A View Of Iraq From A Soldier
Speech to the "Out of Iraq" Congressional Caucus on July 19, 2005
By John Bruhns
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9670.htm
08/03/05 "ICH" -- -- I am a concerned veteran of the Iraq War. I am not an expert on the vast and wide range of issues throughout the political spectrum, but I can offer some first hand experience of the war in Iraq through the eyes of a soldier. My view of the situation in Iraq will differ from what the American People are being told by the Bush Administration. The purpose of this message is to voice my concern that we were misled into war and continue to be misled about the situation! in Iraq every day. My opinions on this matter come from what I witnessed in Iraq personally.
George Bush and his political advisors have been successful in presenting a false image to the American people that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent" threat to the security of the United States. We were told that there was overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed a massive WMD program, and some members of the Bush Administration even hinted that Saddam may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks.
We now know most of the information given to us by the current Administration concerning Iraq, if not all the information, was false. This was information given to the American people to justify a war. The information about weapons of mass destruction and a link to Osama Bin Laden scared the American people into supporting the war in Iraq. They presented an atmosphere of intimidation that suggested if we did not act immediately there was the possibility of another ! attack. Bush said himself that we do not want the proof or the smoking gun to come in the form of a "mushroom cloud." Donald Rumsfeld said, "We know where the weapons are."
After 9/11, comments like this proved to be a successful scare tactic to use on the American People to rally support for the invasion. Members of the Bush Administration created an image of "wine and roses" in terms of the aftermath of the war. Vice-President Dick Cheney said American troops would be greeted as "liberators." And there was a false perception created that we would go into Iraq and implement a democratic government and it would be over more sooner than later. The White House also expressed confidence that the alleged WMD program would be found once we invaded.
I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.
The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the ! Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.
At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.
During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.
I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.
On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.
So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. During the violence that day I felt so much fear throughout my entire body. I remember going home that night and praying to God, thanking him that I was still alive. A few months earlier President Bush made the statement, "Bring it on" when referring to the attacks on Americans by the insurgency. To me, that felt like a personal invitation to the insurgents to attack me and my friends who desperately wanted to make it home alive.
I did my job well in Iraq. During the deployment, my superiors promoted me to the rank of sergeant. I was made a rifle team leader and was put in charge of other soldiers when we carried out missions.
My time as a Team Leader in Iraq was temporarily interrupted when I was sent to the "Green Zone" in Baghdad to train the Iraqi army. I was more than happy to do it because we were being told that in order for us to get out of Iraq completely the Iraqi military would have to be able to take over all security operations. The training of the Iraqi Army became a huge concern of mine. During the time I trained! them, their basic training was only one week long. We showed them some basic drill and ceremony such as marching and saluting. When it came time for weapons training, we gave each Iraqi recruit an AK-47 and just let them shoot it. They did not even have to qualify by hitting a target. All they had to do was pull the trigger. I was instructed by my superiors to stand directly behind them with caution while they were shooting just in case they tried to turn the weapon on us so we could stop them.
Once they graduated from basic training, the Iraqi soldiers in a way became part of our battalion and we would take them on missions with us. But we never let them know where we were going, because we were afraid some of them might tip off the insurgency that we were coming and we would walk directly into an ambush. When they would get into formation prior to the missions we made them a part of, they would cover their faces so the people of their communities did not identify them as being affiliated with the American troops.
Not that long ago President Bush made a statement at Fort Bragg when he addressed the nation about the war in Iraq. He said we would "stand down" when the Iraqi military is ready to "stand up." My experience with the new Iraqi military tells me we won't be coming home for a long time if that's the case.
I left Iraq on February 27, 2004 and I acknowledge a lot may have changed since then, but I find it hard to believe the Iraqi people are any happier now than they were when was I was there. I remember the day I left there were hundreds of Iraqis in the streets outside the compound that I lived in. They watched as we moved out to the Baghdad Airport to finally go home. The Iraqis cheered, clapped, and shouted with joy as we were le! aving. As a soldier, that hurt me inside because I thought I was supposed to be fighting for their freedom. I saw many people die for that cause, but that is not how the Iraqi people looked at it. They viewed me as a foreign occupier and many of the people of Iraq may have even preferred Saddam to the American soldiers. I feel this way because of the consistent attacks on me and my fellow soldiers by the Iraqi people, who felt they were fighting for their homeland. To us the mission turned into a quest for survival.
