, killing one of his sons I believe. After that we didn't have a problem with Libyan sponsored terrorists.
@fuckingoldman: You may, in the end, be right about not being able to "win" in Afghanistan - in fact, I'm sure you are.
However, can we at least agree that this doesn't seem like a flippant or ill-informed decision on the President's part? I mean, it's politically dangerous, it's actually, physically dangerous and it's generally managed to piss off people on virtually every side of the argument. And he had to have known that would be the case. So I'm not ready to simply brush the decision off as, "well, he's just wrong", or "goddammit, he's right". I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, and I suspect both of those answers are both right and wrong.
I would also like to note that this is one hell of a fucked up situation for any President to try to tackle, much less a President who's been in office less than a year.
@Go Like Hell Machine: Agreed, I think it was neither flippant nor ill-informed. You're also right that is a very complex decision, pissing off just about everybody, it's definitely a no win situation.
I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was against them when Bush was in office, and I still am now that Obama is in office. They are trying to fight a politically correct war, which just can't be done. No American lives should be sacrificed unless we are willing to fight to win.
@If_I_Had_a_Poodle: You are absolutely right. They call Afghanistan the Graveyard of Empires for a reason. Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great both got their asses kicked there. Nobody heas ever been able to win a war there. Me thinks Obama should read a history book or two. Or maybe just Google...
First start with the Ghaznavid Dynasty. It was founded by an invading Turkish army and lasted for 200 years.
Second, Alexander didn't get his ass kicked there. He conquered the entire area on his way to India. Although the locals were a bit uppity once he left for India, his rule didn't end until his death.
So like the myth of the Afghan Winter, your claim the "Nobody has ever been able to win a war there" is highly overstated.
@dbett: Alexander the Great did not conquer the entire area, though he did win several battles there. "In Afghanistan he faced his fiercest battles and grave loss to his army physically, mentally and financially." [www.afghanland.com] He never ruled the whole country.
As for the Ghaznavid Dynasty, the founder of the Dynasty, Sebuktigin, extended the borders of his realm to the limits of modern Afghanistan. [south-asian-history.suite101.com] Not quite what you would call winning a war and ruling the country.
The point is, do you want to see the United States bogged down in a war where only two armies ever saw any kind of victory, the last being in the twelfth century? I sure as hell don't. Thanks for making me more edumacated, really.
@fuckingoldman: Funny "Extending...his realm to the limits of modern Afghanistan" sounds like he won a war and ruled the area - for 200 years.
As for Alexander...yes he had a hard time, but he was a decisive leader and still pushed through to win his battles and establish his authority there - again on the way to his goals in India. Or as the link you selectively quoted continues: "After 4 years of battle he passed through Afghanistan to Central Asia and with 100 thousand reinforcements from Greece and newly captured central Asian kingdoms returns to Afghanistan and captures Balkh, Qandahar, Heart, and Kabul and begins his invasion of India. In Afghanistan he falls in love with a local cheif's daughter named Rokhsana (Roxanne) and they get married before the invasion of India. In India Alexander is injured and is travels back, as he reaches Baluchistan he fall ill and dies at the young age of 32.
After Alexander’s death, Afghanistan is divided amongst 4 Greek governors with their capitals being Kabul and its suburbs, Heart and Sistaan, Qandahar and Baluchistan, and Bakhter (balkh area) and ruled for the next 55 years. "
Anyway, I assume we have moved past your false claim that "Nobody has ever been able to win a war there."
As for wanting us to be bogged down there...not my goal. But, IMO a result made more likely by the dithering from the current CinC. If we want to get out, we need to commit to winning. Which is why it was sad to hear the speech and not hear the word "Victory" even a single time.
@dbett:But at what cost? Are you willing to send soldiers to die in a country where it has been historically almost impossible to win? I'm not. And what do we get if we do win? And that's a big fucking if. We need to just get the fuck out and cut our losses. We've been at war in Irag for almost ten years and what has been accomplished ? Nothing of substance. Billions of dollars wasted, tens of thousands of US citizens killed or injured, and for what?
I hate to tell you, but the US hasn't won a war since WW II. And that isn't the fault of the soldiers either, it's the politicians fault. We have the best soldiers out there, but the politicians won't let them fight to win.
12/03/09
This is flawed thinking. All war is equally pointless. There is always another way. War always ends in injustice at every level. Any attempt to show otherwise is pure revisionism.
12/03/09
12/03/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
And this is just one story. Of likely millions now.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
What else could be going on here?
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/03/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
The surge combined with a withdrawal timeline sends a message to our military: You wanted more troops for a new strategy, and you got them. Now make it work—and fast—because you're not getting a blank check to bankrupt the country with this bullshit forever.
It also sends a message to Karzai and Pakistan: We are committing more resources in the short term because we will not be around forever. Get your house in order ASAP or be screwed when we leave you to your own devices.
As for advertising to the Taliban that all they have to do is wait us out… First of all, we have gone from ~30,000 troops to now 100,000+ this year just to eradicate them. If 100,000 U.S. soldiers can’t deal with a few thousand cave-dwelling militants, this whole exercise is plainly not worth the cost. Second of all… does anyone actually believe the Taliban would just give up if Obama announced we’d be in Afghanistan indefinitely?
Anyway, Bill Kristol can eat a dick.
12/02/09
Last I checked, Obama is the Commander in Chief. Ie, he is head of the military.
It reminds me Chris Matthews saying that he was surprised that Obama would go to West Point into the heart of the "Enemy Camp." Jeezus.
