Marine Commander Says Iraq Pullout In 16 Months 'Doable'
National Journal's CongressDailyPM
February 24, 2009
by Otto Kreisher
Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly, who just completed a yearlong assignment as the top commander in western Iraq, said today he believes the Iraqi people "have made a commitment to government over violence" and that President Obama's proposal to withdraw most combat forces in 16 months "is very doable" in most of the country. Kelly, who was commander of Multi-National Forces West and deputy commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force, said the war in Iraq would go on, but as "a war to establish a lasting democracy."
Kelly, who has done three tours in Iraq since 2003, conceded Iraq may never have an American-style democracy. But the general, speaking at a defense writers' breakfast, said he believes that even the Sunni leaders in Anbar province, once considered the heart of the anti-American insurgency, were committed to settling differences politically rather than resorting to violence. He said that the Iraqi army and police had assumed virtually total responsibility for security in the previously volatile region, describing the level of violence there as "meaningless."
Although withdrawing U.S. forces too rapidly poses some danger, Kelly said, leaving too slowly would prevent Iraqi security forces from taking control. He noted that he deliberately removed his forces from major cities to force Iraqi security forces to step up -- and it worked. The general also said he stopped spending U.S. money on infrastructure to force the Iraqi government to take on that responsibility.
Kelly cautioned that it would not be possible simply to transfer tactics and concepts from Iraq to Afghanistan. Nonetheless, he argued that the key to improving security in both countries was to increase contact with the people, rather than simply focusing on killing insurgents.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Army muscles cash contributions, cuts scholarships
Probe finds Army charity hoards millions
Military's biggest charity is stockpiling cash, rather than using it for aid
The Associated Press
updated 3:32 p.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 22, 2009
FORT BLISS, Texas - As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows.
Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.
Tax-exempt and legally separate from the military, AER projects a facade of independence but really operates under close Army control. The massive nonprofit — funded predominantly by troops — allows superiors to squeeze soldiers for contributions; forces struggling soldiers to repay loans — sometimes delaying transfers and promotions; and too often violates its own rules by rewarding donors, such as giving free passes from physical training, the AP found.
Founded in 1942, AER eases cash emergencies of active-duty soldiers and retirees and provides college scholarships for their families. Its emergency aid covers mortgage payments and food, car repairs, medical bills, travel to family funerals, and the like.
Army charity lent out emergency aid
Instead of giving money away, though, the Army charity lent out 91 percent of its emergency aid during the period 2003-2007. For accounting purposes, the loans, dispensed interest-free, are counted as expenses only when they are not paid back.
During that same five-year period, the smaller Navy and Air Force charities both put far more of their own resources into aid than reserves. The Air Force charity kept $24 million in reserves while dispensing $56 million in total aid, which includes grants, scholarships and loans not repaid. The Navy charity put $32 million into reserves and gave out $49 million in total aid.
AER executives defend their operation, insisting they need to keep sizable reserves to be ready for future catastrophes.
"Look at the stock market," said retired Col. Dennis Spiegel, AER's deputy director for administration. Without the large reserve, he added, "We'd be in very serious trouble."
But smaller civilian charities for service members and veterans say they are swamped by the desperate needs of recent years, with requests far outstripping ability to respond.
While independent on paper, Army Emergency Relief is housed, staffed and controlled by the U.S. Army.
That's not illegal per se. Eric Smith, a spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, said the agency can't offer an opinion on a particular charity's activities. But Marcus Owens, former head of IRS charity oversight, said charities like AER can legally partner closely with a government agency.
However, he said, problems sometimes arise when their missions diverge. "There's a bit of a tension when a government organization is operating closely with a charity," he said.
Some reserves are prudent
Most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding. Yet the American Institute of Philanthropy says AER holds enough reserves to last about 12 years at its current level of aid.
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that AER collects money "very efficiently. What the shame is, is they're not doing more with it."
National administrators say they've tried to loosen the purse strings. The most recent yearly figures do show a tilt by AER toward increased giving.
Still, Borochoff's organization, which grades charities, gives the Army charity an "F" because of the hoarding.
The AP findings include:
Superior officers come calling when AER loans aren't repaid on time. Soldiers can be fined or demoted for missing loan payments. They must clear their loans before transferring or leaving the service.
Promotions can be delayed or canceled if loans are not repaid.
Despite strict rules against coercion, the Army uses pushy tactics to extract supposedly voluntary contributions, with superiors using language like: "How much can we count on from you?"
The Army sometimes offers rewards for contributions, though incentives are banned by program rules. It sometimes excuses contributors from physical training — another clear violation.
