April 8, 2003 – a squad of marines was patrolling through Saddam City (the slums on the eastern side of baghdad, i dont recall what this district is called now) and they were ambushed by machine gun positions in a number of windows of apartments buildings all up and down the block.

i was in a mortar platoon and was called for support to destroy the machine gun positions. we fired nearly 400 rounds of 81mm HE, each in volleys of 15-20 rounds (a few times a gun went down and only 3 fired) – after 2 volleys or so, the Forward Observer would call an adjustment and move the impacts from one machine gun position to another.

By the end of the fight, zero marines had been killed (a few were shot in the head but modern kevlar saved their lives), a few civilians were killed by the enemy machine gun positions, all of the machine gunners (6-10) were killed and 4-5 apartment buildings were in rubble. Each of these buildings were occupied by civilians and when we got a report from some SEALs that checked casualties in the buildings they said there were a few hundred dead iraqis, most likely many of them were civilians.

Now, I don’t question the actions of the FO, his CO, my mortar platoon, honestly any marine that day. In fact there were a number of silver stars handed out to Marines that rushed back into the streets from cover to pull the civilians who’d been hit by machine gun fire out of the open. The unfortunate fact is that there are civilian casualties and collateral damage in every war, more-so in urban environments. I don’t dispute this fact and I’m not passing any blame or moral judgement on members of the military BECAUSE of this fact. What I’m saying is that if you stand back and look at that event logically you can see what I’m saying. 15 marines were endangered by 6-10 enemy combatants, the Marines followed their ROEs and did their job and as a result, kept their boys alive (mission accomplished), but as a result they killed a hell of a lot more than just the 6-10 enemy combatants, and if any of those dead civilians had friends and family who were friendly to us before that event, they were not afterward.

Am I making sense?

Likewise, a year ago I had the same opinion you do about the war in iraq, that it is such a difficult and complicated situation that even if there were justified reason to end our involvement in it that it must be slow and methodical or chaos would ensue.

Since then I have again begun to change my thinking on the subject. What I have learned, read, heard has had a lot of impact on my opinion. Recently I read about a study that basically said that the reality of the mission of most combat units in Iraq has more to do with protecting their own asses than protecting the people of Iraq; the general outcome of running missions like this is that the longer we are in country, the more “insurgents” we create via collateral damage and accidental killing of civilians. the simple math is that if there are X insurgents now, and that as we continue our “mission” in country we end up negatively influencing many more neutral-minded Iraqis toward a hatred and distrust for us than we kill or capture, then X is growing faster than we can keep it in check.

ie, the sooner we leave, the less insurgents there will be in the country and the BETTER the chances that 1) chaos will NOT destroy the country and 2) we will NOT be fighting them here on our own soil.

add to that the fact that if we give the men and women of the combat arms more of a respite and some needed time off from fighting and they will be better equiped and ready if there ever IS a need for them to fight on our own home soil.

thoughts?

(of course, you are welcome, i did it with pride and i will always continue to keep the mission of defending our people and our constitution against all enemies in my heart)

You’re free to have your opinion and I’ll let it fly, but next time watch your language. Obviously, you’re new here so I gave you the benefit of the doubt and just edited your comment. Next time, I’ll delete it – not for content, but for language.

This has become pretty pathetic. If you want to deny that the war in Iraq is [expletive deleted] to hell, be my guest. IVAW are honorable men trying to do the right thing and convince congress of the many reasons that this war needs to end immediately.

To take the stance that making an argument against war is cowardice is juvenile and pretty pathetic. I almost broke down in tears listening to a Marine corporal tell of how the mistake he made giving an azimuth (as an untrained observer, simply answering the questions put to him) caused the deaths of dozens of innocent Afghanis.

The point most of these Marines and Soldiers are trying to put forward is that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistans simply need to end; there is death, brutality and tragedy on both sides of the conflicts and it is all completely unnecessary, as there has been little evidence ever produced (if any at all) that continuing them has increased our own level of security on the home-front.

Now, predictably, you’ll rant that I’m a traitor to my country and should be ashamed of myself for expressing my well-deserved first amendment right to freedom of speech. Go ahead.

Semper Fidelis

YOU are the traitor. YOU sat there and “watched with your own eyes as Iraqis were being tortured.” For this, you should be tried for war crimes and sentenced to a brutal death for placing your fellow Soldiers’ lives in jeopardy because of YOUR actions. YOU are the disgraceful Soldier I’m speaking about in these posts. YOU are the war criminal and traitor, not the politicians who send us into combat to be HONORABLE Warriors.

You really sicken me and if I go on thinking about your cowardice will make me more and more sick to my stomach. I hope your memories eat away at your insides on a daily basis at what you’ve allowed to happen.