How the Iraq war is destroying America's fighting men

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,400
1,667
113
How the Iraq war is destroying America's fighting men
by CHARLES LAURENCE
Daily Mail

20th March 2007



U.S. soldiers: Are they being destroyed by the Iraq war?

For America's fighting forces, this is their darkest hour. The U.S. military, the most powerful fighting force on Earth, is facing a collapse in morale far more devastating even than that experienced in the toughest days of the Vietnam War.

The troops are bogged down in the occupation of Iraq, where they are trapped on a murderous front line in an urban guerilla war for which they had little preparation, and for which support at home has all but disappeared.

Faced with hostility abroad and indifference to the war at home, the soldiers are fast degenerating into an out-of-control force consumed by drink, drugs, sex crimes and mental collapse.

An appalling picture emerges from the daily headlines - the latest revealing that nearly one third of the injured coming home are suffering from the mental scars of war.

New figures show that of 104,000 who had sought medical help by the end of 2005, some 32,010 were suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, drug addiction or alcoholism - three times as many, proportionally, as those who returned from Vietnam.

At home in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the latest military murder trial into an Iraqi atrocity has opened with the prosecution alleging that Staff Sgt Ray Girourd, of the legendary 101st Airborne Division, ordered soldiers to slaughter male prisoners.

The incident took place last May during a raid on a suspected camp of insurgents outside Samarra. Two soldiers have already admitted to the killings. They have been sentenced to 18 years in a military jail and will testify for the prosecution.

Specialist William Hunsaker and Private Corey Clagett say Girourd, 24, ordered them to cut the prisoners free, let them run and then shoot them down, covering up the crime by making it look as if the prisoners were attacking and died in a firefight.

In his defence, Girourd's lawyers claim he was obeying orders from a senior officer, Colonel Michael Steele, commander of 3rd Brigade, to "kill all military-age men". If that proves to be true, President Bush's Iraqi adventure has brought America to an unprecedented new low of atrocity. So how has it come to this?

Perhaps part of the answer lies in the 'haji hooch' or 'haji juice', a locally-made, 90 per cent proof moonshine whisky regularly sold to American troops by Iraqi merchants and often smuggled into their bases by colleagues from the newly-formed Iraqi army.

It is swilled along with prescription drugs such as amphetamines, distributed by medics ordered to keep troops sharp for extended patrols and flight missions, and tranquilisers meant to calm nerves.

The American military, on ships as well as in army camps, has long been 'dry', with an official ban on all alcohol. But this has not stopped an Apocalypse Now-style dependency on drugs and booze in a crazed 'self-medication' that gets only worse with worsening fighting conditions, tightening an already depressing downward spiral.

Figures forced from the Pentagon by the New York Times under the Freedom of Information Act make shocking reading: 240 of the 665 cases of military indiscipline in Iraq and Afghanistan involved drugs and alcohol.

Seventy-three of those 240 cases were the most serious yet known from these two wars: murder, rape, robbery and assault.

To get an idea of how deep into depravity some of these men have sunk, here is just one of the sex offences: in March, 2006, a group of men - again from the 101st Airborne Division - gang-raped a 14-year-old girl, and then murdered her and her family.

They had been manning a road block in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, and drinking 'hajji juice' supplied by Iraqi soldiers for most of the day.

According to the prosecution evidence presented when he was charged with murder in a civilian court, Private Steven Green planned and led the attack.

He and at least three others broke into the house after changing into civilian clothes. They forced two adult women and a man into a separate room, and then took turns in raping the girl, and were still violating her when Green went into the other room and began shooting.

He returned to the rape scene saying that he had "shot them all", and then raped the girl himself before killing her with two bullets to the head. For all the murders, he used a Russian AK-47 rifle he had found in the house, and then casually dumped it in a canal.

Private Green, who was discharged from the army with a 'personality disorder', faces the death penalty.

In one case as long ago as May 2004, when President Bush was declaring 'victory' and the vast majority of Americans were still cheering him on, Private Justin Lillis got drunk on illicit whisky on his base in Balad, stole a Humvee and went on a rampage, shooting up a residential neighbourhood with his M16 rifle, before taking pot shots at the guards on the entrance to his own base.

Six months later, Private Chris Rolan of the Third Brigade got into a drink-fuelled argument with a fellow soldier and shot him dead with his 9mm service pistol.

Another remarkable statistic can be no co-incidence: a record number of women soldiers - as many as one-third of the total returning from tours in Iraq - are coming home pregnant.

