"Bring 'Em On?"

[Mortimer]

A Former Special Forces Soldier Responds to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis to Attack US Troops

What do ex and current armed forces members think of this?


"Bring 'Em On?"
By STAN GOFF

In 1970, when I arrived at my unit, Company A, 4th Battalion/503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, in what was then the Republic of Vietnam, I was charged up for a fight. I believed that if we didn't stop the communists in Vietnam, we'd eventually be fighting this global conspiracy in the streets of Hot Springs, Arkansas. I'd been toughened by Basic Training, Infantry Training and Parachute Training, taught how to use my weapons and equipment, and I was confident in my ability to vanquish the skinny unter-menschen. So I was dismayed when one of my new colleagues--a veteran who'd been there ten months--told me, "We are losing this war."

Not only that, he said, if I wanted to survive for my one year there, I had to understand one very basic thing. All Vietnamese were the enemy, and for us, the grunts on the ground, this was a race war. Within one month, it was apparent that everything he told me was true, and that every reason that was being given to the American public for the war was not true.

We had a battalion commander whom I never saw. He would fly over in a Loach helicopter and give cavalier instructions to do things like "take your unit 13 kilometers to the north." In the Central Highlands, 13 kilometers is something we had to hack out with machetes, in 98-degree heat, carrying sometimes 90 pounds over our body weights, over steep, slippery terrain. The battalion commander never picked up a machete as far as we knew, and after these directives he'd fly back to an air-conditioned headquarters in LZ English near Bong-son. We often fantasized together about shooting his helicopter down as a way of relieving our deep resentment against this faceless, starched and spit-shined despot.

Yesterday, when I read that US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," the first image in my mind was a 20-year-old soldier in an ever-more-fragile marriage, who'd been away from home for 8 months. He participated in the initial invasion, and was told he'd be home for the 4th of July. He has a newfound familiarity with corpses, and everything he thought he knew last year is now under revision. He is sent out into the streets of Fallujah (or some other city), where he has already been shot at once or twice with automatic weapons or an RPG, and his nerves are raw. He is wearing Kevlar and ceramic body armor, a Kevlar helmet, a load carrying harness with ammunition, grenades, flex-cuffs, first-aid gear, water, and assorted other paraphernalia. His weapon weighs seven pounds, ten with a double magazine. His boots are bloused, and his long-sleeve shirt is buttoned at the wrist. It is between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. He's been eating MRE's three times a day, when he has an appetite in this heat, and even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives. Mosquitoes and sand flies plague him in the evenings, and he probably pulls a guard shift every night, never sleeping straight through. He and his comrades are beginning to get on each others' nerves. The rumors of 'going-home, not-going-home' are keeping him on an emotional roller coaster. Directives from on high are contradictory, confusing, and often stupid. The whole population seems hostile to him and he is developing a deep animosity for Iraq and all its people--as well as for official narratives.

This is the lad who will hear from someone that George W. Bush, dressed in a suit with a belly full of rich food, just hurled a manly taunt from a 72-degree studio at the 'non-existent' Iraqi resistance.

This de facto president is finally seeing his poll numbers fall. Even chauvinist paranoia has a half-life, it seems. His legitimacy is being eroded as even the mainstream press has discovered now that the pretext for the war was a lie. It may have been control over the oil, after all. Anti-war forces are regrouping as an anti-occupation movement. Now, exercising his one true talent--blundering--George W. Bush has begun the improbable process of alienating the very troops upon whom he depends to carry out the neo-con ambition of restructuring the world by arms.

Somewhere in Balad, or Fallujah, or Baghdad, there is a soldier telling a new replacement, "We are losing this war."

[James]

Prepare for flames!

I believe that George W. Bush broke his trust with the young men and women who serve in the United States military when he ordered them to invade Iraq. I do not believe that Iraq was a threat to our national security. Hussein was a despot, yes, but so are a lot of national leaders. If the natives won't take the issue into their own hands, why should we?

