RSS
 

Archive for the ‘Afghanistan’ Category

Crawling out from underneath my rock…

25 Apr

As you’ve all undoubtedly noticed, blogging has taken a bit of a hiatus the past few months. I’ve received many e-mails asking what’s happening; for those of you who have e-mailed me, you know what’s been going on. For everyone else, let me fill you in. (AND, to make things more fun, I’m going to have a pretty good picture dump here too.) So, here we go: an explanation of what’s been keeping me from blogging the past few months.

Read the rest of this entry »

 

A Badge of Dishonor

16 Nov

Not everyone supports the war in Afghanistan. It’s annoying, considering that people who spoke out against the war in Iraq claimed that the reason was because we should be fighting in Afghanistan. Now we are fighting in Afghanistan, and people are talking about how we should pull out of there too. It’s not surprising, but it’s still annoying.

When you discover that some of the people saying we shouldn’t be there turn out to be family members of our troops, it’s infuriating. Imagine my surprise when I find out that family members of the Marines in my husband’s unit, currently deployed to Afghanistan, have been saying these things.

There are several online forums, mostly on Facebook, for unit family members to try to keep informed. They aren’t official unit pages, but family members can go on there to talk to each other and try to find support or keep themselves infomed. I’ve been noticing over the past few weeks that there have been a lot of comments about how we shouldn’t be there, that it’s a lost cause, and that we just need to bring them all home. I’ve noticed that, for some reason, it’s mainly moms saying these things, too. And while it’s a very small number of unit family members saying these things, I’ve quite frankly had enough.

My husband calls home and every now and then, he’s demoralized. He’s tired, he’s hungry, he’s dirty. Marines in his unit have been killed, and other Marines have been injured. He misses me, he misses being home, and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. I tell him, every time, that I support him and his mission. That I’m waiting for him. And I remind him of why he joined the Marine Corps, why he was willing to fight. I remind him of what he’s fighting for. It lifts his morale and it gives him his motivation back.

When their sons call and tell them the same thing that my husband tells me, I wonder what these women tell them. Do they get told about how we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan? Do they get told about how we should pull out? Do they get told that this war is not worth fighting? I can only hope they keep their opinions to themselves — or that their sons never see their comments on Facebook — because what they are basically telling their sons is that their sacrifice is meaningless in their eyes, that the deaths of their fellow Marines were meaningless. I can only imagine how demoralizing it must be to know that the family you have back home, the people you likely are fighting for, don’t support you and the sacrifice you’re making.

One mom mentioned that she had asked everyone she knew what they thought about the “debate”, about whether or not Afghanistan was a lost cause that we should just pull out of. She somehow was puzzled that none of the military men in her family would comment. Gee, I wonder why.

Do they not get it? You cannot support the troops without supporting their mission. It’s as simple as that. And of all people who don’t support our Marines and their mission, the family members of those Marines should be their most ardent supporters. It breaks my heart sometimes. As it’s been explained to me by my husband and various other Marines, they don’t think America hates them. They think that America just doesn’t care. I used to argue so passionately against that, but I’m starting to think I know where that attitude comes from.

I remember sitting in an algebra class in high school when the speakers crackled overhead telling all faculty to stop what they were doing and turn the televisions on in every classroom. A plane had flown into one of the World Trade Center buildings. We were stunned, but just assumed it was a mistake. Then we watched as another plane flew into the second tower, and it suddenly became clear. It became very clear. The next few days were emotional and terrifying. I spent much of 9-11 crying, like most of the students at my school. I cried in the days that followed, watching footage of people jumping to their death to escape the fiery inferno inside the towers. I cried hearing of the heroism of the passengers on Flight 93. I cried listening to the phone calls of passengers who knew they were going to die and wanted to tell their loved ones “I love you” one more time. I cried for the heroes who ran into the buildings while everyone else was running out. The country, as a whole, wept and grieved and vowed to never let this happen, ever again. I, along with many other Americans, knew that this meant war. Many people, my husband among them, reacted to the horror of 9-11 by joining the military. They wanted to fight for their country, to avenge the deaths of their countrymen, and to make sure that this never happened again.

