Ben,

I generally enjoy reading 2 Dinar, but I have to take issue with the following statement from your presidential endorsement:

"It was wrong to invade Iraq because the reasons given (WMD, link to Al Qaeda) were both false, and have been discredited by both parties."

If you want to narrowly define WMD as an existing nuclear weapons capability, then that statement could possibly be correct. There are, however, several things that the whole world knew about Saddam's regime that contradict that statement. Most important among this knowledge was the documented use of chemical and biological weapons by Saddam against his own people. I think that as the decision to go to war was being made, you would have found few people willing to believe that Saddam had disposed of his chemical and biological weapons stocks and had also completely abandoned his ambitions to possess nuclear weapons, especially given his behavior towards UN weapons inspectors at the time. Finding out that his behavior was really just a bluff after the fall of Baghdad was not a good thing, but not nearly so unfortunate as the way our government mishandled the aftermath. Asking for a 'do-over' was not an option at that point.

Thanks for serving, thanks for writing, and thanks for putting up with me being a stickler about this point. I guess I still have memories about spending a lot of 1990 running around in MOPP gear and taking more vaccinations and ill-described pills than I ever knew existed. I don't think I had to do these things just for shits and grins.

Mark
USA

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your note and for YOUR service.

I agree, in rereading that line, that it does sound a bit narrow. Here's some elaboration:

IRT WMD- Saddam had been bluffing the Iranians, and yeah, we found out later. But in Cobra II, Gen. Trainor and Michael Gordon said the HUMINT on Iraq was nearly a decade old at the time. That's an intelligence failure.

Take a look at some of the things Scott Ritter, former USMC Intel Officer and top UNSCOM weapons inspector said in 2002 after he was fired by the panel for pushing too hard and demanding access to Iraqi palaces. When he resurfaced I thought for sure he was going to tell the world that Iraq had nukes and we should roll in hot. In fact, he said the opposite. There were experts speaking and very few Americans listening. There was no new credible evidence about about Saddam's WMD capability; 1988 was old news.

I agree that hindsight is 20/20 and leaders make decisions with the information they have. But those leaders have to take responsibility for those same decisions. When you're taking a country to war, you need to do your homework. Ignoring the experts like Ritter while relying on old HUMINT and bogus info from "Curveball" and the Iraqi National Congress, nothing more than a crooked lobby, was criminal.

IRT your service in Iraq, I'm sure Saddam still had WMD when you were in country in 1990. And the liberation of Kuwait, decimation of the Iraqi military, containment of Iraqi political aspirations, economic sanctions, and forced disarmament proved effective.


But if you go back to the point of my endorsement's discussion of Iraq, my argument was about each candidate's judgment of the threat at the time and vision for the future of the war as of now. IMHO, Obama got it right then and now. McCain struck out both times- looking forward he offers a vision of US involvement in Iraq that is out of sync with what 70% of Americans and the Iraqi government want.

In thinking about the decisions our country will make about Iraq now and in the future, I compartmentalize feelings about my own service there- it is now a sunk cost. I served there proudly and I'll go back tomorrow if they want me to, I don't need any "do-over". But what I want, and have the power to vote for, is a leader who has the judgment and vision to know which wars to start or which ones to get out of. And that was the point of my article.

-Ben

Ben,

Fantastic post on the disturbing underlying messages coming out of McCain-Palin campaign and their casual use of fear-mongering and attempted character assassination of the opposition.

Like you and your colleagues that write for 2Dinar, I am a vet of Iraq (Tank PL in 3ID, during the invasion in 2003 and after), that has left active duty for other pursuits. It is heartening to see your efforts in trying to inject some rational (read: without emotional hyperbole) discourse about the two ongoing wars and implications of the current approach to US foreign policy as well as other veterans' issues that receive little attention. Keep up the great work!

Christian
London

Christian,

Thanks for your note.

We were on the fence about writing about this topic, but it had gotten just too nasty to leave it alone. Correct-on-the-spot mentality. I'm sure you can relate.

-Ben

That is a great article on the discrimination in the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. I am serving as an officer in the USAF and have tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan in which I worked heavily with the Army and Marines. I have worked with many gay airmen and soldiers (obviously not outspoken), and have come to the same conclusion as you, as have many in low to mid-level leadership positions within the military have: sexual orientation is not a major factor that impacts our mission accomplishment.

I watched the hearings and was fairly upset at the responses that Elaine Donnelly and others made regarding the impact that gays in the military have. Sure, there are those with homophobic tendencies that may react violently, but those people are the exception. I feel that this issue is the "segregation fight" of our generation. Gay service members are integral members of the fight to defend our country, as much as they are brothers, sisters, and members of our families. They should be afforded the same rights in the military as everyone else. Service in defense of our country, gay or straight, is service regardless and should be honored as such. I find it very hard to believe any member of the Congress or Senate, heck, the United States would rather take a round than allow a gay soldier to defend them.

Luke
NJ

Luke,

Thanks for your letter. It's essential that we veterans continue to explain this issue to everyday Americans and convince the country that the US military is the most professional in the world (beyond politicians' lip service), ready and willing, by our own words and actions, to do away with this discriminatory law.

-Ben

Dear 2 Dinar,

As a former-Marine, I'd like to thank you for the post of 05 May 08. Ben really elucidated I feeling that I live with constantly, yet am unable to effectively communicate. Ben's line; "The guilt of being indifferent to the hundreds of opportunities available to me because they all bored me and all I wanted to do was fight" sums up a daily struggle of mine.

I was an active duty Machine Gunner for A/1/3 and left the Marines with the plan of playing football in college then going back in to be an infantry officer, but football injuries caused me to fail my physical. Now I'm stuck in law school in New England, surrounded by elitists who complain about every little thing that goes wrong, always finding a way to shift blame from themselves. All I really think about is how much I'd much rather be in Fallujah right now, back in the only culture that has ever felt comfortable to me. It's nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks this way.

It's interesting that this post came out today. I had another dream about a failed attempt to re-enlist last night. Which I'm sure had something to do with the fact 4 Marines were killed in the Anbar Province yesterday, and one of my best friends is going back to Iraq in June.

Thanks for listening.

Richard
VT

Richard,

Thanks for your letter and for sharing your story. I was a bit apprehensive about printing that last article but as I've noticed more and more of our readers are vets like us who are living fairly siloed, confused lives, I thought I'd open up the discussion of these issues a bit more.

I caught the end of the PBS "Carrier" documentary series yesterday. In the show a lot of the sailors and officers talked about getting out and going on to civilian careers. For the ones that had families, I understood. But for the rest, I badly wanted to trade places with them. It's a way of life that has no equal.

-Ben