1000+ Iraqi Troops Call For Withdrawal From Iraq Posted by Ali Eteraz

It may not be Bush, the Senate, or the blogosphere, which decides if and when the troops come back from Iraq. It will be the thousands of twenty somethings out there fighting. 1000 and counting American troops, headed by a 29 year old Navy man, are calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

The Nation breaks the story about these American refuseniks: 

For the first time since Vietnam, an organized, robust movement of active-duty US military personnel has publicly surfaced to oppose a war in which they are serving. Those involved plan to petition Congress to withdraw American troops from Iraq. (Note: A complete version of this report will appear next week in the print and online editions of The Nation.) After appearing only seven weeks ago on the Internet, the Appeal for Redress, brainchild of 29-year-old Navy seaman Jonathan Hutto, has already been signed by nearly 1,000 US soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, including dozens of officers--most of whom are on active duty. Not since 1969, when some 1,300 active-duty military personnel signed an open letter in the New York Times opposing the war in Vietnam, has there been such a dramatic barometer of rising military dissent.

   Here are what some of the soldiers are saying: 

"Lisa"--20 years old, E-4, USAF, Stationed at Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii: I joined up two weeks after I turned 17 because I wanted to save American lives. I wanted to be a hero like any American child. I supported the war when I joined because I thought it was justified. Only after my own research and the truth coming out did I learn how wrong I was, how--for lack of a better word--how brainwashed I was. Now I know the war is illegal, unjustified and that our troops have no reason for being there. When I saw an article about the Appeal in the Air Force Times I went online right away and signed it and have encouraged others to do the same.

"Sgt. Gary"--21 years old. US Army. Deployed with 20th Infantry Regiment, near Mosul, Iraq: I joined up in 2001, still a junior in high school. I felt very patriotic at the end of my US History class. My idea of the Army was that you signed up, they gave you a rifle and you ran off into battle like in some 1950s war movie. The whole idea of boot camp never really entered my head. I supported the war in the beginning. I bought everything Bush said about how Saddam had WMDs, how he was working with Al Qaeda, how he was a threat to America. Of course, this all turned out to be false. This is my second tour, and as of a few days ago it's half-over. Before I deployed with my unit for the second time I already had feelings of not wanting to go. When in late September a buddy in my platoon died from a bullet in the head, I really took a long hard look at this war, this Administration, and the reasons why. After months of research on the Internet, I came to the conclusion that this war was based on lies and deception. I started to break free of all the propaganda that the Bush Administration and the Army puts out on a daily basis. So far in three years we have succeeded in toppling a dictator and replacing him with puppets. Outlawing the old government and its standing army and replacing them with an unreliable and poorly trained crew of paycheck collectors. The well is so poisoned by what we have done here that nothing can fix it.

So the troops want to leave. There won't be anyone to stop them from coming home. They didn't start the war; but they can end it. Looks like that's what they are doing. The fact that we no longer have a draft, though, cuts both ways when stuff like this happens. On one hand, in an all volunteer army -- like employment at will -- if you quit, its like you are resigning. When you volunteer, on the other hand, when you quit, there's nothing symbolic about it. You just quit your job. My sense is that questioning what the military is doing is more emphatic when civilians who have been drafted do it. I think these guys are really brave for standing up for what they believe in. However, they are likely just to get "fired." In that sense, the lack of a draft cuts both ways.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't say something about the Iraqis. When we leave, what will happen to them? Now that they are caught between a warlord of the Shia variety and warlords of the Sunni variety? Are we going to watch the Iraqis be crushed while we celebrate with those of our troops that have come home. What happens if post-departure Iraq becomes another Darfur. Will we intervene?

Originally posted @ Eteraz.Org

Comments

[Don Bacon]

Hurrah--this is what a lot of us have been working for. We knew that the forces of evil would never cease funding and ordering these atrocities, and that, like in Vietnam, it would be the troops that would say "no more." We have been working to bring them the truth about why they are risking their lives.

