![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
An Open Letter to the Troops
Jun. 25th, 2006 09:34 pmHello, all of you.
I'm writing this to tell you what is going on over here. First, from all of us, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican and Green and Libertarian, you have our support and admiration. You are doing as good a job as can be done under untenable circumstances. Despite what you may have heard on Armed Forces Radio, we are all concerned for your well-being, and this concern cuts across all ideological lines.
Now, about those untenable circumstances...
Many of you are in your second and third tours over there. Personally speaking, I am sorry about this. I know, I had nothing to do with the decision to send you over there. If I'd had my way you wouldn't have been sent to Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a very bad man; but that is not the reason why we should be sending you over to risk life and limb for the rest of us. We are only supposed to do so when our country is actively threatened by imminent force. You are supposed to be our last resort, when treaties, diplomacy, threats, espionage and sanctions have all failed.
You see, the best intelligence that intelligence agencies had at the time stated that Iraq was not a serious threat to the USA (to answer an unasked question, no, I'm not a member of any Intelligence service). We had no solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and no evidence that Iraq could exert any military force far outside its borders - in some cases, not even within its borders. Saddam Hussein was contained by sanctions, and the UN inspectors who had re-entered Iraq in the fall of 2002 were finding no trace of usable WMDs, let alone advanced delivery systems for such that were being talked about by the Administration. The inspectors were working quickly and well. When US forces invaded, the UN inspection team had stated they'd only need about three more months of inspections to be finished with a complete and thorough inspection, and it looked like there would be a bill of clean health. Mr. Bush, however, started moving military materiel and personnel into place starting in... I think October of 2002, and making major movements in January 2003. There was a timetable; you don't spend millions and millions of dollars on moving military forces into place just to say Hi. It was a preamble to invasion. I am not a military expert and have never served; that said, I thought to myself in January 2003 that we were going to be hitting Iraq somewhere between March and April that year. No matter if there were WMDs or not.
Mr Bush stated right before the invasion of Iraq that sanctions were not working (which they mostly were), that Saddam had refused to allow inspections (which he had in fact allowed) and that Iraq was too deadly a threat to US security interests to remain uninvaded (it wasn't, as you can probably tell by now). I didn't have access to the intel that Mr. Bush and his Administration had access to, only the same intel that the rest of the public was given. I was manifestly unconvinced by the Administration. There was a lot of rhetoric - 'Mushroom clouds' 'immediate threat' 'unmanned drones' - and little to no proof given. I did not speak out against the Administration very loudly, just to friends and co-workers. I should have spoken louder, though I know it likely would have done no good; for this lack, I apologize. You are worth speaking up for.
When we invaded, you were told that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that you had to find and stop his WMDs. You were told this was an urgent mission; this was the mission you were told you needed to accomplish.
After you stopped Saddam, who is currently on trial, you hunted for WMDs. You didn't find any. There was a bill of clean health. You completed that mission.
Then you were told there was another mission: rebuilding the country after the invasion and putting in a new government. But, you were not in charge of rebuilding, something for engineers; the diplomatic corps should have had the task of helping establish a new government. You were there to guard it.
You know as well as I do: guard duty is never over. Oh, your shift might end, but the duty remains. This is not what you were given as your mission, but it is your de facto current mission. The current Administration has shown no desire for your guard duty to end in the next decade. I never wanted it to start.
While you've been there, you have not been given enough proper equipment. Oh, you have your guns and some transport and some sophisticated equipment, but not enough for all of you. We have better armor that could be sent to you. We have better vehicles that could be sent to you. We have better equipment that could be sent to you. It hasn't been sent. If I knew why I'd tell you. I want you to have it. Many people who are in better financial circumstances than I am have done their best to supplement current equipment you have that can in some cases only be termed, charitably, as 'inadequate'. This is a primary responsibility of the CinC, and I don't know why the CinC has failed in this duty. It is not a lack of money, as many times when mention is made of inadequate equipment there are votes in Congress to properly equip you.
I support the troops. I don't do this in a jingoistic fashion. I don't ride around with a "Support Our Troops!" yellow ribbon, made in China, on the back of my car. I don't say that wanting you home is undercutting you.
I grieve when I hear of any of you being wounded or killed, though obviously I can't feel the loss the way you do for your brothers and sisters in arms. It means I moan with worry whenever I hear of one of your rare bad apples performing an illegal action, moreso when I have reason to think the orders came from high up while only you in the front lines will take the blame.
I want you properly equipped so you can do your duties with more surety and safety. I want you properly rested for the same reasons. Ultimately, though, I want you home. This is one fight you should have never needed to fight in the first place.
