Vets for Freedom Respond

By John

I know that quite a few of you guys read the NYT's op-ed from the 82nd Airborne guys, seven of em, a few weeks ago. Here's a chunk:

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.

Basically, they're pessimistic. And they have a right to be, they spilled the same blood in the same mud as servicemen who support the effort. I respect the fact that they had the guts to write a piece like this. However, I tend to agree more with Vets for Freedom, and their response in the Weekly Standard:

ON SUNDAY, seven soldiers from the 2nd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division stationed in Iraq penned a passionate opinion piece in the New York Times that further illustrates the complexity of what is "really" happening in Iraq. Of the almost 3,000 soldiers from the Army's storied 82nd Airborne Division currently serving in the hottest of Iraqi neighborhoods, seven felt confident enough in their misgivings to sign an opinion piece. They should not be surprised that many of their comrades--including the seven undersigned here--find their work to be misguided.

The 2nd Brigade is responsible for two dangerous areas of Baghdad: Adihamiyah and Sadr City. Airborne troopers there have seen the worst al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army can throw at them and the Iraqi people. But the whole story is that the Iraqis and soldiers in their sector have not yet been fully affected by the surge of troops and operations, which have barely been in place two months.

Currently, American and Iraqi Forces are clearing sections of southern Baghdad before turning north to the 82nd Airborne's neighborhoods. As such, the portrait these soldiers painted, while surely accurate and honest, is more representative of pre-surge Baghdad: sectarian strife, lawlessness, and indiscriminate slaughter.

This is not, however, the picture elsewhere in Iraq, or even most of Baghdad. Additional American combat brigades first surged to the outlying areas around the capital, disrupting the flow of suicide bombers and car bombs and denying haven to al Qaeda.

The result? Attacks against civilians are at a six-month low and large al Qaeda-style truck and suicide bombings have dropped 50 percent in Baghdad. With additional troops and a sound strategy, the same results can occur in even the worst areas of Baghdad, including the 82nd Airborne's sector.

You really should read the whole thing.

Pete Hesgeth, co-founder of VFF, followed up on this piece in an interview with our good friends at Pundit Review Radio and Bruce McQain from QandO, you can listen here. It's a superb interview.

August 28, 2007 09:28 AM The Long War

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1188

Comments

I was sorry to read the original seven 82AB op-ed account. I would replace your word, "pessimistic" with tired and discouraged. Not having seen an improvement, they cannot comprehend or give it credence. They live in what is a laser lighted microcosm of the war and they see it as the entire event. The NYT was happy enough to print the op-ed, but I tend to think that the NTY took advantage of well meaning but war weary men.

JG · August 28, 2007 03:30 PM

There is another alternative-that the men could be right.

Is VFF putting the happy spin on because they just can't stand the thought that people might be sick of this entire enterprise?

Nobody at the NYT made them write their Op-ED and I'm glad they did.

Skippy-san · September 3, 2007 02:38 PM