Yes, it's a little-known fact, but it was a rebellion in the ranks, characterized by a refusal of orders and fragging, that finally halted the Vietnam fiasco. Let's hope that this movement is successful. We need to redouble our efforts to get the truth out to the troops.

"War is a racket . . .the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives"--Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, double recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 1935.

[eteraz]

don,

i'm curious. will your conscience be affected at all if we leave iraq and the sectarian violence only gets worse?

[Don Bacon]

eteraz,
First, WE are not in Iraq. I am not in Iraq and neither are you, I presume. This is not just semantics. The US government, not us, is in Iraq, unlawfully.

Yes, my conscience would be affected positively if the US leaves Iraq.

1. I have had no part in starting or promoting this aggression against Iraq. I demonstrated against this war before it started and while it has been going on, and have spent a lot of time presenting a public case against it, particularly trying to reach the troops who suffer most. I would be most happy if the US left Iraq. I am in no way, repeat no way, responsible for unlawful acts perpetrated by someone else, and that includes the US government, so if there is a down side it's on the government and not on me.

2. The US illegal, brutal occupation of Iraq has included the wanton torture and killing of Iraqi citizens. The Lancet estimates that, based on valid statistical sampling, that there have been 650,000 additional Iraqi deaths from this war, twenty per cent of those by coalition (principally US) forces. A high percentage of those have been under the age of fifteen years. Two million refugees. Three thousand dead Americans.The US must stop it and leave.

3. As a result of the suffering the US has caused, a majority of Iraqis want us out, and a majority of those support attacks on US forces. Iraqis also hate us because we are in control of their country and they want their freedom. As President Bush said on November 30, 2005, our principal enemies in Iraq are ordinary Iraqis. Repeat, according to the President our troops are being killed and injured by ordinary Iraqis on the President's orders. How could stopping this affect my conscience negatively?

4. The sectarian violence in Iraq largely has been provoked and instigated by the US government, as I reported on another post, where I provided many details. I believe that if the US left Iraq then this violence would decrease, but in any case it would be up to the Iraqis. If they continue to kill each other, which they are doing in large numbers now with US forces present, then it doesn't matter if US forces are there or not because US forces are powerless to stop it.

5. The Iraqis didn't interfere in our civil war, as I recall. I have no sense of paternalism for Iraq, but then I'm not a hegemonist like you.

[Cal]

i'm curious. will your conscience be affected at all if we leave iraq and the sectarian violence only gets worse?

The sectarian violence has gotten worse every year we've been there. For three years we've actually used Kurdish and Shia forces to help us fight the Sunnis, which I'm sure hasn't improved ethnic relations.

Your concern for the Iraqis is touching, but the Bush administration doesn't share your sentiment. The fact that they're even considering an "80% solution" proves that.

[Don Bacon]

It's the old, tired "bloodbath" argument that kept us in Vietnam seven years beyond when Americans knew it was a lost cause.

[perianwyr]

I've said it before and I'll say it again- if we want to win wars, we need to settle what our goal is up front. I am still mystified as to what our goal is in Iraq, now, apart from "winning".

[Don Bacon]

The US goal in Iraq is to control that strategically-located country and its vast deposits of oil, and its water.

Again, that is not "our" goal. That is the US government goal, and "we" don't want to win this war, the US government foolishly does. (I am excluding myself in these pronouns but maybe not you.)

[bg]

It would be interesting to hear what WWII or Korean war veterans were saying when they were in foxholes in Bastogne or the Chosin Reservoir. I bet they didn't want to be there either.

I hope before Don gets the "truth" out to the troops, he learns the difference between facts and theories. Service members are not as ignorant and uneducated as some might assume. True, experience does bias us, which is why hearing other perspectives is very valuable. But most service members will see right through baseless conspiracy theories.

[SoldierInIraq]

Am I the only one who finds it distasteful to see fellow soldiers injecting themselves into a debate over the course of a war?

While my ETS looms and my deployment to Anbar is six months in the rearview mirror, I still find it not only odd, but constitutionally tricky, for us to be suggesting our status as troops legitimizes opposition to the war or this nation's policies.