AER screens every request for aid, peering into the personal finances of its troops, essentially making the Army a soldier's boss and loan officer. "If I ask a private for something ... chances are everyone's going to do it. Why? Because I'm a lieutenant," says Iraq war veteran Tom Tarantino, otherwise an AER backer. "It can almost be construed as mandatory."
Neither the Army nor Sgt. Major of the Army Kenneth Preston, an AER board member, responded to repeated requests for comment on the military's relationship with AER.
AER pays just 21 staffers, all working at its headquarters at Army Human Resources Command in Alexandria, Va. AER's other 300 or so employees at 90 Army sites worldwide are civilians paid by the Army. Also, the Army gives AER office space for free.
AER's treasurer, Ret. Col. Andrew Cohen, acknowledged in an interview that "the Army runs the program in the field." Army officers dominate its corporate board too.
Officers must recommend soldiers for aid
Charities linked to other services operate along more traditional nonprofit lines. The Air Force Aid Society sprinkles its board with members from outside the military to foster broad views. The Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society pays 225 employees and, instead of relying on Navy personnel for other chores, deploys a corps of about 3,400volunteers, including some from outside the military.
Army regulations say AER "is, in effect, the U.S. Army's own emergency financial assistance organization." Under Army regulations, officers must recommend whether their soldiers deserve aid. Company commanders and first sergeants can approve up to $1,000 in loans on their own say-so. Officers also are charged with making sure their troops repay AER loans.
"If you have an outstanding bill, you're warned about paying that off just to finish your tour of duty ... because it will be brought to your leadership and it will be dealt with," says Jon Nakaishi, of Tracy, Calif., an Army National Guard veteran of the Iraq war who took out a $900 AER loan to help feed his wife and children between paychecks.
In his case, he was sent home with an injury and never fully repaid his loan.
The Army also exercises its leverage in raising contributions from soldiers. It reaches out only to troops and veterans in annual campaigns organized by Army personnel.
For those on active duty, AER organizes appeals along the chain of command. Low-ranking personnel are typically solicited by a superior who knows them personally.
Spiegel, the AER administrator, said he's unaware of specific violations but added: "I spent 29 years in the Army; I know how first sergeants operate. Some of them do strong-arm."
Many violations uncovered
Army regulations ban base passes, training holidays, relief from guard duty, award plaques and "all other incentives or rewards" for contributions to AER. But the AP uncovered evidence of many violations.
Before leaving active duty in 2006, Philip Aubart, who then went to Reserve Officer Training Corps at Dartmouth College, admits he gave to AER partly to be excused from push-ups, sit-ups and running the next day. For those who didn't contribute the minimum monthly allotment, the calisthenics became, in effect, a punishment.
"That enticed lots and lots of guys to give," he noted. He says he gave in two annual campaigns and was allowed to skip physical training the following days.
Others spoke of prizes like pizza parties and honorary flags given to top cooperating units.
Make no mistake: AER, a normally uncontroversial fixture of Army life, has helped millions of soldiers and families. Last year alone, AER handed out about $5.5 million in emergency grants, $65 million in loans, and $12 million in scholarships. Despite the extra demands for soldiers busy fighting two wars, AER's management says it hasn't felt a need to boost giving in recent years.
But the AP encountered considerable criticism about AER's hoarding of its treasure chest.
Jack Tilley, a retired sergeant major of the Army on AER's board from 2000 to 2004, said he was surprised by AP's findings, especially during wartime.
"I think they could give more. In fact, that's why that's there," said Tilley, who co-founded another charity that helps families of Mideast war veterans, the American Freedom Foundation.
Accumulates stocks and bonds with its wealth
What does AER do with its retained wealth? Mostly, it accumulates stocks and bonds.
AER ended 2007 with a $296 million portfolio; last year's tanking market cut that to $214 million, by the estimate of its treasurer.
Sylvia Kidd, an AER board member in the 1990s, says she feels that the charity does much good work but guards its relief funds too jealously. "You hear things, and you think, "`They got all this money, and they should certainly be able to take care of this,'" she said. She now works for a smaller independent charity, the Association of the United States Army, providing emergency aid to some military families that AER won't help.
Though AER keeps a $25 million line of bank credit to respond to a world economic crisis, its board has decided to lop off a third of its scholarship money this year. "We're not happy about it," Spiegel says.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Military's biggest charity is stockpiling cash, rather than using it for aid
The Associated Press
updated 3:32 p.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 22, 2009
FORT BLISS, Texas - As soldiers stream home from Iraq and Afghanistan, the biggest charity inside the U.S. military has been stockpiling tens of millions of dollars meant to help put returning fighters back on their feet, an Associated Press investigation shows.
Between 2003 and 2007 — as many military families dealt with long war deployments and increased numbers of home foreclosures — Army Emergency Relief grew into a $345 million behemoth. During those years, the charity packed away $117 million into its own reserves while spending just $64 million on direct aid, according to an AP analysis of its tax records.