12/02/09
Last night hardly put the military "on notice"; they still got their surge (albiet slightly lower than asked for) and they still got the assurance that they would have a significant input as to when and how quickly real drawdowns ACTUALLY occur.
12/02/09
The military claims they have been under-performing due to lack of resources. Now that they don't have that excuse, they have to put up results or it's game over. Of course they don't like hearing that--it's nowhere near as fun as Bush's more wars, more troops, forever M.O. but you know what? That's how it is now that the adults are back in charge.
12/02/09
12/02/09
The whole date of 2011 sets up false expectations. If that place is a complete shiatstorm in 2011, do you honestly think the White House will simply throw up its hands and say "oh well, times up, let's go home"?
12/02/09
I was watching Maddow after the speech last night and couldn't stand her smug, condescending insistence that Obama is exactly the same as Bush, and is following exactly the same plans that Bush did in regards to Afghanistan/Iraq. There are clear, substantive differences in their prosecution of the war, and I'm totally fed up with the "anti-war left" (whatever the hell that is) insistence that this thing is exactly like that thing.
12/02/09
What the vast majority of the military folks do want is clear leadership. So far Obama has fallen far short of that.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"
Yep, as far as the war goes I see a huge difference between the two.
12/02/09
I guess I just don't understand exactly what people want out of Afghanistan. If it's to remove all troops, immediately, then fine, but be prepared for what comes afterward.
As far as your discussion downthread goes - I don't think this is about "winning", necessarily, at least in a clear, black-white way. If the President is to be believed, the "surge" is to buy Afghan and Pakistani police, militia, etc. time to prepare for US withdrawal. Which means training, leadership corps, etc. I can't really think of a time that Bush ever pushed this type of an agenda with any real plan (this was given a lot of lip service in the Bush admin, but I can't think of any time a clear strategy was pursued along these lines - correct me if I'm wrong!)
Ultimately, no matter what Obama does, there's going to be bloodshed and pain in Afghan/Pak. I suspect he's doing what he thinks is right to at least minimize this, or keep it managed. Immediate withdrawal leaves a lot of other countries on the hook for the mess and ensures a pretty high casualty rate for everyone involved.
12/02/09
I just don't think we should be involved anywhere in the Middle East. I'm as hawkish as they come, but I don't think there's any way to fight a politically correct war, which is what we're trying to do. I really liked the way Reagan handled terrorists. Remember when Libya was the terrorist stronghold? We went in and bombed the hell out of their oil platforms, and when that didn't work we bombed Mohamar Khadafi's palace, killing one of his sons I believe. After that we didn't have a problem with Libyan sponsored terrorists.
12/02/09
However, can we at least agree that this doesn't seem like a flippant or ill-informed decision on the President's part? I mean, it's politically dangerous, it's actually, physically dangerous and it's generally managed to piss off people on virtually every side of the argument. And he had to have known that would be the case. So I'm not ready to simply brush the decision off as, "well, he's just wrong", or "goddammit, he's right". I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, and I suspect both of those answers are both right and wrong.
I would also like to note that this is one hell of a fucked up situation for any President to try to tackle, much less a President who's been in office less than a year.
12/02/09
I am against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was against them when Bush was in office, and I still am now that Obama is in office. They are trying to fight a politically correct war, which just can't be done. No American lives should be sacrificed unless we are willing to fight to win.
12/02/09
Repeatedly, if possible.
12/02/09
12/02/09
There, fixed it for you.
;)
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09
I will if you will...
First start with the Ghaznavid Dynasty. It was founded by an invading Turkish army and lasted for 200 years.
Second, Alexander didn't get his ass kicked there. He conquered the entire area on his way to India. Although the locals were a bit uppity once he left for India, his rule didn't end until his death.
So like the myth of the Afghan Winter, your claim the "Nobody has ever been able to win a war there" is highly overstated.
12/02/09
As for the Ghaznavid Dynasty, the founder of the Dynasty, Sebuktigin, extended the borders of his realm to the limits of modern Afghanistan. [south-asian-history.suite101.com] Not quite what you would call winning a war and ruling the country.
The point is, do you want to see the United States bogged down in a war where only two armies ever saw any kind of victory, the last being in the twelfth century? I sure as hell don't. Thanks for making me more edumacated, really.
12/02/09
As for Alexander...yes he had a hard time, but he was a decisive leader and still pushed through to win his battles and establish his authority there - again on the way to his goals in India. Or as the link you selectively quoted continues: "After 4 years of battle he passed through Afghanistan to Central Asia and with 100 thousand reinforcements from Greece and newly captured central Asian kingdoms returns to Afghanistan and captures Balkh, Qandahar, Heart, and Kabul and begins his invasion of India. In Afghanistan he falls in love with a local cheif's daughter named Rokhsana (Roxanne) and they get married before the invasion of India. In India Alexander is injured and is travels back, as he reaches Baluchistan he fall ill and dies at the young age of 32.
After Alexander’s death, Afghanistan is divided amongst 4 Greek governors with their capitals being Kabul and its suburbs, Heart and Sistaan, Qandahar and Baluchistan, and Bakhter (balkh area) and ruled for the next 55 years. "
Anyway, I assume we have moved past your false claim that "Nobody has ever been able to win a war there."
As for wanting us to be bogged down there...not my goal. But, IMO a result made more likely by the dithering from the current CinC. If we want to get out, we need to commit to winning. Which is why it was sad to hear the speech and not hear the word "Victory" even a single time.
12/02/09
I hate to tell you, but the US hasn't won a war since WW II. And that isn't the fault of the soldiers either, it's the politicians fault. We have the best soldiers out there, but the politicians won't let them fight to win.
12/02/09
12/02/09
12/02/09