We volunteered of our own volition and we serve at the discretion of Congress under the authority of a Commander in Chief to protect the Constitution. While we don't surrender our right to have an opinion, we should weigh the manner in which we exercise that right while in uniform.

I also strongly doubt that this petition was the "brainchild" of anyone but IVAW, Military Families Speak Out or Veterans for Peace. At least, the marketing and the funding of the initiative bears their collective stamp.

With their active involvement (at least in my opinion) it sullies any true effort by the troops to communicate their frustration.

Siegfried Sassoon didn't need a gaggle of pacifists' help to write his letter to the Times.

Just my opinion.

[bg]

Right on, being a service member does not make anyone's position against the war any more important. By being an active participant you may become better informed (or more biased), but it doesn't make your voice any more important.

[SoldierInIraq]

I also should note that this probably isn't correct:

"The Nation breaks the story about these American refuseniks."

According to IAVA's website, the first story about it appeared in early November in the Hampton Pilot. It appeared in half a dozen mainstream publications before the Nation put it into their January 1 edition.

[J Thomas]

As of November 5, these guys had 700 soldiers confirmed protesting the war, and 600 responses that they hadn't confirmed. Their website doesn't mention any report between the November 5 Hampton Pilot report and the Nation story, and nothing since.

As of December 19, it's 1200 confirmed.
http://www.vermontguardian.com/local/122006/MilitaryCare.shtml

Practically every report is a repeat of one of a couple of initial reports, and there's every little new information. The website that lets soldiers join is still up, but it hasn't been updated to report the more recent news reports about them.

It's a pretty big deal for 1200 soldiers to risk the consequences of doing this. What they're doing is legal, but they can still face pretty horrendous consequences that are legal too.

Meanwhile, the military reports 8000 to 10,000 soldiers unaccounted for, with no indication how many of them are AWOL for political reasons. Somebody else estimated 1000 AWOL a month. Those aren't really incompatible since neither of them say how fast AWOL soldiers get caught, or their status otherwise resolved. And I haven't found a comparison with previous rates, particularly rates in wartime.

It's significant that around one soldier in a thousand has been ready to do this, so far. And it's significant that they get so very little publicity.

[SoldierInIraq]

AWOL/UA rates are DOWN since 2001. If the wars were so unpopular to the troops, one would imagine the desertion/AWOL/UA rate would have climbed, not dropped.

"And I haven't found a comparison with previous rates, particularly rates in wartime."

It's such a secret DoD keeps an annual tally on the JAG online sites of all the services.

"Their website doesn't mention any report between the November 5 Hampton Pilot report and the Nation story, and nothing since."

Click on my name for an IAVA compiling of press reports on the issue, which won't get much traction because it's not very important.

I don't wish to speak for BG, but I, for one, would like to see how many of these troops have either deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan or are even in a MOS likely to do so.

It's one thing to sit on a carrier 500 miles offshore, another to trade rounds in Ramadi.

If most of the grunts in OIF were asked, I think you hear more of stuff like this recorded by MSNBC:

Earlier in the day, Gates asked soldiers on the ground in Baghdad for advice on fixing the war effort.

“Sir, I think we need to just keep doing what we’re doing,” Spc. Jason Glenn of Mount Grove, Missouri, told Gates over breakfast at Camp Victory.

“I really think we need more troops here. With more presence on the ground, more troops might hold them (the insurgents) off long enough to where we can get the Iraqi army trained up,” Glenn said.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16308933/

Whether these "strategic corporals" get it or not, I doubt there is widespread support for buying tickets to the peacetrain in the military.

I can speak for my battalion (which lost quite a few soldiers in Anbar before we returned recently), and I hazard BG will speak for his.

[J Thomas]

Since it's known that our military has set up a concerted effort to affect US opinion through the blogs, to the point that some soldiers have the official of posting positive statements while others can get perks like early return from iraq for doing so, it makes sense to discount positive statements on blogs that are attributed to soldiers. Some of them might actually be active-duty soldiers, some of them might actually believe what they say, but the default assumption has to be that they are lying shills.