Tax-exempt and legally separate from the military, AER projects a facade of independence but really operates under close Army control. The massive nonprofit — funded predominantly by troops — allows superiors to squeeze soldiers for contributions; forces struggling soldiers to repay loans — sometimes delaying transfers and promotions; and too often violates its own rules by rewarding donors, such as giving free passes from physical training, the AP found.
Founded in 1942, AER eases cash emergencies of active-duty soldiers and retirees and provides college scholarships for their families. Its emergency aid covers mortgage payments and food, car repairs, medical bills, travel to family funerals, and the like.
Army charity lent out emergency aid
Instead of giving money away, though, the Army charity lent out 91 percent of its emergency aid during the period 2003-2007. For accounting purposes, the loans, dispensed interest-free, are counted as expenses only when they are not paid back.
During that same five-year period, the smaller Navy and Air Force charities both put far more of their own resources into aid than reserves. The Air Force charity kept $24 million in reserves while dispensing $56 million in total aid, which includes grants, scholarships and loans not repaid. The Navy charity put $32 million into reserves and gave out $49 million in total aid.
AER executives defend their operation, insisting they need to keep sizable reserves to be ready for future catastrophes.
"Look at the stock market," said retired Col. Dennis Spiegel, AER's deputy director for administration. Without the large reserve, he added, "We'd be in very serious trouble."
But smaller civilian charities for service members and veterans say they are swamped by the desperate needs of recent years, with requests far outstripping ability to respond.
While independent on paper, Army Emergency Relief is housed, staffed and controlled by the U.S. Army.
That's not illegal per se. Eric Smith, a spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service, said the agency can't offer an opinion on a particular charity's activities. But Marcus Owens, former head of IRS charity oversight, said charities like AER can legally partner closely with a government agency.
However, he said, problems sometimes arise when their missions diverge. "There's a bit of a tension when a government organization is operating closely with a charity," he said.
Some reserves are prudent
Most charity watchdogs view 1-to-3 years of reserves as prudent, with more than that considered hoarding. Yet the American Institute of Philanthropy says AER holds enough reserves to last about 12 years at its current level of aid.
Daniel Borochoff, president of the American Institute of Philanthropy, said that AER collects money "very efficiently. What the shame is, is they're not doing more with it."
National administrators say they've tried to loosen the purse strings. The most recent yearly figures do show a tilt by AER toward increased giving.
Still, Borochoff's organization, which grades charities, gives the Army charity an "F" because of the hoarding.
The AP findings include:
Superior officers come calling when AER loans aren't repaid on time. Soldiers can be fined or demoted for missing loan payments. They must clear their loans before transferring or leaving the service.
Promotions can be delayed or canceled if loans are not repaid.
Despite strict rules against coercion, the Army uses pushy tactics to extract supposedly voluntary contributions, with superiors using language like: "How much can we count on from you?"
The Army sometimes offers rewards for contributions, though incentives are banned by program rules. It sometimes excuses contributors from physical training — another clear violation.
AER screens every request for aid, peering into the personal finances of its troops, essentially making the Army a soldier's boss and loan officer. "If I ask a private for something ... chances are everyone's going to do it. Why? Because I'm a lieutenant," says Iraq war veteran Tom Tarantino, otherwise an AER backer. "It can almost be construed as mandatory."
Neither the Army nor Sgt. Major of the Army Kenneth Preston, an AER board member, responded to repeated requests for comment on the military's relationship with AER.
AER pays just 21 staffers, all working at its headquarters at Army Human Resources Command in Alexandria, Va. AER's other 300 or so employees at 90 Army sites worldwide are civilians paid by the Army. Also, the Army gives AER office space for free.
AER's treasurer, Ret. Col. Andrew Cohen, acknowledged in an interview that "the Army runs the program in the field." Army officers dominate its corporate board too.
Officers must recommend soldiers for aid
Charities linked to other services operate along more traditional nonprofit lines. The Air Force Aid Society sprinkles its board with members from outside the military to foster broad views. The Navy-Marine Corps Relief Society pays 225 employees and, instead of relying on Navy personnel for other chores, deploys a corps of about 3,400volunteers, including some from outside the military.
Army regulations say AER "is, in effect, the U.S. Army's own emergency financial assistance organization." Under Army regulations, officers must recommend whether their soldiers deserve aid. Company commanders and first sergeants can approve up to $1,000 in loans on their own say-so. Officers also are charged with making sure their troops repay AER loans.
"If you have an outstanding bill, you're warned about paying that off just to finish your tour of duty ... because it will be brought to your leadership and it will be dealt with," says Jon Nakaishi, of Tracy, Calif., an Army National Guard veteran of the Iraq war who took out a $900 AER loan to help feed his wife and children between paychecks.