Islamic extremists have been trying to kill us for more than 30 years now. During the Carter presidency, American embassy staff were held hostage in Iran. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut were bombed, killing almost 250 American servicemen. There was the first WTC bombing in 1993. In Somalia, also in 1993, 18 American troops were killed and the body of one was dragged through the streets while Somalians cheered. In 1996, an Air Force housing complex was bombed in Saudi Arabia. US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. The USS Cole bombing happened in the year 2000. All of these attacks were perpetrated by violent Muslim extremists. 9-11 didn’t come out of nowhere. It was a long time coming. We ignored what we saw happening for over 30 years and pretended that if we just left them alone they would stop trying to kill us. It culminated in the worst attack on American soil ever on 9-11.

But now, with almost 10 years without any attacks on American soil, people are already calling for us to stop the fight. It’s not from lack of trying — from the shoe bomber to the underwear bomber to the Times Square bomber, they’ve kept on trying to kill us. Luckily, we’ve been able to thwart those attacks. You’d think it would be a reminder that this war isn’t over, and that it won’t be over until we eradicate the threat of Islamic terrorism. Did anyone really think we could do that in just a few years? It’s going to take time, it’s going to take a lot of sacrificing. We’ve got a 30 year mess to clean up. For some of us though, it’s a sacrifice worth making.

This is why my husband and I both support this mission. We choose to support it. I am five months pregnant and I don’t want my son to ever have to go through a 9-11. We want a better future than this for our children. We can stand up to this threat, finally, or we can ignore it like we did for the last 30 years and let our children deal with it. Which do you support? Me personally, I’d rather take care of this now, even with the sacrifice that requires, than pass the buck on to my children to carry and endure.

Others, I guess, actually were content to pass the buck onto their children, and now they find the sacrifice too great. The solution for them is apparently to keep hiding their heads in the sand and just let their grandchildren handle it 20 years from now. I find that unacceptable.

The worst part about this, though, is that people who should be supporting our troops more than anyone else apparently cannot. These are our brothers, our sons, our husbands, and while it’s annoying when ordinary Americans can’t support our troops, it’s unforgivable in my book for family members of our troops to not support them. If this is how they feel, then they need to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves until this is all over and done with. Can you imagine how unmotivating it must be to know that your own family doesn’t support what you’re fighting for? I can’t think of anything more demoralizing. To me, this is a badge of dishonor. We have one Cindy Sheehan. We don’t need any more.

 

Whose side are these idiots on??

07 Sep

The internet has been abuzz about the plans of a Christian church in Florida to burn copies of the Quran on 9-11. The debate got even hotter when General David Petraeus chimed in, saying that burning these Qurans would endanger our troops in Afghanistan. Considering my husband is currently in Afghanistan, I don’t take that threat too lightly.

The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warned Tuesday a Florida church’s threat to burn copies of the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops in the country and Americans worldwide.

“Images of the burning of a Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence ,” Gen. David Petraeus said. “Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult.”

His comments followed a protest Monday by hundreds of Afghans over the plans by Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center — a small, evangelical Christian church that espouses anti-Islam philosophy — to burn copies of the Koran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Petraeus warned images of burning Korans could be used to incite anti-American sentiment similar to the pictures of prisoner abuse at Iraq’s Abu Graib prison.

“I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible (Koran) burning. Even the rumor that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday,” Petraeus said.

… “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community,” he said in a statement provided to Fox News.

To the idiots at this retarded church: whose side are you on, exactly?? I can understand the desire to burn the Qurans and piss the perpetually-offended Muslims off. I really do. But wouldn’t the Christian thing to do be to, I don’t know, not be hateful? It doesn’t sound like they are trying to be very Christ-like.

