Others about the patriotic/romantic music in the background while his tribute is read. And still others will sneer about Neil’s engagement overall in the business of the Iraq war. Not me.

And some will make the tired old "house ...." and "uncle ...." comments. Having several family members who have served in the military, I applaud Neil's service to the military and the country. Not many people have the guts to be willing to do that.

Summary of the comments to follow:
Its (sic) all BushHitlerHalliburton's fault/warforoil/racistRepublikans/ChristianRight/Noterroristthreat/Iraqquagmire/allbecauseofIsrael/religionofpeace/intolerantBrahmins/oustModi/Visualize WhirledPeas/etc....but I like Neil even though he is a traitor/idiot/hick/tooloffascism/etc...

Vinod, my friend, I wish you would post more at your own blog so I would not have to come here. These wannabe-whiteys make me sick.

Deleted in 5..4..3..2..

But hopefully, regardless of how you feel, we can take a moment to commend an individual who’s risked far more for an abstract cause than many of us who sit comfortably in our air-conditioned offices.

Agreed! I wish I was on the side of Neil Prakash, watching his back while he fought back against the evil-doers. I am glad Neil is fighting them over there so I dont have to fight them at the local grocery store here. I think this is an appropriate post for those of us who have forgotten about 9-11 (did you know its the 5th year anniversary of 9-11 in 6 days!) Remember, over 2700 people were killed by the Islamo-fascists on 9-11. Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and we cannot repeat the mistakes of 1938.

Yep right on cue...

Uh, Al M, he's in the military, dude. He's gonna go where he's told to go, whether it's Clinton sending him to Bosnia or Bush to Iraq or Hillary to, uh, probably Iraq? And people who try to blow up men and women standing in line to vote, or say, shop in a market for vegetables, are kinda evil so I don't understand why the whole evil-doer thing brings the hilarity. If you can't call someone who purposely targets a civilian for death, children included, evil, well, uh, why not just scrub the entire word from the dictionary.

Yep right on cue...

If you dont believe my post is serious, I am presuming you would also have laughed off Hitler in 1938. Are you related to his man? As President Bush said today, the Islamo-fascists are wanting to set up an Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and its only because of people like Neil Prakash that the march towards the West by the upcoming Islamic Caliphate has not begun. Would you also be so sceptical when the Islamo-fascists led by Islamo-nazi Ahmedenijad stake a claim on France and lay a 100 year siege on the East Coast.

Uh, Al M, he's in the military, dude

Being pro (US) military on this board is a minority view. Using the military to protect even US borders is not acceptable either. Am sure a long diatribe on Posse Comitatus will ensue.

If you dont believe my post is serious

Of course it is... Am sure you are running down to the local recuriting station to join Capt Prakash too... ;-)

If you can't call someone who purposely targets a civilian for death, children included, evil, well, uh, why not just scrub the entire word from the dictionary.

I prefer Islamo-fascist or Islamo-nazi. On this site, some people actually believe that Islam is a ROP (LOL!)

Of course it is... Am sure you are running down to the local recuriting station to join Capt Prakash too... ;-)

Nah, I think I am better suited for fighting the WW3 on the Internet. I think we need moral clarity to fight this war against Islamo-fascism and be especially vigilant of the 5th column practitioners of the ROP. (ROP:LOL!)

Didn't take long for the thread jacking to start with the Colbertian smarminess.

Right on, Captain Prakash.

"This, I realized now watching Dienekes rally and tend to his men, was the role of the officer: to prevent those under his command, at all states of battle-before, during and after-from becoming 'Possessed.' To fire their valor when it flagged and rein in their fury when it threatened to take them out of hand. That was Dienekes’ job. That was why he wore the transverse-crested helmet of an OFFICER."

Gates of Fire - Steven Pressfield

I would go fight a war to, but only if they had cool weapons like light sabers and laser beams and photon torpedos, none of these simple weapons we have today.

thanks for this article. i also enjoyed Abhi's article titled G.I. Josna, another Indian American patriot willing to risk their life for sometihng in which they believe. all the best to these young soldiers.

Long time, no blog, Vinod!

i think the war is idiotic, but nevertheless, sociologically, the experience of these desi-american soldiers is something i am very interested in. this site is a place to observe, discuss, disseminate, aspects of the desi-diasporic experience, particularly in the US, and being in the military is part of it. if we were a latino site this would be taken for granted, and many of us, no matter our opinion on the war, would know someone, or know someone who knew someone, serving in iraq or afghanistan. i see no reason why our support or disapproval of the war should diminish our interest in the experience of desis involved in it -- in any capacity i might add, whether soldiers or contractors or aid workers or journalists or anything else. quite the contrary, it's a high stakes environment, and that makes the stories all the more compelling.