Lyndie England, for example, the private who became the disgraceful face of torture at Abu Ghraib prison, photographed making sexual taunts at naked Iraqi prisoners, gave birth to the child of the ringleader of those disgraced torturers as she was about to be led off to a military jail.

There was already controversy over the role of women in combat as America marched to war in the Middle East. These figures suggest that the critics were right when they said that putting women soldiers on the front line would be a mistake.

But the women were never there on the front line because the Pentagon and White House believed in women's equality; they were there because President Bush launched this most irresponsible war when America was chronically short of combat troops.

The draft ended with the Vietnam War, too loathed by American voters for any politician to maintain, and so did a great many of the attractions of life in the armed forces. America switched to the kind of lean 'professional' army which was long before adopted by Britain, but it did so with much less success than Britain.

By 2000, America was enlisting pretty much anyone its recruiters could drag in off the streets. First they filled the vacancies with women, promising 'pride' and education for jobs which would last a lifetime.

Then they dropped the academic standards. Then they even lowered the standards for physical stature and fitness.

The idea was that smart-bombs and technological superiority would win wars on the ground anyway. Small, fast forces of overwhelming technological might would secure the world for American freedom and commerce. Boots on the ground, whether worn by male or female soldiers, belonged to the past.

This policy failed, of course, to be replaced by the 'surge' in extra troops, not to mention the everextended tours of duty by soldiers, thousands of them from the part-time National Guard (some of whom were also responsible for the "friendly fire" killing of a British soldier despite him having flourescent Coalition forces markings on his vehicle), who never really expected to have to leave home at all.

But the worst aspect of all this is the scandal about the Bush administration's treatment of its dead, wounded and suffering.

As any soldier will tell you, there is nothing so crucial as the treatment of casualties and traditions of honouring the dead.

This is sacred turf to fighting men: you are rescued from the battlefield at any price, you are mended if possible, you are honoured in death, and you take comfort from knowing that your loved ones will be cared for, come what may.

Did no one at the White House bother to read a little history? History tells us why the Royal Navy built the first of Britain's hospitals at Greenwich and why World War I Prime Minister David Lloyd George promised 'homes fit for heroes'. America has just been waking up to the scandal of the Walter Reed military hospital, where returning wounded were left unattended in rooms while rats scurried below their cots and doctors cut down on pain killers to save money.

For years, the Pentagon has banned the taking of photographs of returning coffins, while President Bush has refused to attend funerals because honouring the dead was deemed bad for public relations.

Already, there is a new crop of veterans joining the old lags from Vietnam on the streets of American cities, begging, robbing to support their drug addictions and lining-up outside the overnight shelters and the charity soup-kitchens.

It all points to another shocking statistic: almost one in three of troops returning from the Iraq and Afghan fronts in need of health care are wounded not in the body, but in the mind.

The younger the soldiers, the greater the incidence of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, alcoholism and drug addiction. This third compares with 10 per cent of Vietnam veterans - survivors of a war so far considered to have produced an unprecedented number of mental casualties.

The upshot of all this? If President Bush wants to know the full cost of his adventure in the Middle East, he must look beyond the bloody carnage in Iraq every day, to his own cities in America.

There he will see the shattered remains of many of the men - and women - he sent off to war and perhaps, just perhaps, realise what a dreadful mistake he has made.


dailymail.co.uk
 
Last edited:

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Aeiiiiiiiiii Caramba.... This Charles fellow has been into the Pimms or Ale too often.... is he for real????


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=439544&in_page_id=1770

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/http://forums.canadiancontent.net/Cruel Britannia

By CHARLES LAURENCE Comments (38)
Are we to blame for all the planet's problems?

Britain is apparently to blame for just about all of the planet's problems. In its days of might and glory, our Sceptred Isle was in fact an Evil Empire that enslaved the world, and is today responsible for everything from African genocides to the Iraq War and the conflict between Palestine and Israel.