That aside, what Petraeus is saying makes perfect sense. Part of what we are doing in Afghanistan is trying to convince Afghans that we are the good guys. We are trying to earn their respect, and show them that we are better than the Taliban. But, as Petraeus pointed out, burning these Qurans plays right into the hands of the Taliban. The Taliban will use images of Americans burning Qurans against us. They will use the images to convince Muslims that Americans can’t be trusted and that we don’t respect them. It’s an easy way to push Afghans off of the bench and into the game. It’s easy propaganda for extremists to use to convince other Muslims to join in the jihad.

All of this is really not that difficult to figure out. So, again, exactly whose side is this church on? They’re not on the side of America. They’re certainly not doing the Christian thing.

Frankly, they sound more like Muslim extremists than Christians to me.

“We are using this act to warn about the teaching and ideology of Islam, which we do hate as it is hateful. We do not hate any people, however. We love, as God loves, all the people in the world and we want them to come to a knowledge of the truth,” the blog reads.

If they don’t hate anyone, then why are they going out of their way to piss a bunch of people off? They aren’t going to get any Muslims to convert to Christianity by offending them. If anything, they’ll just make them more entrenched in Islam and more anti-Christian than they were before. This is quite possibly the stupidest idea I have ever heard.

 
 

McChrystal is out, Petraeus is in – and that’s a good thing

24 Jun

The biggest news over the past few days has been the Rolling Stone article which featured comments made by General McChrystal that would lead to his resignation.

I haven’t commented yet because I’m still a little unsure what to think. The communication between the White House and McChrystal has been deplorable. McChrystal asked for 80,000 troops to win the war, and Obama sent him far less than that — and basically told the enemy when we would be leaving by establishing a timeline.

On the other hand, I don’t agree with the new ROEs McChrystal has been instituting in Afghanistan. I know, I’m just a lowly milspouse and I really have no clue what being at war is like. But I don’t like the idea of our troops hands being tied. We can’t gingerly go to war; we have to have the stomach to kill and to destroy. That is the nature of war. Our enemy is willing to do that, and if we take every precaution we can to avoid doing the same, then how can we possibly win? The fact of the matter is, the situation in Afghanistan has gotten worse, not better. I know that General McChrystal is brilliant. I don’t know that he’s the best person to win this war in Afghanistan. And this article doesn’t have any effect on that.

Now, do I agree with that McChrystal said about the Obama administration in the article? Absolutely. Is this how soldiers talk together? You betcha. It’s idiotic and naive to assume that this is some kind of anomaly. This is what it is like on the battlefield, this is what it is like if you around servicemembers. Just because they have to be respectful of their Commander-in-Chief, it doesn’t mean that they never criticize him. They’re just usually smart enough to only do so in private — and not to a freaking Rolling Stone reporter. I just don’t understand what on Earth McChrystal was thinking. Not only did he say these things to a reporter, but it wasn’t even a reporter from a friendly news organization. When has Rolling Stone — or any other leftist news organization — ever covered the war in a fair manner? They’ve all of them been against the United States fighting back from the very beginning. Oh, sure, they all blathered on about how Afghanistan was the “good” war, and they aren’t trying to undermine our efforts like they did in Iraq. Instead, they’re merely silent. McChrystal isn’t some PFC idiot who had no idea what he was getting into by talking to Rolling Stone, either. That’s what I just can’t get around. He knew better. Ridiculous as it may seem, he was insubordinate, and he was dumb enough to make these remarks to a reporter. He asked for it. You want to talk about how the Obama administration is screwing up your efforts in Afghanistan, you wait until the job is done and then you write a memoir or jump onto the talk show circuit. You don’t talk to a reporter while you’re still in charge. McChrystal knew that. Either he set himself up on purpose — maybe to drop a bigger bombshell in the coming weeks — or he screwed up big time. One or the other.