not long ago i talked with a rolling stone writer who had interviewed a bunch of soldiers back from iraq about the music they listened to while in combat. amazing stories about ipods shuffling through rigged-up sound systems in armored personnel carriers, anything from eminem to britney spears piping into these kids' ears as they take fire and fire back. reading his article and just thinking about the bigger picture made me realize how completely utterly disconnected we (and most americans, and most american voters, and most american politicians and elected officials, etc) are from the experiences of these young people.

it's all about human beings, and stories. the stories of the soldiers are as 100% legitimate as are anyone else's, and given the state of things, they deserve more broadcasting, not less. at the same time, those whose contribution to a thread like this one is merely to carp about how it's going to bring out people who oppose the war, aren't doing much themselves to respond and react to the stories. is your point to hear a person's story and try to feel it deeply, or is it to bitch about other people's anticipated bitching? supporting or opposing the war are both legitimate points of view and if we can't share them on a post about the war, then where the hell? but bitching for bitching's sake, from any direction, is pathetic in the face of material like this. peace

Being pro (US) military on this board is a minority view.

My little sister (and sole sibling) has been active duty for over a decade. She re-upped TWICE. Barring some reason for her not to be, she will be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan within weeks.

As far as I understood it, this blog may be anti-war, but it is pro-military. Please don't take your rage over W. out on people whose lives are decided by his whims. I know I don't.

I am a part of this blog because I want to examine any and all aspects of this collective "brown" experience; not just those which the majority will type hosanna after. I'd like to see more courtesy from ALL sides, all over this blog; according to everyone I met in SF on Thursday and Saturday, they would, too.

but bitching for bitching's sake, from any direction, is pathetic in the face of material like this. peace

I think dispassionate analysis about the lives of soldiers who are damn proud of their service in Iraq might be a little difficult for some of us. It is of course possible for a sociologist to surgically remove the war from the warrior and focus on the unique desi experience of the soldier, but IMO a celebration of the actions of the warrior in this war is not something everybody should accept and move on.

As far as I understood it, this blog may be anti-war, but it is pro-military. Please don't take your rage over W. out on people whose lives are decided by his whims. I know I don't.

I am not sure how do you remove the soldiers from the war. I understand that most soldiers dont have a choice about going to Iraq but they sure do have a choice to not cheer the war after they come back from the war. I am yet to see evidence that the soldiers who come from Iraq become anti-war.

amfd

I think dispassionate analysis about the lives of soldiers who are damn proud of their service in Iraq might be a little difficult for some of us.

it's not about dispassionate analysis, it's about being open to stories. analyzing the war is easy enough. i suspect you and i analyze it in much the same way. but learning about the experiences of the soldiers is very valuable, i think. it's perfectly possible to criticize the war and be genuinely interested in the experiences of the soldiers. there's debate about whether they're defending our freedom, but there's no debate that they're spending our tax money. and they'll be back, and many will be traumatised, and when they are, we should be equipped to be compassionate. besides, "proud of service" doesn't necessarily mean "supports the war." any recent in-depth article from iraq will tell you that many (most?) of the soldiers don't know why the hell they're there, yet are proud to receive and execute their orders. that very phenomenon is worth discussing -- but only if we accept them as human beings and fellow citizens caught up in something that is bigger than they.

IMO a celebration of the actions of the warrior in this war is not something everybody should accept and move on.

no one said we should move on. it's about how we engage the material.

as for what anna said:

As far as I understood it, this blog may be anti-war, but it is pro-military.

respectfully that is not my view. i don't see this blog as pro- or anti- the war or the military. this blog doesn't write editorials that all of us agree with -- thank god. the individual bloggers have their own opinions. some of us have expressed our opinions clearly, others not. some of us aren't comfortable with being "pro-" or "anti-" the military, in the abstract. the military exists, i deal with it. that's neither pro nor anti. but that's just me.

that quibble aside, i totally agree with anna's call for courtesy... and extend best wishes to her sister.

Some numbers on US Soldiers views: While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”
If an overwhelming number of them believe that they attacked Iraq to avenge 9-11, they sure do believe in the war! 72% do believe that the US should leave Iraq within a year so they dont want to continue the war anymore.

Alright, no more sarcasm laden posts from me about Neil Prakash.
Good night and peace out :)

Anyone know of any blogs by/about Indians in the British army that are deployed in Iraq ? I'd be curious to read how different (or not) their experiences have been from their USian counterparts.

Defering to Siddhartha's call for courtesy, I will refrain and be respectful. But let me answer few things:

I am yet to see evidence that the soldiers who come from Iraq become anti-war.
If you are refering to Vietnam, it happened pretty late in the game. American involvement had started in early sixties, and it was very late in the game when the soldiers and students spoke out. Essentially, college students when they knew the draft lottery would reach them. In fact, in some history is slowly repeating with public opinion shifting very slowly. Personally, I am not in the liberal Democrats camp on this issue.