We are also to blame for global warming - because Britain launched the Industrial Revolution which produced the smoke that polluted the sky that heated the world. And as if that was not bad enough, we also burned Joan of Arc at the stake, made cocaine 'look cool' and pandered to Hitler, before dragging the whole world into global conflict.
These are just some of the accusations against Britain in an outrageous new 'history' book, The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined The World, that looks set to blow a giant raspberry at the much-vaunted 'special relationship' between Britain and America.
It has been written by Steven Grasse, a selfstyled 'amateur historian' from Philadelphia, who believes that Britain has never been held to account for its role in some of the darkest chapters in global history.
After a successful career running a marketing agency, Grasse is now pouring his resources into launching his alternative view of Britain's national story - complete with websites, publicity stunts, video films and documentaries - because he wants to persuade the world that Britain is to blame for most global ills.
His aim is to grab the attention of a generation which no longer reads books and which is ignorant of history, but which, nonetheless, believes that America is the true Evil Empire.
'I'm not claiming that America is innocent of everything,' writes Grasse, 'but England is supposed to be our ally and our friend, and all we hear these days is how awful Americans are and what awful things America is doing. It is time people heard the other side of the story.'
So, in Grasse's eyes, Britain is to blame for world poverty and starvation, for The Great Plague, for the ravages of Nazis and Communists, and for Islamic terrorism today. Apparently, we are even to blame for the Vietnam War which humiliated America 35 years ago.
'There would have been no Vietnam War if there had been no French colony in Vietnam, and there would have been no French colony if England had not started with its colonies, which meant that everyone else had to have colonies too,' explains Grasse.
This is the sort of twisted logic that has inspired him to start the International Coalition for British Reparations, a new campaign launched with a full-page newspaper advertisement in America, which is demanding that Britain pay £31 trillion in damages to be distributed to every man, woman and child in the world as recompense for the damage the UK has inflicted around the globe.
'Look at World War I - you started that!' says Grasse. It was an unnecessary war, started by Britain because Germany wanted an Empire, which Britain, France and Russia had.
'You then dragged America into it. The whole bloody history of the 20th century, including the Nazi genocide, starts from that point. The average person does not know any of this.'
And here is Grasse on the Anglo-Chinese Opium War of 1840, when Britain sent a task force to protect its trading outposts. In a chapter headed 'They Hooked the Chinese on Opium', he writes: 'What could be worse than looking out your window and seeing a drug dealer, peddling his narcotics to every passer-by?
'How about a drug dealer who sets up camp on your doorstep and pummels your walls with musket fire and cannon balls until you allow him to sell drugs from inside your very home?
'Grisly stuff, I know, but it's exactly what Britain did to China during the 19th-century opium wars.' (Never mind that opium was not, in fact, illegal at the time - or that this anti-protectionist measure gave rise to the global free market from which America has prospered so greatly).
But it is when Grasse turns his eye to more recent problems that his accusations become as hysterical as they are inaccurate.
For he believes that many of the global problems we think of as being recent developments can be traced back to Britain's doorstep. He blames the spread of global warming on Britain's dependence on coal during the industrial revolution - a 'fact' made worse by our apparent indifference to global warming.
As for the debacle in Iraq, Grasse believes Britain is to blame for the bogus scaremongering over weapons of mass destruction which led to the ill-conceived assault on Saddam.
Even more of a liability in war than Blair himself, though, were 'the touchy British people, who seemed to want our mission to fail the day it began'.
Yes, we Limeys are untrustworthy allies, whose manifold failings include our antiegalitarian attachment to the Monarchy.
'It's more than tradition,' writes Grasse. 'It's worship. The British people desperately need a strict hierarchy to function. It needs to put a crown on an old lady simply for the sake of having someone to bow down before.'
Such assertions are so wrongheaded that serious historians don't know whether to laugh or rage. Among the first to comment was Jonathan Steinberg at the University of Pennsylvania.
He points out that in the 'plus' side of British history lay, just for a start, the Magna Carta, the creation of the first free Press and the first free markets, not to mention the abolition of slavery.
But it is only the bad things that interest Grasse. 'I want to start a debate; to throw a rock in the pond and watch the ripples,' he says.
One reason for his campaign is that he believes that after the debacle of President Bush's war on terror, young Americans have fallen into an era of national selfloathing, equal to that which paralysed the U.S. in the wake of the Vietnam War.
He hopes to restore American pride by pointing out that Britain has a far more shameful past than the U.S., but has never been forced to own up to its injustices.
'The English have never been forced to confront their past,' he says. 'Germany has. Japan has. America has - America does; we are always wringing our hands over what we did to the Indians, what we are doing to the Iraqis.
'Well, there wouldn't BE an Iraq if it wasn't for the Evil Empire (Britain) which created it, which created Saddam.'
Though much of his book is risible, Grasse is no fool. What he wants is for the rest of the world, led by Britain, to stop accusing America of being the root of all evil. He has a point.
Despite it being the world's only truly democratic superpower, pouring scorn on America has become something of an obsession among Britain's bien pensants.
'Why did some people even blame George Bush for the effects of Hurricane Katrina?' Grasse asks. 'He didn't start the hurricane, and the levees which burst were built before he was born.'
The danger is, of course, that by making equally absurd accusations against Britain, Grasse risks provoking the anti-American sentiment that he so objects to.
In its far-fetched assault on British history, his book is less of a rock causing ripples in the pond of public discourse than a giant pair of hobnailed boots, marked Uncle Sam, delivering a wholesale kicking to America's staunchest ally.
And as the saying goes: with friends like these, who needs enemies?
The Evil Empire: 101 Ways That England Ruined The World by Steven Grasse. Published by Quirk Books/ Chronicle Books plc and distributed in the UK by Grantham Book Services. £9.99.


http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ Add your comment | View all Comments (38)


38 people have commented on this story so far. Tell us what you think below.