I'm writing this to tell you what is going on over here. First, from all of us, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican and Green and Libertarian, you have our support and admiration. You are doing as good a job as can be done under untenable circumstances. Despite what you may have heard on Armed Forces Radio, we are all concerned for your well-being, and this concern cuts across all ideological lines.
Now, about those untenable circumstances...
Many of you are in your second and third tours over there. Personally speaking, I am sorry about this. I know, I had nothing to do with the decision to send you over there. If I'd had my way you wouldn't have been sent to Iraq. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a very bad man; but that is not the reason why we should be sending you over to risk life and limb for the rest of us. We are only supposed to do so when our country is actively threatened by imminent force. You are supposed to be our last resort, when treaties, diplomacy, threats, espionage and sanctions have all failed.
You see, the best intelligence that intelligence agencies had at the time stated that Iraq was not a serious threat to the USA (to answer an unasked question, no, I'm not a member of any Intelligence service). We had no solid evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and no evidence that Iraq could exert any military force far outside its borders - in some cases, not even within its borders. Saddam Hussein was contained by sanctions, and the UN inspectors who had re-entered Iraq in the fall of 2002 were finding no trace of usable WMDs, let alone advanced delivery systems for such that were being talked about by the Administration. The inspectors were working quickly and well. When US forces invaded, the UN inspection team had stated they'd only need about three more months of inspections to be finished with a complete and thorough inspection, and it looked like there would be a bill of clean health. Mr. Bush, however, started moving military materiel and personnel into place starting in... I think October of 2002, and making major movements in January 2003. There was a timetable; you don't spend millions and millions of dollars on moving military forces into place just to say Hi. It was a preamble to invasion. I am not a military expert and have never served; that said, I thought to myself in January 2003 that we were going to be hitting Iraq somewhere between March and April that year. No matter if there were WMDs or not.
Mr Bush stated right before the invasion of Iraq that sanctions were not working (which they mostly were), that Saddam had refused to allow inspections (which he had in fact allowed) and that Iraq was too deadly a threat to US security interests to remain uninvaded (it wasn't, as you can probably tell by now). I didn't have access to the intel that Mr. Bush and his Administration had access to, only the same intel that the rest of the public was given. I was manifestly unconvinced by the Administration. There was a lot of rhetoric - 'Mushroom clouds' 'immediate threat' 'unmanned drones' - and little to no proof given. I did not speak out against the Administration very loudly, just to friends and co-workers. I should have spoken louder, though I know it likely would have done no good; for this lack, I apologize. You are worth speaking up for.
When we invaded, you were told that Saddam Hussein was a threat and that you had to find and stop his WMDs. You were told this was an urgent mission; this was the mission you were told you needed to accomplish.
After you stopped Saddam, who is currently on trial, you hunted for WMDs. You didn't find any. There was a bill of clean health. You completed that mission.
Then you were told there was another mission: rebuilding the country after the invasion and putting in a new government. But, you were not in charge of rebuilding, something for engineers; the diplomatic corps should have had the task of helping establish a new government. You were there to guard it.
You know as well as I do: guard duty is never over. Oh, your shift might end, but the duty remains. This is not what you were given as your mission, but it is your de facto current mission. The current Administration has shown no desire for your guard duty to end in the next decade. I never wanted it to start.
While you've been there, you have not been given enough proper equipment. Oh, you have your guns and some transport and some sophisticated equipment, but not enough for all of you. We have better armor that could be sent to you. We have better vehicles that could be sent to you. We have better equipment that could be sent to you. It hasn't been sent. If I knew why I'd tell you. I want you to have it. Many people who are in better financial circumstances than I am have done their best to supplement current equipment you have that can in some cases only be termed, charitably, as 'inadequate'. This is a primary responsibility of the CinC, and I don't know why the CinC has failed in this duty. It is not a lack of money, as many times when mention is made of inadequate equipment there are votes in Congress to properly equip you.
I support the troops. I don't do this in a jingoistic fashion. I don't ride around with a "Support Our Troops!" yellow ribbon, made in China, on the back of my car. I don't say that wanting you home is undercutting you.
I grieve when I hear of any of you being wounded or killed, though obviously I can't feel the loss the way you do for your brothers and sisters in arms. It means I moan with worry whenever I hear of one of your rare bad apples performing an illegal action, moreso when I have reason to think the orders came from high up while only you in the front lines will take the blame.
I want you properly equipped so you can do your duties with more surety and safety. I want you properly rested for the same reasons. Ultimately, though, I want you home. This is one fight you should have never needed to fight in the first place.
