How Soldiers Feel About the Surge

I posted on this topic a few days ago (The Surge: Is it Really Going Better Now?), noting my skepticism of the authors of the piece, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, of the Brookings Institution. It just seemed that the "new optimism" in the press hinged on little else but their article.

Then I found an editorial, written by several members of the military, who were actually just in Iraq. I think they may have a slightly more knowledgeable view. A snippet:

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework.

Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense. More at: NewYorkTimes.com

Then, I saw Paul Rieckhoff, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and from IAVA (Iraq &
Afghanistan Veterans of America, on Countdown With Keith Olbermann,
discussing the piece. It turns out he has an insightful essay on the
editorial. Here's a snippet of that:

This op-ed was written by seven American soldiers who are serving in Iraq right now. They describe themselves as "responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home." Sadly, one of the authors, Staff Sergeant Murphy, a Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head before the piece was published. (He is being flown to the U.S. and is expected to survive.)

Consider the tremendous amount of moral courage that it takes to put oneself on the line like this. Whether you agree or disagree with the stance these soldiers take, hats off to them for having the guts to write this piece. More at: HuffingtonPost.com.

Rieckhoff's response stands in stark contrast to the creeps over at FreeRepublic.com. Out of curiosity, I typed the title of the editorial in their search box, and came up with the predictable comments. These people use "Support The Troops" only when doing so actually supports the war. Oh yeah, and their typing skills suck too.

"three words: summary court marshal."

"Not to say these guys are stupid, just saying the statements and assertions made in the article are way beyond their pay grade, which makes me suspicious as who was doing the bulk of the writing."

"Maybe they're just clueless. I mean, they're basically saying "To much American buitt-kicking, let's go back to the Rumsfeld plan." Not smart."

Read more (if you can stand it) at: FreeRepublic.com