In that context the fact that 1200+ US soldiers have publicly come out against the war despite the consequences they will suffer for it, is highly significant.

The site you point out is the one I was talking about, it lists none of the press reports between the one in early november and the Nation one (which is dated January 2007). There have been a dozen or so since then, including a couple that give information those two don't. That doesn't mean the site isn't being maintained, but there's a possibility it isn't being maintained. At least it hasn't been shut down entirely.

[SoldierInIraq]

Yes. I'm a stooge for the US military brass. Good thing I'm NOT at ETS!

One can argue a great many things about the military or force projection from a progressive perspective, but first one must understand the nature of the military.

This chimeric notion that an unconfirmed count of "1,000" service people (or, about 1/600th of the US Army alone) is somehow indicative of the feeling on the ground in Iraq, therefore, is somewhat inane.

I don't want to speak for BG, but my experience hardly would support the idea that there is widespread support, especially for those of us who are or were in Iraq, for what the sailor is trying to do.

Perhaps the troops should be polled. That would be interesting.

[SoldierInIraq]

"Since it's known that our military has set up a concerted effort to affect US opinion through the blogs, to the point that some soldiers have the official of posting positive statements while others can get perks like early return from iraq for doing so, it makes sense to discount positive statements on blogs that are attributed to soldiers."

By the way, if you don't know how offensive that was, you might want to experiment by saying something like that to a soldier's face.

[J Thomas]

SoldierInIraq, when a soldier tells me his opinions in private, knowing I won't repeat them, I *believe* him. What he says in private with nobody checking up on him is his business.

I have no reason to call him a lying shill to his face, when he isn't being a lying shill.

I'm not calling you a lying shill either. I have no evidence either way. You could be completely sincere. I'm only pointing out that you have no credibility, that there's no reason whatsoever to believe that you're not a lying shill, sny more than there's evidence that you are.

I want to be real clear about this and avoid insult. I'm not saying you aren't for real. It's just, we know there are a lot of fakes, and we have no way to tell whether you're for real. So when you present ideas that are worth considering we accept them the same way we would from anybody else. But when you make claims about your experience or your battalion, you might as well be some random guy in a bar making claims about his life. You're at least some random guy with a .mil email address, but still your official mission could be to lie to the US public about the war.

[SoldierInIraq]

Thanks for being as insulting as possible. People wonder why troops aren't more progresssive in their politics. Maybe it's because they've been treated in such a stupid, condescending manner by "progressives."

[J Thomas]

SoldierInIraq, please don't be insulted. It isn't your fault. It's just, since the US military is making a solid attempt to lie to the US public by ordering US soldiers to lie to the public without admitting they're doing so under orders, The result is that nobody sensible will take your word about anything, when you're talking in public and your superior officers can check on you.

This is a bad policy. Our military should not have a policy of lying to the US public. It creates a barrier between the troops and civilians that should not be there.

Similarly, it's wrong for the military to censor the news from home that troops hear. By fostering a far-right attitude among the troops, they alienate our military men from the civilian society they protect. Far better to encourage the military to be a cross-section of the society.

[SoldierInIraq]

I never heard of this so-called blogging policy to get out of Iraq earlier. That seems made up.

In reality, the military has strongly limited milblogs from the field for operational security issues, although I recall one case wherein it appeared they were trying to block a National Guardsman's political views.

They're censoring ALL online communication from Iraq if it violates or could violate opsec, even the so-called "good news."

The military will reflect more of a "cross-section" of the US population when those sections of the US population enlist for service.

There are a number of soldiers on the left, many of whom blog. Phil Carter is one of them, and BG is a regular commentator there on tactical issues.

It is insulting to assume everyone in the military who gives a commonsensical response to what is really a nonsensical trifle (One out of every 1,800 servicemen and -women is petitioning to pull out of Iraq! That's significant!) is a right-winger.

The reality within the ranks is quite different.

[J Thomas]

It was 1200 of them at last report. The petition over vietnam was only 1300 out of a much larger combat force with draftees.