I wish I could provide an answer to this mess. I wish I knew of a realistic way to get our troops home. But we are very limited in our options in my opinion. If we pull out immediately, it's likely the Iraqi security forces will not be able to provide stability on their own. In that event, the new Iraqi government could possibly be overthrown. The other option would be to reduce our troop numbers and have a gradual pullout. That is very risky because it seems that even with the current number of troops the violence still continues. With a significant troop reduction, there is a strong possibility the violence and attacks on US and coalition forces could escalate and get even worse. In my opinion, that is more of a certainty.
And then there is the option that President Bush brings to the table which is to "Stay the Course." That means more years of bloodshed and a lot more lives to be lost. Also, it will aggravate the growing opposition to the US presence in Iraq throughout the region and that could very well recruit more extremists to join terror organizations that will infiltrate into Iraq and kill more US troops.
So it does not seem to me we have a realistic solution, and that frightens me. It has become very obvious that we have a serious dilemma that needs to be resolved as soon as possible to end the ongoing violence in Iraq. But how do we end it is the question?
We must always support the troops. If there were a situation in which the United States is attacked again by a legitimate enemy, they are the people who are going to risk their lives to protect us and our freedom. In my opinion, the best way to support them now is to bring them home with the honor and respect they deserve.
In closing, I ask that we never forget why this war started. The Bush Administration cried weapons of mass destruction and a link to Al Queda. We know that this is false and the Bush administration concedes it as well. As a soldier who fought in that war, I feel misled. I feel that I was sent off to fight for a cause that never existed. When I joined the military I did so to defend the United States of America, not to be sent off to a part of the world to fight people who never attacked me or my country. Many have died as a result of this. The people who started this war need to start being honest with t! he American people and take responsibility for their actions. More than anything, they need to stop saying everything is rosy and create a solution to this problem they created.
Thank you for hearing me out. God Bless our great nation, the United States of America.
John Bruhns
8/05/2005
8/03/2005
John Bolton, and why he is the man for the job
Here are a few quotes about the guy. No his record is NOT squeaky clean. Some of his policies and associations actually suck. But as the man for this particular job, I see no better fit.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.
In early 2001 Bolton observed: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous."8 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton 's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."
Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations--a multilateral organization that the United States played a key role in creating--not as a pet organization but as a international organization dedicated to "collective security." A longtime activist with the Federalist Society, Bolton has used this right-wing association of lawyers, judges, and legal experts as a forum to lash out against the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said. "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Bolton is a militarist who embraces the "peace through strength" philosophy of international affairs. Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."
In mid-2001 Bolton announced at the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons that Washington opposed any initiative to regulate trade in small arms or in non-military rifles--or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms." Accompanying Bolton to the conference were members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. She charged that the U.S. delegation, led by Arms Control Secretary Bolton, single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus around the Small Arms Action Plan.17
Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria , Iran , and North Korea afterwards."21
Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan.
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law--at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03142005.html
Pros:
- Told the UN Criminal Court to shove it up their ass. We do not need an international court bypassing our individual Constitutional rights.
- Told the UN to shove their arms control up their ass, recognizing our second amendment rights as provided in the US (not UN!) Constitution.
- Recognized that International Treaties can be invalid and useless, and we have the right as a sovereign nation to enforce, refuse, or maintain such treaties. For example, after the First World War, Germany was bound to the League of Nations Versailles Treaty. European nations did a great job at enforcing that! See WW 2. In contrast, I know the same can be said about Iraq, but I always say if Bush shoved the UN’s own violated resolutions into their faces and went unilaterally because the UN is a paper tiger, I would have NO complaints about Iraq. Well, maybe a better exit strategy and better nation building.