Now our jackass president makes a comment like this. If I was still on active duty, my response would be "Well then you come and f#@king stand post for a while, s*&thead!"

I am not voting for him again. I am ashamed that I did in 2000.

God bless America.

[Ratamacue]

I disagree with you about the invasion, James, but that's not what the thread's about.

I wholeheartedly agree that Bush had no reason to make a statement. He's not in the thick of it, wearing a K-Pot and kevlar vest in the middle of the desert summer. However, has there ever been an article or statement made by an actual soldier serving in Iraq right now in response to what the president has said?

I have yet to see one. All the articles I have seen have been by journalists, or editorials by ex-soldiers living in the US and by regular every-day people. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for our veterans, and certainly their opinions on a matter such as this have more base than those of your average American Joe. And this man especially, as he was in a situation relatively similar to the one facing our people in Iraq today. However, despite this, he is not actually there, serving alongside the troops. He can't actually speak for them or their opinions. I'll leave it at that.

"Just some thoughts..."
- Tane Angle.

[Mortimer]

I read an article somewhere about a soldier who was sent to Iraq. The night before he was deployed he went on some radio program and talked about how he was opposed to the war but was going to go anyway.

He's dead now, KIA in june.

[Ratamacue]

I wasn't really referring to statements made about for/against the war, but statements made by the soldiers about what Bush said. There have been plenty of soldiers that have made it known that they're against the war (that kid who joined the Marines even though he was a pacifist comes to mind :slap: )

[hood]

... it's been 3 months. 3 stinkin' months since the end of major hostilities and now we're losing the war? the analogies between this and a conflict that dragged on for 7 years are rediculous in my mind. should he make statements like that? probably not.

[ogukuo72]

The vulnerable point of the United States is the will of its people. It is a common perception that the American people has no stomach for a prolonged fight, that the United States will give up when the casualties gets too high. Don't forget, the Vietnam War was not lost in Vietnam, but back home.

That's why once the US is in, it must see the whole thing true, no matter what the casualties. It must tell the would-be tyrants and terrorists that US will bear any price to protect its citizens and its vital interests.

So, stop belly-aching and start acting like a man!

[Argyll]

Steady there Hood,I don't think anybody said we were losing the war!!
Its a change of pace,and objectives for the guys in the field,but the overall Mission Objective is still there.it's still Op Iraqi Freedom.
I think that some points raised are quite valid,and some not.....Psyhing your enemy up can be counter productive,especially doing it from a safe distance ,whilst others are in harms way.
GWB was IMHO just giving a rallying call to the country to show that he means business,to the guys on the ground it probably wasn't the smartest thing to say!!

[redcut]

War is hell. We are so graced to have a country that could have taken on this terrible dictator and annihilated his regime in such a short period of time.There were so few casualties on either side. Hussein had to be stopped. His ties to terrorism, direct and indirect are so very blatant.

If you want to live in the land of the free where your kids can wake up and hear the birds sing, where you can choose life and lifestyle, then terrorism must be met with a heavy hand.

Who will we blame if another catastrophy strikes like 9-11? How can we insure that terrorism does not happen? Hold hands and sing Kumbaya? Ask the liberal media to hold arab religious service before 10 oclock news?

No.We gotta be thankful. We've got to stand behind our President, who is keeping us safe, and our military who is keeping our borders without war.

I think we have to be firm handed. And we gotta get together boys. And we gotta get patriotic and stand firm, like our Grandaddies did. God bless America and God bless Freedom.

[Royal]

If you want to live in the land of the free where your kids can wake up and hear the birds sing, where you can choose life and lifestyle, then terrorism must be met with a heavy hand.

You are oh so very wrong there. Terrorism must be met with a very light and surgical hand.

If there is one thing that the CT Ops of the last 50 odd years has taught us, it is that heavyhandedness breeds more terrorism. That is why the SF/Int Operator is so important - he (or she) is the surgeon.