In his case, he was sent home with an injury and never fully repaid his loan.
The Army also exercises its leverage in raising contributions from soldiers. It reaches out only to troops and veterans in annual campaigns organized by Army personnel.
For those on active duty, AER organizes appeals along the chain of command. Low-ranking personnel are typically solicited by a superior who knows them personally.
Spiegel, the AER administrator, said he's unaware of specific violations but added: "I spent 29 years in the Army; I know how first sergeants operate. Some of them do strong-arm."
Many violations uncovered
Army regulations ban base passes, training holidays, relief from guard duty, award plaques and "all other incentives or rewards" for contributions to AER. But the AP uncovered evidence of many violations.
Before leaving active duty in 2006, Philip Aubart, who then went to Reserve Officer Training Corps at Dartmouth College, admits he gave to AER partly to be excused from push-ups, sit-ups and running the next day. For those who didn't contribute the minimum monthly allotment, the calisthenics became, in effect, a punishment.
"That enticed lots and lots of guys to give," he noted. He says he gave in two annual campaigns and was allowed to skip physical training the following days.
Others spoke of prizes like pizza parties and honorary flags given to top cooperating units.
Make no mistake: AER, a normally uncontroversial fixture of Army life, has helped millions of soldiers and families. Last year alone, AER handed out about $5.5 million in emergency grants, $65 million in loans, and $12 million in scholarships. Despite the extra demands for soldiers busy fighting two wars, AER's management says it hasn't felt a need to boost giving in recent years.
But the AP encountered considerable criticism about AER's hoarding of its treasure chest.
Jack Tilley, a retired sergeant major of the Army on AER's board from 2000 to 2004, said he was surprised by AP's findings, especially during wartime.
"I think they could give more. In fact, that's why that's there," said Tilley, who co-founded another charity that helps families of Mideast war veterans, the American Freedom Foundation.
Accumulates stocks and bonds with its wealth
What does AER do with its retained wealth? Mostly, it accumulates stocks and bonds.
AER ended 2007 with a $296 million portfolio; last year's tanking market cut that to $214 million, by the estimate of its treasurer.
Sylvia Kidd, an AER board member in the 1990s, says she feels that the charity does much good work but guards its relief funds too jealously. "You hear things, and you think, "`They got all this money, and they should certainly be able to take care of this,'" she said. She now works for a smaller independent charity, the Association of the United States Army, providing emergency aid to some military families that AER won't help.
Though AER keeps a $25 million line of bank credit to respond to a world economic crisis, its board has decided to lop off a third of its scholarship money this year. "We're not happy about it," Spiegel says.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Q & A w/Amb Wolliam Wood, Afghanistan
Q & A with William Wood, U.S. Ambassador To Afghanistan
Chicago Tribune
February 15, 2009
By Kim Barker
KABUL — William Wood has been the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan since April 2007. It has been a period of such deterioration in security that President Barack Obama has called for a new U.S. strategy and a doubling of American forces deployed here. Obama's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday to discuss the plan. On the eve of Holbrooke's trip, Tribune correspondent Kim Barker sat down with Wood to talk about the Taliban insurgency, civilian casualties blamed on the U.S. and Karzai's troubled rule. Following are edited excerpts:
Q: How long does the international community need to be here?
A: I can't give you a timeline, but it's clearly not forever. It wasn't really until 2006 and 2007 that international forces were here in real strength. So, although it seems as though forces have been here longer, the fight for security in Afghanistan is only about 2 years old. And frankly, some of the disagreements we're having about how to do that have to do with the fact that it's only 2 years old. I think it will be worked out. I think the increased deployments and the growth of the Afghan security forces will turn the tide. I am optimistic, but I can't give you a date.
Q: Why do you think Afghans feel so much less secure now than they did a year ago?
A: This society that has been so devastated by 30 years of turmoil, it's exhausted. Its traditional leadership structures are exhausted. And its institutional structures still have not taken deep root. And the people in the communities are tired. Into this fragile situation, I think that both the Taliban and criminal elements and warlords who accumulated power during the bad years continue to operate and perhaps even are increasing their operations. And neither the government nor its international supporters have yet found a way to respond to those threats at the local and community level. I think we will.
Q: What do you think about the level of participation of NATO here?
A: Just on simple numbers, what NATO said was necessary has never been provided. So I think that there's plenty of room for additional contribution. The United States is providing additional forces, and I am very sure that other members of the coalition will also be providing additional forces in the course of 2009.
Q: What do you think of President Hamid Karzai's public criticism of civilian casualties, especially toward the U.S.?