So now, we have Petraeus taking over command in Afghanistan, which is technically a demotion for him. Frankly, though, I’m glad. We’re in the same situation in Afghanistan as we were in not too long ago in Iraq — and Petraeus was able to turn it around and win. I have much more faith in him than I ever did in McChrystal.

There are three major issues that General Petraeus will be facing, and apparently, these are the actions he will take to confront them.

First, at the strategic level, Afghanistan can be stable only when Pakistan moves against the Taliban. The major technical problem is the 1,600-mile border with Pakistan that provides the Taliban and other terrorist groups with a sanctuary. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, has cultivated a sound working relationship with the head of the Pakistani Army.

Elements of that army, however, want to maintain working relationships with the Taliban as a hedge. Meaning, if the U.S. abruptly withdraws and the Taliban take over, Pakistan wants to have some influence over a Taliban government in Kabul.

So Petraeus, along with other top officials, will be spending considerable time wooing Pakistan. If the Taliban do not feel squeezed, negotiations about reconciliation and power-sharing will be drawn out. As we saw four decades ago when Henry Kissinger negotiated with the North Vietnamese, reaching an agreement with an enemy that has not been defeated is perilous.

The second task Petraeus faces is at the operational level of war. He authored the Field Manual on Counterinsurgency, or COIN, that has become the textbook for waging this conflict. Its key premise was a two-sided social contract. On one side, we provide protection, projects and reasonably decent local administrators to support the civilian population; on the other side, the people reject the cause of the insurgents and point out the subversives.

However, so far the Pashtun tribes that gave rise to the Taliban movement have not bought into that contract. The Pashtuns have accepted projects, but rarely reciprocate by pointing out the Taliban hiding in plain sight among them or by urging their young men to join the government forces. This is the nub of the problem inside Afghanistan itself.

The third task awaiting Petraeus is at the tactical level. He must be very careful about the morale of his troops, who feel the rules of engagement have become too onerous. The worst outcome would be for our soldiers or Marines to avoid the hard areas because they felt they couldn’t fight aggressively.

It’s an incredibly complex, near-impossible balancing act: How much danger do our troops accept in order to avoid the risk of civilian casualties? Much of this is psychological and a matter of perception. Our soldiers need to know that the high command backs them up and is not judging them through constant investigations and second-guessing. More pressure must be placed on the enemy by killing and capturing insurgents.

That last part made me snort. Gee, our troops should be able to act aggressively without fear of investigations? We need to kill and capture more insurgents? Wow, who woulda thunk?

Meanwhile, MoveOn.org has scrubbed all vestiges of their despicable “General Betray Us” ad from their website. Unfortunately for them, Weasel Zippers still has screen shots.

I have to say, I actually feel more optimistic with Gen. Petraeus leading us in Afghanistan. I honestly do believe that if anyone can turn the mess in Afghanistan around, it’s Gen. Petraeus, and he’s apparently fired up and ready. What does worry me is what will happen a year from now, in July 2011, when our timeline is up. We won’t have victory in a year — let’s just be realistic. And Obama will be gearing up his reelection campaign. What will he do? His anti-war liberal base will want him to give up and pull out. Democrats are already starting to say that our policies are failing there. And of course, that means the only good action to take is not to change the failed policies, but to pull out of Afghanistan! Obama might listen to them. That will infuriate the rest of the country, of course, and could have potentially disastrous consequences for our national security. It will also mean that everything our troops have fought and died for will have been wasted. If Petraeus tells Obama that we need more time — as I believe he inevitably will — will Obama be willing to give it to him in the middle of campaign season? That’s the million dollar question.

Because, see, I have faith in our men and women in uniform. Regardless who is leading them, I know we can achieve victory if we’re willing to fight long enough for it. But, I wonder — will they be given the chance to succeed? They’ve got the skills, they’ve got a leader who is more than capable of leading them to victory. All they need now is an administration willing to back them up. Will they get it? Stay tuned.