[Mortimer]

redcut.....i've been here awhile and seen some pretty gulible people but you've topped it off...

[Kriz]

War is hell. We are so graced to have a country that could have taken on this terrible dictator and annihilated his regime in such a short period of time.There were so few casualties on either side. Hussein had to be stopped. His ties to terrorism, direct and indirect are so very blatant.


Excuse me such a terrible dictator ? Did you suddenly forget that you supported this terrible dictator when he was in war with Iran ? Ow but yes I forgot then it was usefull for the USA to have someone like him in place :roll: I guess the people who died then don't matter.
And besides what ties to terrorism ? I still haven't seen no real proof of that (and no a hospital visit of an Al Qaeda member doesn't proof he has "ties with them).


Anyway just some comments.

[SABER 2-3]

Redcut,
Your heart is in the right place (right where mine was at 17 and enlisting into the Army) but you have much to learn.
Royal,
Well said. I agree.
Ogukuo72,
Also agree.
Tane,
How will we know when our guys have had to much. Even w/ the threat of prosecution there must be some tell tale signs.

[Mortimer]

http://www.bringthemhomenow.com/
stacks of stuff here on the same topic.....

[Rantanplan]

"even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives"

Oh My God! Is that True !?!?!!? :|

[Dan66]

Take anything Stan Goff says with a grain of salt. While he is a veteran of several US Army special operations units, his record is less than stellar. Do a little research on him. If I recall, he was in one of the Ranger Battalions for a while until he made it into CAG. If memory serves me, he served there for 5 years, and then was booted for reasons that are unclear. From there, he went to SF, and was a team sergeant. He was originally part of TF Ranger in Somalia, as an SF medic attached to the Ranger regiment, until he got into an argument with Captain Steele and was sent home(pre Oct. 3). While an SF team sergeant, he also served in Haiti. Details are also fuzzy about this, but for some reason, he was pulled out of there and the ODA commander relieved of command. He's definatley a BTDT, but he is now a left wing activist with an axe to grind. Whatever.

[budanski]

Goff is also a defender of that (former) Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic. He is a member of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic. (ICDSM). Article here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sorabia/message/16706

This guy was a soldier for 26 some odd years. It's strange that it took that many years of killing and doing the government's bidding to become disillusioned and develop a conscience...

Here are some good links.
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson080103.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson072503.asp
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-phelps080103.asp

[Dan66]

So you look down on soldiers?

[budanski]

yeah, I commit my time here spreading the leftist agenda.

[Dan66]

It's a free country. Do what you want.

[redcut]

Being for your leader and your country is naive? Asking your fellow contrymen to rally behind and be for the same is unintelligent? Patriotism and believe that our leaders make the right choices is my right and should be everyone's hope.

All the facts about national decisions may not get in the hands of TV heads.

Looks like there is an overwhelming negativity towards our military effort in Iraq discussing in this forum. As it is in the media..............

England is in favor of what USA does, they are in Iraq. If our country thought it was sound and prudent to leave Iraq now, then we would not be there, plain and simple. Yes there is turmoil. there is subversion. Terrorism is to be fought as it appears.

Yes surgically would be best if we could have.Leaving a thug country that wants to hurt other contries with atomic bombs and chemical boms and anthrax is not smart. The end product of changing a regime has transpired.

Letting the Arab countries know that we will not be intimidated and that we won't hold there hands and praise Allah is why we are there.Even if we did the Jihad wants all westerners dead. DEAD.Yes the oil is a factor. So is the fact that its in the middle of a hell hole for our boys.Things are integral and related.

So let me say that the majority of the READERS and VIEWERS of this board are in agreement with my view in my estimation. The group that writes on this board comes from a smaller populace and may very well be drawn from a grouping that is of a mindset that is not that of the readership. Hence the negativity towards the USA involvement in IRAQ.