Here's a sample of the latest comments published. You can click view all to read all comments that readers have sent in.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/What a joke. Total poppycock. Hogwash.

We Indians would always be grateful. The Britons (rather, the English) came, got rid of the minority tyrannical rulers, modernised our country and left it one country.

Britain and the English are good, decent people and the world owes them a debt of gratitude. The 20th century world was a better place because of the English.

- Paul, Stamford, CT
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/I guess that's one colonial who still has a bit of a chip on their shoulder!
Let's remember who created the term 'politically correct' - yes, that's right the good ol' US of A - thanks!

- Mr S Mall, Yorkshire
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/It's about time that Britian took responsibility for something! The Brits have made it their life's work to blame the US for everything from the bird flu to 9/11.

- Jay, Green, US

View all http://forums.canadiancontent.net/Add your comment


Name:
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Opening article: "Faced with hostility abroad and indifference to the war at home, the soldiers are fast degenerating into an out-of-control force consumed by drink, drugs, sex crimes and mental collapse."

An outrageous generalization! This is what you get when people with a fifth grade education are encouraged to be reporters!
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
68
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Opening article: "Faced with hostility abroad and indifference to the war at home, the soldiers are fast degenerating into an out-of-control force consumed by drink, drugs, sex crimes and mental collapse."

An outrageous generalization! This is what you get when people with a fifth grade education are encouraged to be reporters!
-------------------------------------------Tamarin---------------------------------------------

Good post, Tamarin.

However there is a mob willing to believe what it wants to hear.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The tacky details tsk tsk, but what's realy destroying America's fighting men is thier own beloved government who's sending them back three or four times untill thier completely consumed by war, and what's worse when the damaged come home they damage the system and thier familys.Others are like human time bombs ticking away in the closets for years.:smile:
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
Yep, how the Iraq War is presented like some kind of inherent, inescapable component of reality (you can love it or hate it, but it WILL EXIST NO MATTER WHAT) is BOUND to cause a whole bunch of REAL casualties...

The Iraq War is not only destroying the US fighting forces, but the nation itself (not to mention the shattering effect on millions of Iraqi lives- good thing I read elsewheres on here that the suffering of ingrateful cowards is not as significant as the suffering of the men and women forced to inflict and endure same)

Good Ol Hubris strikes again- and I am trul saddened by the imapact on the "common man" as I am one of them, but as long as there's cheerleaders of the war who will bemoan the harmful (and inevitable) consequences while still somehow seeing the actual effort as "Necesary", the suffering will continue, and grow, and spread
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
There are few "cheerleaders" for the war on these forums. We just want some balanced, sensible reporting. What we too often see is hysterical grandstanding put out by people with more fluff in their heads than a pillow.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Even if you believe that the American military is the greatest on earth....how well do you suppose the entire American army airforce and navy would do against a standing army of hundreds of millions of Chinese?

Alternatives to war must be found....some other metric than one nations ability to wage war on some other nation will either be found or we will keep repeating the same madness over and over and over...
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Mikey, the American experience in Iraq has been an eye opener. Shock and Awe and Operation Iraqi Freedom have succumbed to disbelief as the country tumbled into civil war.
The Chinese love this. Seeing the mighty US falling on its own sword. The great military juggernaut flummoxed by a group of disenchanted Islamic rebels. It's all embarrassing.
Will war finally end as a human option? No. Look at the UN and the ensconced special interest there and the numbing inability to put concrete, enforceable proposals forward. This is our lead international dispute resolution panel. It's useless!
 

mabudon

Metal King
Mar 15, 2006
1,339
30
48
Golden Horseshoe, Ontario
if the US gets rendered toothless, maybe the balance of power in the UN will shift and outright vetoes wil not be allowed- how folks can praise the US and complain about the ineffectuality (real word??) of the UN is odd, seing as the US is the one hobbling it for the most part
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
The UN isn't just the failing of the US. Russia and China are on distinctly different paths from the US at the moment and each is lobbing bricks into the organization's wheels.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Opening article: "Faced with hostility abroad and indifference to the war at home, the soldiers are fast degenerating into an out-of-control force consumed by drink, drugs, sex crimes and mental collapse."