We'll find out whether it's significant. It might get overtaken by events -- if we get thrown out of iraq before we can choose to leave, then it won't be significant after all.

[bg]

JT, I, like SoldierInIraq, am really not buying any blogging policy that gives soldiers to get out of Iraq early, that is just silly. I was a company commander in Iraq, and I had to enforce the blogging policy. The only policy is that if a soldier runs a blog, I had to know about it and report it to the operational security officer, who, on his spare time which was none, was supposed to simply ensure that no classified or operational information was being discussed. There is a threat of soldiers putting pictures of battle damage on vehicles and such that can help the bad guys, and we can't allow that. I am sure you understand that is not censorship of ideas, that is protecting lives.

I personally don't take offense to anything you said, I found it kind of funny to think that the army would openly order soldiers to lie on blogs about policy, that is just plain ridiculous. Maybe there are some "black ops" in the basement of NSA of bloggers who "spread the good word" as an information campaign against the American public, but I find that idea silly as well.

There are a few in the Army that I've met who are openly against the war, but they are very few. Not because they "fear retribution", honestly, what is a chain of command going to do to a soldier who doesn't want to spout the party line? Maybe when you get to higher level politics, that is an issue, but at the grunt level, this is really a non-issue. Soldiers can think and say what they want as long as they don't try to disrupt (subvert) the mission.

Of course, there is a good reason why most of us are still believers in the war, and it isn't blind patriotism, ignorance or even idealism. It is more likely because we've (service members) invested so much into the war (time, effort, friends lost) that we don't like the idea of just walking away and giving up. Would you want soldiers who give up when things get tough? Of course not. It is part of our culture, for "Surrender is not a Ranger word."

Yes, this makes us very biased and perhaps too emotionally connected to the war to have an objective view, but don't discount that most service members are against the war because of some poll or a couple of political activists.

[J Thomas]

We are at least starting to get some actual data about this, as opposed to unsupported blogger opinions.

http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php

[SoldierInIraq]

Well, it might help if you understood the data from Military Times (a Gannett publication). The annual survey is a self-selected group. It tends to be mostly career officers and staff non-commissioned officers or RETIRED people from both subsets.

It won't include the vast majority of the troops, the enlisted and junior officers who will make it one hitch and then they're out -- also the people most likely to sign a petition that could hamper a career.

Which is why the data skews so much toward those who have never deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. Fully half of the Gannett survey has never gone to Iraq and 85 percent never went to Afghanistan, which tells me that a lot of retired officers and SNCOs responded.

Another 45 percent of the respondents were in the USAF, Coast Guard or Navy -- again branches far less likely to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The fact that 52 percent believe Bush is doing a good job as president might also show the bias in the survey demographic.

Also, I don't believe that either BG or I have ever been bloggers.

BG, you were in the infantry, too, right?

[J Thomas]

Read the report. This particular survey was restricted to active military, none retired. Half said they had deployed to iraq, Half didn't claim that. 12% said they had deployed to afghanistan. True, only 55% were army/marine.

While it's biased somewhat toward higher active-duty officers, these are also the ones who will have more information how the war is going, as opposed to tending to know only what's going on in their own company plus what they hear from Rush Limbaugh etc.

As you point out, the sort of people who would answer this survey tend not to be the sort who would sign a career-destroying petition. Majority opposed anyway.

You could argue that there's some group of soldiers who tend to be for the war, that nobody is surveying. Another silent majority, that is never measured.

I naturally though go by the available evidence, rather than unsupported opinions by random commenters on blogs.

[SoldierInIraq]

Yes, don't listen to people in the military. Reach your own conclusions, based on inadequate research, for cheap rhetorical points, then offensively deride those who suggest you're buying a ticket on the moonbat express.

"This particular survey was restricted to active military, none retired."

But you don't understand the problem Gannett faces every year with these responses. First, they're self-selected. They do not reflect a random polling, but people who report in. Second, many officers continue to say they are "active duty" even though they have retired. Why? They never surrendered their commission. In their minds, they are technically still active, and they continue to profess that as respondents to polls, even though it's not completely true.