[Royal]

England is in favor of what USA does, they are in Iraq. If our country thought it was sound and prudent to leave Iraq now, then we would not be there, plain and simple. Yes there is turmoil. there is subversion. Terrorism is to be fought as it appears.

I am not going to get into your niaivity - simply to point out that England is not in Iraq (it is just north of continental Europe, no where near Iraq). - British forces are in Iraq...

You are also wildly niaive if you believe that England (or Great Britian) is in favour of everything the US does. Yes we are allies. No we are not sycophants.

[Saranof]

War is hell. We are so graced to have a country that could have taken on this terrible dictator and annihilated his regime in such a short period of time.There were so few casualties on either side. Hussein had to be stopped. His ties to terrorism, direct and indirect are so very blatant.

If you want to live in the land of the free where your kids can wake up and hear the birds sing, where you can choose life and lifestyle, then terrorism must be met with a heavy hand.

Who will we blame if another catastrophy strikes like 9-11? How can we insure that terrorism does not happen? Hold hands and sing Kumbaya? Ask the liberal media to hold arab religious service before 10 oclock news?

No.We gotta be thankful. We've got to stand behind our President, who is keeping us safe, and our military who is keeping our borders without war.

I think we have to be firm handed. And we gotta get together boys. And we gotta get patriotic and stand firm, like our Grandaddies did. God bless America and God bless Freedom.

Is this a joke? I hope so.
You've got this fron Fox news yeah?
Read 11/9 by Noam Chomsky and get the real facts.

[lefador1]

Letting the Arab countries know that we will not be intimidated and that we won't hold there hands and praise Allah is why we are there.Even if we did the Jihad wants all westerners dead. DEAD.Yes the oil is a factor. So is the fact that its in the middle of a hell hole for our boys.Things are integral and related.


Too bad, attacking Iraq lets other Arab countries know that us Americans are really bad at Geography. It so happens that over 90% of the alleged highjackers were from Saudi Arabia. The country is right South of Iraq, if we had such willingness to do the "right thing" and we were so "macho" we would have invaded them. But oh, lordy that would have been a little bit inconvenient. Instead we went for a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, whose only crime was to have a ****ed up dictator who we supported in the 80s, and whose country had been starved for over a decade. Now, what message are we sending again, that we can win over run down countries. Jeez....



So let me say that the majority of the READERS and VIEWERS of this board are in agreement with my view in my estimation. The group that writes on this board comes from a smaller populace and may very well be drawn from a grouping that is of a mindset that is not that of the readership. Hence the negativity towards the USA involvement in IRAQ.

Huh, what do you have some sort of mind reading device... how dare you talking on anyone else's name. What is that we are fighting to bring democracy and freedom to another country (yeah right) but dissenters at home are not tolerated?

Bush sent our boys because he claimed Saddam could launch a non conventional warfare attack within minutes (I believe 45 minute deployment time was claimed). We sent out boys, they invaded Iraq without any prior provocation, so that puts the US under a very very very dangerous precedent BTW. And guess what Saddam was a crazy psycho bastard, and he was sent a few bunker busters with his name on it. And what did he did with his WMD? Eh? I mean if that is not the time to use one's WMD I don't know when it is.

So what are we doing there, we keep our boys under some of the most hostile conditions, we cut their pay, and the only priority so far seems to get the Iraqui flowing again...... but Oh my god if anyone dares to point this out he must be an AntiAmerican! It is sad really....

[SABER 2-3]

When did the DoD get a cut in pay? My LESs showed 2 seperate pay raises so far this year...and Hazardous duty pay, tax free helps.

[lefador1]

As far as the American grunts are concerned their pay rises approved last april will be cut back. That means that deployed personnel will get $75.00 less a month in "imminent danger pay" and $150.00 less per month in "family separation allowances." So basicaly a a $250.00 paycut, a real morale booster.... unless congress gets their act together after Labor Day.

[SABER 2-3]

Well we can only pray that Congress does not see fit to give them selves a pay raise over the summer.