A: Well, of course we agree with it—that civilian casualties are horrible. We are confident that he understands that we're upset by them too. We're here to protect Afghan citizens. At the same time ... Taliban infiltration into communities puts them in communities. It is the Taliban that is intimidating, abusing, terrorizing and attacking the people of Afghanistan as part of its conscious, chosen strategy. It is true for instance that some night raids have resulted in civilian casualties. It is also true that those night raids have reduced the number of homemade bombs killing Afghan civilians.
Q: What do you think about how Karzai's doing and his relationship with the U.S.?
A: It's a complicated, intense relationship. We've seen some actions against corrupt officials lately, we're seeing real improvements in the police, the army is doing well, the economy is growing, gross domestic product per capita has more than doubled since 2001. There are more schools, there are more clinics, there are all of these things, and relations with Pakistan are improving. That does not mean that anyone is satisfied. We all want it to be going better.
Q: What do you think of President Karzai as a leader, all the challenges he's faced and the pressure he's been under?
A: He faces an array of problems when he gets up every morning that are extraordinary. Afghanistan is poor by the standards of the poorest nation. The Taliban and the mujahedeen did no training, so the last trained officials in Afghanistan were trained by the Soviets a long time ago in a system that really didn't work very well and was characterized by its centralization in a country that desperately needs decentralization.
I think he works very hard. I think that like all of us, he has made some very good decisions, and I think, like all of us, not all of his decisions have been very good.
Chicago Tribune
February 15, 2009
By Kim Barker
KABUL — William Wood has been the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan since April 2007. It has been a period of such deterioration in security that President Barack Obama has called for a new U.S. strategy and a doubling of American forces deployed here. Obama's special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday to discuss the plan. On the eve of Holbrooke's trip, Tribune correspondent Kim Barker sat down with Wood to talk about the Taliban insurgency, civilian casualties blamed on the U.S. and Karzai's troubled rule. Following are edited excerpts:
Q: How long does the international community need to be here?
A: I can't give you a timeline, but it's clearly not forever. It wasn't really until 2006 and 2007 that international forces were here in real strength. So, although it seems as though forces have been here longer, the fight for security in Afghanistan is only about 2 years old. And frankly, some of the disagreements we're having about how to do that have to do with the fact that it's only 2 years old. I think it will be worked out. I think the increased deployments and the growth of the Afghan security forces will turn the tide. I am optimistic, but I can't give you a date.
Q: Why do you think Afghans feel so much less secure now than they did a year ago?
A: This society that has been so devastated by 30 years of turmoil, it's exhausted. Its traditional leadership structures are exhausted. And its institutional structures still have not taken deep root. And the people in the communities are tired. Into this fragile situation, I think that both the Taliban and criminal elements and warlords who accumulated power during the bad years continue to operate and perhaps even are increasing their operations. And neither the government nor its international supporters have yet found a way to respond to those threats at the local and community level. I think we will.
Q: What do you think about the level of participation of NATO here?
A: Just on simple numbers, what NATO said was necessary has never been provided. So I think that there's plenty of room for additional contribution. The United States is providing additional forces, and I am very sure that other members of the coalition will also be providing additional forces in the course of 2009.
Q: What do you think of President Hamid Karzai's public criticism of civilian casualties, especially toward the U.S.?
A: Well, of course we agree with it—that civilian casualties are horrible. We are confident that he understands that we're upset by them too. We're here to protect Afghan citizens. At the same time ... Taliban infiltration into communities puts them in communities. It is the Taliban that is intimidating, abusing, terrorizing and attacking the people of Afghanistan as part of its conscious, chosen strategy. It is true for instance that some night raids have resulted in civilian casualties. It is also true that those night raids have reduced the number of homemade bombs killing Afghan civilians.
Q: What do you think about how Karzai's doing and his relationship with the U.S.?
A: It's a complicated, intense relationship. We've seen some actions against corrupt officials lately, we're seeing real improvements in the police, the army is doing well, the economy is growing, gross domestic product per capita has more than doubled since 2001. There are more schools, there are more clinics, there are all of these things, and relations with Pakistan are improving. That does not mean that anyone is satisfied. We all want it to be going better.
Q: What do you think of President Karzai as a leader, all the challenges he's faced and the pressure he's been under?
A: He faces an array of problems when he gets up every morning that are extraordinary. Afghanistan is poor by the standards of the poorest nation. The Taliban and the mujahedeen did no training, so the last trained officials in Afghanistan were trained by the Soviets a long time ago in a system that really didn't work very well and was characterized by its centralization in a country that desperately needs decentralization.
I think he works very hard. I think that like all of us, he has made some very good decisions, and I think, like all of us, not all of his decisions have been very good.