Third, any self-selected survey that includes respondents who reflect these rates of non-deployment do not reflect even remotely the troop mix in Iraq. Currently, more than 60 percent of the US Army and 90 percent of the USMC have deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, typically both if they are active-duty.

Why would this not be reflected in the polling?

This always has been a problem with the Gannett survey, and the editor has been quite frank about the limitations of it.

That said, he also would be the first to suggest that in a bare outline, it's close enough for government work.

Which is to say that although many officers and SNCOs are quite concerned about what the war is doing to the military, they insist that more resources, including more men, should be poured into the conflict.

In fact, if you read the poll results, you will see a stark opposition, nearly complete in its scope, to any proposition from this ludicrous petition.

The majority of these respondents believe the US should have gone to war with Iraq, think Bush is doing a fine job overall (if not in Iraq), and hew to the notion that the US is going to be at least somewhat successful in the war.

They say Iraqi troops will take at least three years to replace American forces, and, overwhelmingly, wish for the US to stay in Iraq for at least another three to five years.

Rather than withdraw troops from Iraq or Afghanistan, they want to add more!

The poll you cite completely dismantles your own argument.

That's why this is so hilarious:

"Majority opposed anyway."

Which poll are you reading? According to what you posted here, 41 percent believe the US should have gone to war with Iraq, and 37 percent opposed. The rest didn't answer the question, probably because they found it irrelevent.

Again, this was offensive:

"these are also the ones who will have more information how the war is going, as opposed to tending to know only what's going on in their own company plus what they hear from Rush Limbaugh etc."

You seem to picture the American soldier as someone so devoid of reason or commonsense that he can't comprehend the daily newspaper, read wire copy or form any opinion beyond that of a radio conservative.

Again, your own biases reflect what is increasingly seen as simple stupidity. If you don't understand the American military, don't preach to those who do about it.

It's shameful.

[J Thomas]

SolderInIraq, you continue to represent yourself as somebody whose opinion should be respected because you have actual first-hand experience.

But in truth you are only somebody who comments on blogs.There is no particular reason to believe anything you say. You have no credibility. While you might actually have served in iraq, you might also have been given the task of lying about it. So that's a wash.

Please stop representing yourself as an expert While you might impress the gullible, you do no one any good unless you establish that you are who you say you are, and that you are completely disconnected from the psy-ops mission.

[SoldierInIraq]

First of all, your notion about some weird blogging "psyops mission" is inane. If there really were a program wherein soldiers could blog from the FOB to get home early, everyone would be a freakin' blogger.

"While you might actually have served in iraq, you might also have been given the task of lying about it. So that's a wash."

Since I might have been in the infanty in Anbar, might have been involved in some fairly heavy combat, might have had to watch buddies die and might have been in the Marines and Army long enough to know what's real and what's moonbat wishfulness, I might consider what you said to be insulting and, moreover, just plain goofy.

But don't reach out to people like BG or me who are in the military. Instead, cling to the hope that everyone will sign a nutty petition that accomplishes nothing but buffing the vanities of those who dreamed it up.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[casino en ligne]

If there really were a program wherein soldiers could blog from the FOB to get home early, everyone would be a freakin' blogger.

[iPad Ständer]

there really were a program wherein soldiers could blog from the FOB to get home early, everyone would be a freakin' blogger.

[penny auctions]

The omni-present teevee ads from the Chamber of Commerce have framed the issue, even though they make no sense at all.

[penny auction]

Hello friends,this is a nice site and I wanted to post a note to let you know, good job ! Thanks

[Auto]

Really, for all the hawks' pride in their clear-eyed realism

[Purple Dress Shirt]

This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for writing!

[Food Dehydrator]

Learn something new everyday! Thanks!

[Lip Gloss Collection]

Frankly, I think that's absolutely good stuff.

[Great Mothers Day Gifts]

Thank you for sharing. I have enjoyed reading your blog.

[Best Instant Coffee]

Awesome!  I have very much enjoyed reading your blog.  Thanks!

[Coffee Ice Cream Recipe]

Great blog and I have enjoyed reading.