More on Iraq from the source

The following is from a friend who's recently returned from duty in Iraq. We'll call him "Agent X":

I just have a few points on the war in Iraq & the war on tourism/terrorism, since I was inIraq...

One man knew what it would take to win that war and manage its aftermath. His name was GENShinseki and, because he contradicted the administration's pie-eyed view of the wargame, he wasfired and replaced. He was proved right (as any professional soldier could have told you hewould be). Nobody was held accountable.

The privatization of key elements of ground warfare (most notably logistics, transport andmaintenance support), which is a part of the 'transformation' of the military, led to me andthousands of others being poorly supported. Nobody was held accountable for that failure.

They gave the body armor and weapons I needed to foreign soldiers ("coalition partners") who saton their asses on post while my soldiers and I had to do the job. We bought our own body armor($1000). Nobody held responsible.

You can't get me to buy into the slogan "four more years" when no one had their feet held to thefire for the first four! Somebody has to take responsibility for the failures as well as thesuccesses.

All that being said, it is important to remember:

Al Qaeda declared war on the US years before Dubya came to town. (I'm not tying Iraq to the waron terror, because it ain't...but I'm segueing into the war on terror). Our presence in Iraqexacerbated an existing campaign of terror.

Primary causes for AQ's hatred of America (support for Israel; presence of American soldiers inthe holy lands in Saudi; the 'oppression of Muslims worldwide' by the USA; and our position asthe primary obstacle to the achievement of radical Jihadist/Islamist desire for a worlwidecaliphate), all existed loooong before Dubya.

President Clinton's weak response to the '93 WTC bombing was perhaps his only flacid moment inoffice, and did nothing to dissuade our enemies from further attacks.

Iraq was of our doing, and was a poor choice of time, but Saddam was pure evil and needed to beknocked off (I mean, you wouldn't have believed the mass graves).

We should have focused on the countries that really do support terrorism, like Iran, Pakistan,Syria, Saudi before Iraq. We chose "the easy one".

But we're there now, and we have to fight. That means we have to seal the borders, kill badguys, secure streets, pump oil profits into the economy at the lowest (read: household) level,and provide an environment for elections. But if we plan to stay til their society resemblesours, your grandkids will be deploying there, 'cause it ain't gonna happen soon.

The President's either going to have to admit the absence of victory in Iraq and leave; stay along time and suffer for marginal gain; or institute a draft. Our allies won't be ponying uptroops anytime soon (would you?) Not palatable choices, are they?

Nothing is going to really stop the terrorists from targeting us. They'll target us whetherwe're in Iraq or not. We shouldn't be fooled into thinking that getting out of Iraq will get usout of the terrorists' target sights.

Keep up this political chatter, because while you guys war it out, you're giving all of usentertainment and lots of educational and thought provoking information, and that's probably allanyone could hope for out of the internet, other than great porn.

Disclaimer: I'm not a supporter of either party, because I am not rich enough to sway their paiddecision-making. I have voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Mickey Mouse, depending on theirplatforms and what I believe they have to offer.

I do believe that in the final analysis, a nation will be judged on how it performed for 100% ofits population, not just how super-rich the super-minority got. So I'm an advocate of there-distribution of wealth (within reasonable limits). I'm voting for myself!

Thanks, Agent X! Hope to get some more thoughts from the front soon.