Monday, February 9, 2009
MajGen John Kelly's TOA Farewell@ Al Asad
MAJOR GENERAL JOHN F KELLY, USMC
COMMANDING GENERAL
I MARINE EXPEDITIONARY FORCE (FORWARD)
AL ASAD, IRAQ
9 FEBRUARY 2009
TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY CEREMONY
It might surprise some here today of what a Marine is proudest of in the nearly three years he’s spent on the ground in Iraq since March 2003. It is not the triumphs of the invasion and the rush to Baghdad, Tikrit and Bayji that I lived, while the rest of the world held their breath and watched as we defined military power and prowess. It isn't the fights we had over the summer of 2003 against an emerging insurgency in the Northern Babil Province, or the two battles of Fallujah in April and November of 2004. Or clearing Ramadi, or holding Karma, or cleaning out Al Qaim over the years. It’s also not about the number of terrorist we've killed, and the network they served all but destroyed, today making Anbar, Iraq, the Middle East, Europe and the world a safer place protected for now at least against a sick form of extremism no decent man or woman could ever embrace. That the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have fought here in Anbar and Western Ninawa Province, and the men and women who commanded them these last five years, are at least has good as the best in the world at this business.
What I am very proud of is the number of human beings we did not have to kill because we never stopped extending the hand of friendship even in the darkest of days gone by, and the damage we didn't do because we resorted to force last, and always restrained its use when we did go to the guns. The other things I am proud of are the cows we purchased for widows to make a living, chicken farms we established or expanded, agricultural experts we hired and brought in to help farmers save their fields and increase production, and advise the shepherds on how to cull and strengthen their flocks. Of the thousands of tons of seed and fertilizer we bought and distributed to reestablish a farm industry destroyed by over a decade of UN sanctions, and exacerbated by the current drought. Of the hundreds of miles of irrigation canals we repaired or opened up, and the schools and clinics built and stocked with supplies. The impact we had on the province’s health. By fixing or building sewerage plants and systems, and water treatment facilities, we began to reduce infant mortality by reducing the unseen killers of the new born—killers that thrive in filthy water. And then there was the cholera epidemic this past summer—that didn't happen; the dreaded tuberculosis outbreak in Hadithah—that we miraculously contained and treated without the loss of a single life.
I am also very proud of the Iraqis we Americans, along with our brothers in the Iraqi police and army, safeguarded as the insurgency was systematically defeated. It wasn't all done with guns and violence, but as much with the kinds of nation building and “hearts and minds” programs we established for the people of Anbar, and now those of Western Ninawa, who are today working with us, and not fighting against us. And when the few remaining Al Qaeda do crawl out from under whatever rock they call home, those who once aided them now reject their presence and the venom they spew, and tell us where to find them. Of the month-long voter registration drive in August without a single accusation of fraud, without a single violent incident, and with 100% of the eligible registered. Of the election just held with nearly 100% of those registered walking miles even when you knew full well hundreds and even thousands of you might die. You ignored the threats of death. With the full knowledge that the terrorists were frantically building vehicle bombs, and outfitting as many suicide bombers as they could talk into their murderous assignment, you gathered at polling places in your millions and exercised the right of free men and woman and the forces of evil here never had a chance of stopping you. By dipping your fingers in a bottle of ink you sounded the death knell of terrorists and extremists who only destroy, never build. Who kill, and never nurture. Who want to tear down societies now, but have no plan for the future. Who simply can not stand the thought of men and women living their lives the way they want to live them safely in their own homes with their children, and enjoying the God-given rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
It's harder—infinitely harder—fighting this kind of war as patience, and innovation and economic development are the most effective ammo, with trust, influence and personal relations the most effective and really only usable arrows in the quiver. In this dangerous world we live in the sad fact is that the kind of war we are fighting today in Iraq was made possible only after all those who have to be killed because they are murderous irreconcilables, are dead. And diplomacy and good will only work once these kinds of men are hunted down and killed or put in cages, and those more reasonable men and women are finally convinced they can’t win with the gun, are tired of dying, and realize their only hope is through dialogue.
These are the things I am proud or as I end my third, and I am sure my final, tour here in Iraq; however, what I am proudest of is why we came here and regardless of what the talkers back home thought this was all about, those of us on the ground that were putting our lives on the line had the noblest of all intentions in 2003, and they guide us today as well in our every action. Reasons only the American military would march forward to do with happy hearts, and without regard for our own lives or well being. Not for land, or oil, or prestige, or for anything else other than our country’s security, and another people’s freedom. I know it sounds naive or corny, but our Iraqi brothers and sisters who have come to know us the best, believe it the most.
As we surged into Iraq six years ago the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of the Coalition came not to conquer a nation, but to free a people. We sincerely believed we came to help free Iraq from a terrible tyrant who not only ordered the deaths of thousands of his own countrymen he was morally and ethically bound to protect as the leader of a nation in the modern era, but also crushed the spirits of the living holding you all in a grip of fear that turned brother against brother, sons and daughters against their parents, and Muslim against Muslim. A man that fostered murderous religious, ethnic, and social suspicions and hates as the means to keep you divided.