An outrageous generalization! This is what you get when people with a fifth grade education are encouraged to be reporters!
-------------------------------------------Tamarin---------------------------------------------

Good post, Tamarin.

However there is a mob willing to believe what it wants to hear.

Good post and this is exactly what that mob wants to hear.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Even if you believe that the American military is the greatest on earth....how well do you suppose the entire American army airforce and navy would do against a standing army of hundreds of millions of Chinese?

Alternatives to war must be found....some other metric than one nations ability to wage war on some other nation will either be found or we will keep repeating the same madness over and over and over...

Well if we invaded China, not so well. But China will never be able to invade the US. As far as the Navy is concerned I believe that China would take a beaten if the war started today. Same with their Air Force.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Eaglesmack

Yessss we know that American satellites are impervious to missile attack right....

Would you support the use of nuclear weapons to keep China in check?

Would you stop shopping at WalMart if that meant decreasing the billions of dollars Waltons and the PRC pocket?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
95
48
USA
Eaglesmack

Yessss we know that American satellites are impervious to missile attack right....

Would you support the use of nuclear weapons to keep China in check?

Would you stop shopping at WalMart if that meant decreasing the billions of dollars Waltons and the PRC pocket?

So what does China hitting a satellite. Do you think that the US is just saying

"Oh well... I guess we can't use satellites anymore."

China started another arms race and we will find ways to counter it.

Depends on what you mean by "in check". I did not even put the TRIAD into the equation. If I had China would never survive a all out nuclear strike.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
So what does China hitting a satellite. Do you think that the US is just saying

"Oh well... I guess we can't use satellites anymore."

China started another arms race and we will find ways to counter it.

Depends on what you mean by "in check". I did not even put the TRIAD into the equation. If I had China would never survive a all out nuclear strike.

Christ man, nobody builds more weapons than yanks, you're in a perpetual arms race that you live off. Nobody will survive an all out nuclear attack, and that's a fact.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Mikey, the American experience in Iraq has been an eye opener. Shock and Awe and Operation Iraqi Freedom have succumbed to disbelief as the country tumbled into civil war.
The Chinese love this. Seeing the mighty US falling on its own sword. The great military juggernaut flummoxed by a group of disenchanted Islamic rebels. It's all embarrassing.
Will war finally end as a human option? No. Look at the UN and the ensconced special interest there and the numbing inability to put concrete, enforceable proposals forward. This is our lead international dispute resolution panel. It's useless!

Iraq is not in a state of civil war.
The great military juggernaut screwed itself.
The UN is useless by design, it was susceptable to control from the begining so it's controled.
Examination of the concrete proposals that have been put forward in the UN reveals who scuttled everyone of them.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
That no one would survive the next war if taken "nuclear" ...isn't a concern to America or Americans...

The "Cold War" was about the impertinence of the socialist scoundrel Castro exhibiting the temerity to harbor nuke-capable weapons just off Miami Beach... among other things of course...

That Iran or Iraq or Syria or any other nation wants the "clout" of nuclear weapons to deter the United States from its pursuit of political ideological and economic control of the world is simply the "Cold War" continued under a different "name"...

America hasn't suffered as a people ...to the degree that Canada or most European nations have suffered in watching as huge numbers of their populations were fed into the merchantile mill of greed and destruction in the name of "fascism" or "communism" or any of the ideological labels that can be identified as the "cause" behind two world wars...

Peal Harbor is a footnote compared to the generations long suffering of nations against which the American corporate machinery has deployed nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and billions of dollars ..

Americans and the majority of Canadians are simply too young to remember these extraveganzas of death and destruction.... It's all a video game and "good" movies...

When service people return from Iraq and Afghanistan, from all the loci of greed meeting resistance, the younger generations don't have a scale to measure or reference....it's something you read about in a book or watch on a theatre screen...

America revels in its war-making, simply because the climate of violence and destruction that renders millions dead and infrastructures devastated in other distant nations isn't something "real" to Americans or America...

It's something that happens far far away...over there where all those ragheads and gooks live...

I'm certainly not discounting or attempting to diminish the contribution that the United States has made to defeating the enemies of peace around the world in the past hundred years, but why is it that American's seem to feel that "war" is perfectly acceptable ...until body-bags and amputees' in sufficient numbers begin to be witnessed on their TV's and talked about on the Internet?

Why isn't carnage and mayhem as real to America as it is to the rest of the world?