Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another US soldier tells of how it really is

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Another US soldier tells of how it really is

    Monday, January 22, 2007

    Hamburger Hill . . . Was It Worth It?

    When the famed "Rakkasans" finally made it to the summit of Dong Ap Bia, in 1969, a North Vietnamese Army-infested mountain near the Laotian border, no one anticipated that the carnage of American lives -- and that of the NVA -- and whatever the return on investment there was from that mission's ten-day siege, would become the subject of so much debate for decades to come.

    In his book "THE RAKKASANS -- The Combat History of the 187th Airborne Infantry," Lt. General E.M. Flanagan, Jr. USA (Ret.) writes:

    While the other battalions were policing the Dong Ap Bia battlefield, one imaginative soldier found a piece of cardboard [from a] C-ration box, wrote on it, "Hamburger Hill," and nailed it to a charred tree trunk. Shortly thereafter, another, perhaps more practical and blunt soldier, had added beneath the sign, "Was it worth it?"

    That same question is being debated today, about our situation in Iraq. What was worth so many lives back then? And is it worth so many lives today? As hard as we fought in Viet Nam -- and we clearly had the firepower supremacy and combat superiority -- as more and more men were 'surged' onto the battlefield, the more and more casualties we took. Over 58,000 body bags were flown home to the United States from that jungle land, with many more still unaccounted for. Sure, one can argue that the enemy took more [casualties], but ultimately they won, and now, almost 40 years later, Viet Nam is a complete and Communist state, and thriving capitalistically. Did we not learn a thing from that experience?

    Today we fight on a different front. Not in a jungle, but in a desert land, where the tactics are similar in scope: secure that neighborhood; and the enemy is just as fierce, if not more so. And just like many of the battles in Viet Nam, no sooner do we get control over a piece of land -- and get it under control -- the moment we move out, the enemy moves right back in.

    I liken the situation to cockroaches. They come out at night, and as soon as someone turns on a light, they all skirmish away. Oh, sure, you can capture one or two, but the majority of the vermin disappear -- literally -- into the woodwork. When the light goes out, they're back again. (And for the record, I DO NOT have cockroaches in my home.) Does that analogy not describe Baghdad today?

    I had no problem whatsoever going to war, after all, I am a soldier. I was over there during the first rotation, and I can tell you this with all honesty and sincerity: I loved it! Yes, I did. It was an experience of a lifetime (as many service members, past and present, will tell you). I loved my job; I loved the missions; I loved my team (and we were a TEAM -- we stuck together till the end). I loved making a difference -- or so I thought I was. But the truth of the matter is that none of it really mattered. It never has. We were all just a headcount. No sooner did we accomplish something, it was destroyed. No sooner were people -- soldiers and civilians -- assigned to a task or given a mission, they were pulled or redeployed and the projects were left to flounder. It was all a series of fits and starts; what a legacy to leave behind. And if you watch the news, you'll occasionally find a soldier or Marine blunt enough and prophetic enough to say on camera "We don't know why we are here?" We really don't.

    Oh, yes, I forgot, we're there to spread "Democracy!" (That's because we couldn't find the "weapons of mass destruction" that our Iraqi ally and confidant, Ahmed Chalabi, insisted were there.) We're there to force our will on a people who don't want us there, don't understand our Western form of thinking -- or our American work ethic, for that matter -- and really, really don't care for our way of life. Sure, they want all the "stuff" we have, but they want it on their terms. Folks let's face the facts: the United States INVADED a sovereign nation -- albeit a dysfunctional one -- but a sovereign nation just the same.

    As a former Iraqi Air Force General, and a Shi'a, said to me "When you leave, they'll be blood in the streets. We'll be killing each other." And months before that conversation took place, I predicted to one of my Colonels, " . . . when we [the first rotation] leave, this whole place is going to implode. You just watch." Of course he objected to my prognostication, but as we see today, both my translator and I were right.

    Now we watch as more troops are thrown into the fire. Which only means more black rubber bags will be coming home. Sure, if we keep charging, eventually we will gain some ground, or influence, or something -- though I don't know what. But at what price? How many more lives need to be terminated by roadside bombs? (Read my post "Requiem for an Innocent") Or completely destroyed by severe maiming? Brilliant, promising young people, stunted in their prime, and left to live what was once a bright future, now in a deformed state.

    I used to walk through the Green Zone, watching the hustle and bustle of everything that was going on, thinking "I am just a pawn. Just a little game-piece that the mighty hands in Washington -- where it's safe and secure -- are moving around on a chessboard." To them, I meant nothing, nor does anyone else over there -- Americans or Iraqis. Just keep sending in more and more troops, and maybe, just maybe, after a mighty slaughter of American Forces, we will reach the summit of "Hamburger Hill." And once at the top, we will ask ourselves "Was it worth it?"