This is what those of us in uniform who have served here are proudest of, and not any number of cynics or the entire chattering class can ever take that away from us. We who serve the colors risked everything in this endeavor, while they throw their darts. We fought here in the unimaginable heat of Iraq’s summer, and they criticized. We walked the most dangerous streets in the world hunting the most murderous men on earth, and they slept safe at home in their beds. We send the people we hold as dear and precious to us—as close as our own sons and daughters—home to be buried, and the best they can do is case doubt on our mission, our motives, and our humanity. They should come to Anbar and see what we have done together as partners in the same fight, and, as a sheikh recently said to me: “as brothers now and forever because we have endured the same agony for four years and emerged victorious. You never wavered and we have won.”
Our success here over the last year, indeed since we came, has been a result of trusting those who could be trusted, and standing firm against those who would do us—and you—harm. In the last year we did many things with the Iraqis to build that trust. We took calculated risks to advance the return to normalcy, risks we could take with confidence because we knew the Anbar ground better than any non-Anbari on the planet. By living with them we understood the minds of the local citizens and how they were exhausted by the murder and the violence that took so many of them everyday, and for so many years. We grew more and more convinced that it was over everyday and every time we had a conversation that reflected hope, rather than hopelessness, in the voices of parents. Parents like any on earth who now talked of a future for their children that included education and not ignorance, health and not disease, moderation and not extremism, life and not death or maiming in a meaningless spiral of violence. At the end of the day we in the military always knew we could “win the ten second firefight” because we are better at fighting—and dying—for what we believe in than any terrorist regardless of what sick ideology he might worship could ever hope to be. The trick was to know how to recognize an opportunity for engagement at the human level, then exploit it for the good without value judgment or cultural arrogance.
These are the things I am proud and proudest of, but what makes me eternally grateful is the relatively small number of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines I have lost or had maimed in comparison to what it was like the last two times I was here. Eternally grateful, but their loss and suffering still breaks my heart and I think about them everyday. I will think about them for the rest of my life because I failed to bring them home. I will never forget them, or their families. I am painfully aware that for their families, and their buddies who knew them best in their squads, sections, and platoons, that their single casualty is for them an overwhelming statistic. Their grief, is my grief, forever…but I still thank God there were so few this time.
These men and women served because they are the best of their generation. They understood above all else the notion of service to one’s country, and of selfless devotion to duty. They died for their buddies, for their Army and their Marine Corps, and for millions of their countrymen who will never know their names but sleep safe in their homes every night because of men and women like them. They are part of our legend now, and we will never forget them:
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Drew W. Weaver 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 21 February 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Major William G. Hall 7202 USMC. He was killed in action 30 March 2008 fighting alongside his Marines, and for the country he loved.
We mourn the loss of today of Lance Corporal Dean D. Opicka 0351 USMC and Corporal Richard J. Nelson 0341 USMC. They were killed in action together 14 April 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.
We mourn the loss today of First Lieutenant Matthew R. Vandegrift 0802 USMC. He was killed in action 21 April 2008 fighting alongside his American & Iraqi buddies, and for the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter 0311 USC, and Corporal Jonathan T. Yale 0352 USMC. They were killed in action together 22 April 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved. (Both these men to be awarded the Navy Cross (posthumously) on 20 February 2009.
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Casey L. Casanova 0621, Lance Corporal James F. Kimple 0411, Corporal Miguel A. Guzman 3521, and Sergeant Glen E. Martinez 1345, All U.S. Marines. They were killed in action together 2 May 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.
We mourn the loss today of Private First Class Aaron J. Ward 3110, a soldier of the United States Army. He was killed in action 6 May 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Specialist Christopher McCarthy 91k, a soldier of the United States Army. He died here in Iraq serving the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Kelly E. Watters 0311 USMC. He was seriously injured on 23 May 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved. He lost the struggle for his life yesterday at the Naval Hospital, Bethesda, Maryland. He was surrounded by his family when he went.
We mourn the loss today of Lieutenant Colonel Max A. Galeai 0302 USMC, Captain Philip J. Dykeman 0302 USMC, and Corporal Marcus W. Preudhomme 0151 USMC. These Marines were killed in action together 26 June 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.
We mourn the loss today of Staff Sergeant Danny D. Dupre 0369 USMC. He was killed in action 114 July 2008 alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Corporals Stewart Trejo 2131 USMC and Corporal Adam McKiski 2131 USMC. These Marines died together 7 July 2008 fighting alongside their buddies, and for the country they loved.