[lefador1]

Well we can only pray that Congress does not see fit to give them selves a pay raise over the summer.

I don't know if they will, but what we can be 100% sure is that they will not be giving themselves a pay cut anytime soon.

[budanski]

Too bad, attacking Iraq lets other Arab countries know that us Americans are really bad at Geography.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/florida/MGA69JKP7ID.html

[Salty Dog]

2 things...1.i think he does have a mind reading device and obviously knows what everyone on this forum is thinking. and 2. hahaha rofl

[garyfanclub]

yeah, I commit my time here spreading the leftist agenda.

ROTFLMAO

[Barabas]

Couldn't agree with ROYAL more. We all know that small unit tactics have got to be met with the same principle recipe. SFops have got to continue and in earnest, the moment we decapitate the monsters head it's functions cease. I hate reading about the 55+ deaths that have occurred since the fall of Baghdad. Damn, if it don't make you mad to hear this President consistently add fuel to an already raging inferno. "Hey, Bush, shut up and let the soldiers soldier!"

[usa320]

Mortimer- He sucks. Alot. :slap:

[front]

Hey Budanski

The link you posted above points to an article entitled:

U.S. Wins World Geography Title

Now when I read down through the article I came across this particular piece:

"Eighteen countries from as far away as Singapore and Nigeria sent three-student teams to the two-day tournament at Busch Gardens."

18 countries does not constitutes a "world championship".


Here is a link which you might find more interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/11/20/geography.quiz/

It is a link to an article on CNN, no less, which is titled:

Global goofs: U.S. youth can't find Iraq

A great quote from that article:

"More American young people can tell you where an island that the 'Survivor' TV series came from is located than can identify Afghanistan or Iraq. Ironically a TV show seems more real or at least more meaningful interesting or relevant than reality."


There is a common thread linking both articles... the National Geographic Society. Here is the link to the survey used in the last article... it's very interesting:

http://geosurvey.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey/

cheers

front

[budanski]

Seeing that the title says "defends" (http://www.thesandiegochannel.com/education/2334589/detail.html) and "retain" (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0715_030715_geographycompetition.html), Im assuming that their win wasnt a fluke like you make it out to be.

[front]

Ah now... I did'nt make it out to be a "fluke" at all mister.Today is Fair and Balanced day... so I had to make a post with a link to balance out your point in your article with that link.

You point out that America wins the World Geography Championship... and I point out, as I'm fair and balanced, that it simply does not deserve the title of World Championship as only 18 countries were involved.

You see how that works? 18 countries = world? No.



Fair and Balanced links:

http://www.nealpollack.com/cgi-bin/blog/do.cgi/200308122150/permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46985-2003Aug11?language=printer

cheers

front

[ScoutRanger]

Tommy Franks also said Bring them on.

[ScoutRanger]

front, why do you care so much?

[lefador1]

Tommy Franks also said Bring them on.

...yeah, on his last day in the job before going back home to his wife. So?

[lefador1]

front, why do you care so much?


Front brought a good point, cuz most Americans could not name nor identify all the New England states correctly, nor differenciate the Dakotas... so assuming they know world Geography is a bit of a stretch, no matter how many "World Championships" they win :). This is the same as claiming that because we won the gold medal in the 100 meters that we are the fastest nation. No, one of our citizens is the fastest, we can not extrapolate from there that the fat bastards who are watching him on the tely while eating TV dinners are somehow fit and fast....

[budanski]

A tale of two nations
Michael Barone
U.S.News (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/archive/030512/20030512040259_brief.php)


Who has not been impressed by the American military personnel we have been seeing over these past two months? Calm, terse, determined, brave, confident--above all, competent, able to vanquish the enemy and spare the innocent with astonishingly low casualties. And yet a few years ago most of these young men and women were typical American 18-year-olds, most of whom don't seem competent at much of anything.