  • #2
    So, that place, - disingineously presented as *safer than Washington DC* a couple of days ago -, is about to become *another Hamburger Hill* now ?
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 24 Mar 07,, 10:24.

    Comment


    • #3
      A most demoralising article.

      It maybe factually accurate since the person has been there.

      Yet, there is always a rainbow in the sky that appears sooner or later.

      Even Vietnam has worked out to some extent. So does one hope Iraq will!
      Last edited by Ray; 24 Mar 07,, 20:14.


      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

      HAKUNA MATATA

      Comment


      • #4
        A pretty descriptive account of what's going on in Iraq. From what he says, the U.S cause this mess and the people are about to kill each other so the most reasonable thing to do is to fix their mistake, but I find it unlikely they can fix the problem they caused.
        Those who can't change become extinct.

        Comment


        • #5
          Mistakes are made by all.

          The biggest mistake was to embark on two wars at the same time (Afghanistan and Iraq) out correctly evaluating the troops to task ratio. Maybe, it was because of over confidence that one gets when one has a vast superiority in firepower and equipment. That is not unusual. What all forget is to work through to an apparent logical end in the plan and cater for the aftermath. That is what has happened as is appears. The US has blundered in not working through to the logical conclusion and has seriously blundered in not understanding the Islamic psyche.

          The mistake made, it, however, takes time to fix all mistakes. That is axiomatic.

          Things seem to be on the mend as per the media reports.

          Maybe the fixing process is on and it is showing signs of progress.
          Last edited by Ray; 24 Mar 07,, 21:05.


          "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

          I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

          HAKUNA MATATA

          Comment


          • #6
            I dont think that was a mistake mr Ray. In case of the operation for Afghanistan, I would say it was more CIA arena then DoD.

            Comment


            • #7
              Xerxes,

              To open two fronts is not an easy affair.

              The US military organisation may have been theoretically two front capable, but on ground it has proved to be most inadequate and not worthy of the surmise.

              The US attack on Afghanistan was justified because ObL was holed out there and the Afghan govt would not part with him.

              Iraq was, to my way of looking at the issue, not justified, Saddam notwithstanding.

              CIA and God is said to be omnipresent. The American can claim that there was no Humanint available in Iraq, but then they can tell that to the Marines. It is just another face saving excuse that has been trotted out for the mess and because no WMD was found leading to the belief that the War on Iraq had ulterior motives.

              In so far as your contention that Afghanistan was CIA ops is at best partially correct because it is a war in major part being fought by the US military and its allies. CIA is but just one of the cogs.

              Iraq War in addition to the Afghanistan was indeed a mistake.
              Last edited by Ray; 24 Mar 07,, 21:40.


              "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

              I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

              HAKUNA MATATA

              Comment


              • #8
                I respect his opinion more then any usual war protester. I also like that he didn't start to whine.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree with Ray, that two fronts is not good. But I'd say that Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by USAUSAUSA View Post
                    I agree with Ray, that two fronts is not good. But I'd say that Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified.
                    If it was justified then it will be a while before results show up. The operation might actually help the people in a way, and maybe, I find it unlikely, but perhaps people will see it as something that had to be done when reading about this in history books. People now tend to protest at the slightest casualty and years from now, people will see things base on statistics and causaulties like the ones from iraq aren't that much compared to other wars america fought in.
                    Last edited by wkllaw; 25 Mar 07,, 21:27.
                    Those who can't change become extinct.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by wkllaw View Post
                      If it was justified then it will be a while before results show up. The operation might actually help the people in a way, and maybe, I find it unlikely, but perhaps people will see it as something that had to be done when reading about this in history books. Maybe it is a bit like the american revolution, where some people find it not worthwhile, but some people find it justified.
                      The way I look at it is, Iraq was violating UN rules, and we toppled one of the worst men in all of history.

                      It might be bad now, but in 50 or 100 years if we just stay the course, it will be looked at as the Liberation of Iraq and democracy in the middle east.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Iraq was violating UN rules. But then there is a whole lot of countries who violate UN rules and many just don't care about the UN.

                        Therefore, that logic is open ended, so to say.

                        Saddam was a horrid chap. But then again, there are leaders worse than him. Nothing has been done to them.

                        There were strategic reasons that prompted the War and the claimed reasons are merely catch all phrases.


                        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                        HAKUNA MATATA

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by USAUSAUSA View Post
                          The way I look at it is, Iraq was violating UN rules, and we toppled one of the worst men in all of history.

                          It might be bad now, but in 50 or 100 years if we just stay the course, it will be looked at as the Liberation of Iraq and democracy in the middle east.
                          In the future, people will only see it as either a failure or a sucess. They can talk about casualties all they like, but in 50 or 100 years, people won't care much about the casualties, they'll only care of the outcome. It might be as you say, but that'll only happen if a sucess happens, but if you go back to the current situation and the opposition to this, the soldiers will maybe leave before they have any good iraqi army to keep order.
                          Those who can't change become extinct.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X