We mourn the loss today of Sergeant Michael H. Ferschke 0321 USMC. He was killed in action 10 August 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved. (His wife Hotaru gave birth to a son in Okinawa, Japan, on 14 January 2009. His boy’s name is Michael H. Ferschke III.)
We mourn the loss today of Private First Class Daniel A. McGuire 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 14 August 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and his country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Stacy A Dryden 3052 USMC. She died here in Iraq 19 October 2008 serving the country she loved.
We mourn the loss of Corporal Aaron M. Allen 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 14 November 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Gunnery Sergeant Marcello R Valasco 3537 USMC. He died 19 November 2008 here in Iraq serving the country he loved.
We mourn the loss today of Master Sergeant Anthony Davis, a Solider of the United State Army, and Captain Warren A. Frank 0302 USMC. These Americans were killed in action together 25 November 2008 fighting alongside each other, and for the country they loved.
We mourn the loss today of Lance Corporal Thomas Reilly 0311 USMC. He was killed in action 20 December 2008 fighting alongside his buddies, and for the country he loved.
To the people of Anbar and Western Ninawa—our friends and allies—I wish you well and pray that you will see this experiment in democracy through that has been bought with so much suffering and pain. Treasure this new and wonderful way to live your lives, cherish it, nurture it, make it grow, never stop trying to make it better as it is gift from God to you, and your children. Semper Fidelis.
_________________
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Zinni Iraq Offer Job Retracted
Zinni Says Iraq Ambassador Job Offer Was Retracted
By Barbara Slavin
The Washington Times
February 4, 2009
The Obama administration asked retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to be U.S. ambassador to Iraq but abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation, Gen. Zinni said Tuesday.
Gen. Zinni, a former commander of Central Command, told The Washington Times that he had been offered the job by the White House national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, two weeks ago and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed the offer on Jan. 26.
"I started making arrangements," Gen. Zinni said, but he said he became concerned because he heard nothing further from the State Department or White House. He said he called Gen. Jones on Monday night and was told that outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Christopher Hill was getting the job.
Gen. Zinni said no explanation was given. "That kind of bothered me," he said. "I was told that I had it."
Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said, "We have spoken to a number of extraordinarily talented individuals about serving in this important role, and have made no announcement about who will be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
"Obviously, the president has enormous respect for Gen. Zinni and believes he would be on anybody's short list for a number of critical national security roles."
The State Department had no immediate comment.
Gen. Zinni indicated that he was not interested in other offers from the administration. "I'm not going to give up my day job," writing books and teaching at Cornell University, he said.
Mr. Hill has extensive experience in Northeast Asia and the Balkans but not in the Middle East.
Gen. Zinni, on the other hand, was the deputy commanding general of Provide Comfort, a U.S. operation that provided relief to Iraqi Kurds in 1991.
He was deputy commander in chief of Central Command from 1996 to 1997 and commander from 1997 until 2000. In 1998, he supervised Operation Desert Fox, a series of U.S. air strikes against Iraq, targeting what the U.S. believed were weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
"I know Chris," Gen. Zinni said. "He's a fine guy."
By Barbara Slavin
The Washington Times
February 4, 2009
The Obama administration asked retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni to be U.S. ambassador to Iraq but abruptly withdrew the appointment without explanation, Gen. Zinni said Tuesday.
Gen. Zinni, a former commander of Central Command, told The Washington Times that he had been offered the job by the White House national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, two weeks ago and that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton confirmed the offer on Jan. 26.
"I started making arrangements," Gen. Zinni said, but he said he became concerned because he heard nothing further from the State Department or White House. He said he called Gen. Jones on Monday night and was told that outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Christopher Hill was getting the job.
Gen. Zinni said no explanation was given. "That kind of bothered me," he said. "I was told that I had it."
Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, said, "We have spoken to a number of extraordinarily talented individuals about serving in this important role, and have made no announcement about who will be the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
"Obviously, the president has enormous respect for Gen. Zinni and believes he would be on anybody's short list for a number of critical national security roles."
The State Department had no immediate comment.
Gen. Zinni indicated that he was not interested in other offers from the administration. "I'm not going to give up my day job," writing books and teaching at Cornell University, he said.
Mr. Hill has extensive experience in Northeast Asia and the Balkans but not in the Middle East.
Gen. Zinni, on the other hand, was the deputy commanding general of Provide Comfort, a U.S. operation that provided relief to Iraqi Kurds in 1991.
He was deputy commander in chief of Central Command from 1996 to 1997 and commander from 1997 until 2000. In 1998, he supervised Operation Desert Fox, a series of U.S. air strikes against Iraq, targeting what the U.S. believed were weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
"I know Chris," Gen. Zinni said. "He's a fine guy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)