- Stated the facts about China and North Korea.
Cons:
- PNAC association.
- He can be lumped as a neocon.
You know, and then I think about where this man is going to work. The United Nations, the most corrupt and useless organization that really needs to be sent packing away from US soil. With what issues Bolton has, I think he cares about American policy, sees the UN corruption for what it is, and will kick some ass representing our country. Why do you say, read below.
Demonstrating how disconnected the UN is from reality, Rosett notes that in a recent UN survey Secretary General Kofi Anan frets over ‘tone at the top,’ a reference to the ‘less positive’ opinion most UN staffers have of their senior leaders. The problem isn’t tone, she continues, but ‘accountability at the top’ (emphasis added). In detailed testimony provided to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Rosett elaborated at length the incredible web of corruption that defined and obscured the UN Oil for Food Program.
Oil for Food was in theory a program whereby Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though under international UN embargo, could sell limited amounts of oil and in return use the funds generated to purchase needed commodities such as food and medical supplies for its population. It was established by December 1996 and continued under UN supervision until Coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein in last year.
The fraud represented in the Oil for Food program, encouraged and virtually administered by the UN, gave Saddam funds to continue to procure missile technology from North Korea, pursue WMD research and development programs, and funnel money to his own thugs and terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers. In short, the UN kept in power the very dictator they professed to condemn in the Security Council chambers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14000
In other words, screw the UN except for their fantastic human rights and aid programs. I did not vote for them or Kofi Anan.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 1997, Bolton articulated his dismissive view of international treaties. "Treaties are law only for U.S. domestic purposes," he wrote, "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." In other words, international treaties signed by the United States should not be considered as a body of law that the United States should respect in its international engagement but rather just political considerations that can be ignored at will.
In early 2001 Bolton observed: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States ."
In 1998, when he was senior vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, Bolton described the ICC as "a product of fuzzy-minded romanticism [that] is not just naïve, but dangerous."8 Early in the first year of the Bush administration, Bolton prevailed upon Secretary of State Colin Powell to give him the honor of renouncing the Clinton administration's signature of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC). Bolton called the moment he signed the letter abrogating Clinton 's approval of the ICC "the happiest moment in my government service."
Bolton has long dismissed the legitimacy of the United Nations--a multilateral organization that the United States played a key role in creating--not as a pet organization but as a international organization dedicated to "collective security." A longtime activist with the Federalist Society, Bolton has used this right-wing association of lawyers, judges, and legal experts as a forum to lash out against the United Nations. In a 1994 speech at the liberal World Federalist Association, Bolton declared that "there is no such thing as the United Nations." To underscore his point, Bolton said. "If the UN secretary building in New York lost ten stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."
Bolton is a militarist who embraces the "peace through strength" philosophy of international affairs. Praising Bolton in a speech he delivered on January 1, 2001 at the American Enterprise Institute, Sen. Jesse Helms, who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said, "John Bolton is the kind of man with whom I would want to stand at Armageddon."
In mid-2001 Bolton announced at the UN Conference on Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons that Washington opposed any initiative to regulate trade in small arms or in non-military rifles--or any effort that would "abrogate the constitutional right to bear arms." Accompanying Bolton to the conference were members of the National Rifle Association (NRA). "It is precisely those weapons that Bolton would exclude from the purview of this conference that are actually killing people and endangering communities around the world," said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. She charged that the U.S. delegation, led by Arms Control Secretary Bolton, single-handedly destroyed any possibility of consensus around the Small Arms Action Plan.17
Bolton in February 2003 said that once regime change plans in Iraq were completed, "it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria , Iran , and North Korea afterwards."21
Bolton is not only one of the administration's leading hawks on China policy, he is also its strongest advocate of Taiwan's independence and of U.S. defense of Taiwan.
John Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, rejects the legitimacy of international law--at least when international conventions, treaties, and norms constrain what he regards as U.S. national interests. Bolton also has a record of questionable legal and ethical dealings at home.
http://www.counterpunch.org/barry03142005.html
Pros:
- Told the UN Criminal Court to shove it up their ass. We do not need an international court bypassing our individual Constitutional rights.
- Told the UN to shove their arms control up their ass, recognizing our second amendment rights as provided in the US (not UN!) Constitution.
- Recognized that International Treaties can be invalid and useless, and we have the right as a sovereign nation to enforce, refuse, or maintain such treaties. For example, after the First World War, Germany was bound to the League of Nations Versailles Treaty. European nations did a great job at enforcing that! See WW 2. In contrast, I know the same can be said about Iraq, but I always say if Bush shoved the UN’s own violated resolutions into their faces and went unilaterally because the UN is a paper tiger, I would have NO complaints about Iraq. Well, maybe a better exit strategy and better nation building.
- Stated the facts about China and North Korea.
Cons:
- PNAC association.
- He can be lumped as a neocon.
You know, and then I think about where this man is going to work. The United Nations, the most corrupt and useless organization that really needs to be sent packing away from US soil. With what issues Bolton has, I think he cares about American policy, sees the UN corruption for what it is, and will kick some ass representing our country. Why do you say, read below.
Demonstrating how disconnected the UN is from reality, Rosett notes that in a recent UN survey Secretary General Kofi Anan frets over ‘tone at the top,’ a reference to the ‘less positive’ opinion most UN staffers have of their senior leaders. The problem isn’t tone, she continues, but ‘accountability at the top’ (emphasis added). In detailed testimony provided to the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Rosett elaborated at length the incredible web of corruption that defined and obscured the UN Oil for Food Program.
Oil for Food was in theory a program whereby Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, though under international UN embargo, could sell limited amounts of oil and in return use the funds generated to purchase needed commodities such as food and medical supplies for its population. It was established by December 1996 and continued under UN supervision until Coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein in last year.
The fraud represented in the Oil for Food program, encouraged and virtually administered by the UN, gave Saddam funds to continue to procure missile technology from North Korea, pursue WMD research and development programs, and funnel money to his own thugs and terrorist groups like Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Jihad and suicide bombers. In short, the UN kept in power the very dictator they professed to condemn in the Security Council chambers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14000
In other words, screw the UN except for their fantastic human rights and aid programs. I did not vote for them or Kofi Anan.
8/01/2005
CAFTA
Brought to you by glorious leader, our true “conservative” president is looking out for the American people and doing a fine job at upholding the constitution that he swore to! Unfortunately, it passed by 2 votes—mainly because of the actions of grass roots organizations did a great job of letting representatives know more detail on what they were voting for. In turn, glorious leader, our true “conservative” president pulled all of his back scratching beltway antics in full steam.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23673
That story is an op-ed piece that explains why it’s screwed up. I am not a fan of the CFR. In addition, the below transcript from Lou Dobbs on CNN gives further detail. I really looked for a video file, but could not find one.
CAFTA's big secret
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun30.html
The actual CNN transcript is here
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
In summary, this quote really explains the overall CAFTA crap…
SYLVESTER: Supporters of CAFTA say it will open up Central American markets to U.S. companies and lead to lower prices for consumers. But critics are urging lawmakers to look at the fine print, because they may be giving away far more than they're getting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
I wonder what this means for the constitution and the American people. Does our government serve us anymore? Or are we its servants now?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467
CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=23673
That story is an op-ed piece that explains why it’s screwed up. I am not a fan of the CFR. In addition, the below transcript from Lou Dobbs on CNN gives further detail. I really looked for a video file, but could not find one.
CAFTA's big secret
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2005jun30.html
The actual CNN transcript is here
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
In summary, this quote really explains the overall CAFTA crap…
SYLVESTER: Supporters of CAFTA say it will open up Central American markets to U.S. companies and lead to lower prices for consumers. But critics are urging lawmakers to look at the fine print, because they may be giving away far more than they're getting.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html
I wonder what this means for the constitution and the American people. Does our government serve us anymore? Or are we its servants now?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)