One of the peculiar features of our country is that we produce incompetent 18-year-olds and remarkably competent 30-year-olds. Americans at 18 typically score lower on standardized tests than 18-year-olds from other advanced countries. Watch them on their first few days working at McDonald's or behind the counter in chain drugstores, and it's obvious that they don't really know how to make change or keep the line moving. But by the time Americans are 30, they are the most competent people in the world. They produce a stronger and more vibrant private-sector economy; they produce scientific and technical advances that lead the world; they provide the world's best medical care; they create the strongest and most agile military the world has ever seen. And it's not just a few meritocrats at the top: American talent runs wide and deep.


Why? Because from the age of 6 to 18, our kids live mostly in what I call Soft America--the part of our society where there is little competition and accountability. In contrast, most Americans in the 12 years between ages 18 and 30 live mostly in Hard America--the part of American life subject to competition and accountability; the military trains under live fire. Soft America seeks to instill self-esteem. Hard America plays for keeps.



Fighting back. Soft America for a long time has been running most of our schools. Since early in the 20th century, as Diane Ravitch has shown in Left Back, educators have had a mistrust of testing and competition and a yearning to protect children from their rigors. Educators ban tag and dodge ball, because some kids lose. Teacher unions seek tenure, higher pay, and lower accountability. Parents' expectations are often low: Mom and Dad, busy working in Hard America, don't want to notice that their kids are not learning much. There are exceptions of course: Many schools do a good job despite all this. But for most kids who are not on the track to the relatively few select colleges, junior high and high school are something like the Soviet system: They pretend to teach, and we pretend to learn.


Then at 18, kids encounter Hard America--competitive colleges and universities and community colleges, competitive private-sector employers, training institutions from McDonald's to the military. Some fall behind and don't get much of anywhere. Others seek out enclaves of Soft America--soft corners in the civil service or corporate bureaucracies. But most figure out pretty quickly that how they do depends on what they produce. They develop skills that astonish those who knew them at 18. That is what we have been seeing in the American military forces in Iraq.


Soft America took over much of society because in the early and middle 20th century, America seemed to many people to be too Hard. Not many kids made it up the educational and job ladders. Much work was hard labor, and in the 1930s, jobs were scarce and charity inadequate. Educators wanted to make schools Soft, and New Dealers wanted to shield people from the marketplace with strong unions and Social Security. By the 1970s Soft America was trying to Soften Hard America with guaranteed incomes, job tenure, and comparable worth (bureaucrats, not markets, setting salaries).


In the 1980s and 1990s Hard America fought back. Surging private-sector growth brushed aside attempts to Soften the Hard economy. The military, hobbled by public contempt after Vietnam, built a voluntary force in which people could gain benefits and honor by performing. Politicians started passing laws to make the people who run the schools accountable for results. A sensible society wants to keep some part of itself Soft: We don't want to subject kindergartners to the rigors of the Marine Corps or to leave old people helpless and uncared for. But a sensible society also understands--and the military has been driving home the lesson--that Soft America lives off the productivity, creativity, and competence of Hard America. And that we have the luxury of keeping part of our society Soft only if we keep most of it Hard.

[California Joe]

George shouldn't shoot off his mouth like that. It's Rumsfeld's job afterall. George should be watching out for the economy and his 2 little drunken sorority chick daughters before they end up on the next Girls Gone Wild tape.

[Trigger]

Better them than Chelsea...

*shudder*

[California Joe]

I didn't say I wouldn't watch.

I'd do them in tha bad hole.

[budanski]

Be careful. Uday got his crotch bloodied just for having their pictures. ;)

[lefador1]

Be careful. Uday got his crotch bloodied just for having their pictures. ;)

LOL, I guess that half of the UT and Yale male population will be getting visits from the secret service soon. LOL rofl

[Argyll]

You guys have got it all wrong!!
Uday's crotch was all bloodied cause he'd just gone through a real bad "period"(His last 3 hours!!) rofl