Same for Israel in Lebanon....the whole mother's movement.

I live in a campus town, and I know a few reserves who just came back from Iraq......if you talk to them privately they will express strong views (with a wide spectrum), not in public to undermine their brothers and sisters yet.

Safe tour of duty to Anna's sister.

No matter how much Vinod and Vikram would like to reclaim the soldier's identity (their valor, their leadership, their humanity, their youth and captivity to human nature) as a narrative, this war unleashed two abominal failures- one strategic, the other moral- which will relegate the narrative to the dusty annals of history, rightly or wrongly. The first failure is akin to the Dereliction of Duty regarding Vietnam. The second is the complicit slaughter of a people who did not harm one American.

If we strive to collectively be a better people, both should weigh on our conscience very heavily. And both are above ones politics.

no von mises,

i agree with your two diagnoses of failure. however the more we compare this with vietnam, the more at the very least we should be sensitive to the traumatic experiences of the soldiers there. the PTSD hits later, and back home. will we be compassionate then? will we give them the care they need? all this is part of the story.

of course, the stories of iraqis are every bit as important, and even less understood. in this regard i just started reading "night draws near: iraq's people in the shadow of america's war," the book by anthony shadid, the reporter for the washington post who has perhaps been the best, most informative and enlightening american journalist in iraq, receiving a pulitzer for his reporting there. i'm only at the beginning, but it's already deep.

As far as I understood it, this blog may be anti-war, but it is pro-military

This blog is many things and all things but it is not a conundrum, like the statement above. The institution of the military is not mutually exclusive from the practice of war. As I applaud myself for that truism, let me add to Siddhartha's eloquence and say that being pro-this, anti-that is to not allow history's complexities to reveal itself.

Sigh. I'm inclined to just quote Number Six and call it a night, but there's plenty else to say.

First. I wholeheartedly agree with every last word that Siddhartha has said in his comments, especially this:

i see no reason why our support or disapproval of the war should diminish our interest in the experience of desis involved in it -- in any capacity i might add, whether soldiers or contractors or aid workers or journalists or anything else. quite the contrary, it's a high stakes environment, and that makes the stories all the more compelling.

Second. I also wholeheartedly agree with this, Vinod, that you have said:

But hopefully, regardless of how you feel, we can take a moment to commend an individual who’s risked far more for an abstract cause than many of us who sit comfortably in our air-conditioned offices.

Stipulating, of course, that many of those air-conditioned offices are located in Arlington and Washington ("I had other priorities in the 60s than military service") and are the very offices from which half-baked war plans were formulated -- the very offices that have ordered the deployment of Captain Prakash and many others. Not just, in other words, the offices of those who oppose the war.

Third. With much, MUCH more visceral certainty than any of that, I feel nothing but support and respect for ANNA's sister and her family. Unconditionally and unequivocally, with only love, concern, appreciation, and profound respect. As she knows, since I tell her that somewhat frequently.

Fourth. In that context, Vinod, it puzzles and disappoints me that you would implicitly assume -- and, for that matter, bait -- the worst in people who (apparently?? I don't want to assume too quickly, but this is how it seems) disagree with you about the war by saying things like, "Now some will sneer....[etc.]"? Can't you rise above that? What is it that compels you to anticipate such sneering before it takes place? Or can you not help but assume that anyone who thinks the people who took us into this war are idiots (or short of that, who opposes the war for whatever other reason) also will sneer in this fashion?

I deeply appreciate your sharing Captain Prakash's story with all of us, for all of the reasons that Siddhartha notes and many other reasons, and believe with tremendous conviction that Sepia would be a lesser place if you weren't here to do so. Honestly and sincerely, and that needs to be emphasized and lingered upon. (What's the point, after all, in living in an echo chamber? That would just make all of us deaf to new and unfamiliar sounds.) And I have as much concern, appreciation, and respect for Captain Prakash as I do for ANNA's sister.

But for you to take a page out of the O'Reilly playbook with the "some will sneer" rhetorical move is unnecessary and profoundly unbecoming. "Some will sneer"?? Well, sure. All of us can always find someone who will sneer about something. Give me something -- anything -- and in no time I'll find you someone who can sneer about it. More specifically, there's always someone who will do just about anything to advance their political agenda. Heck, there are even people out there willing to imply that folks who question the competence and judgment of those who have taken us into this war are "for the terrorists" or akin to those who "appeased Nazism." Wow, can you imagine that? What a$$hole$.

But Vinod, why go there? Is that really where you wanted to take the discussion in this thread? Is that the best way to respectfully honor and focus all of our attention on the story of someone like Captain Prakash, as opposed to simply politicizing it? News flash, my friend: large numbers of patriotic, troops-supporting people in this country who respect folks like Captain Prakash question the wisdom and competence of those who have taken us into this fiasco. (And, incidentally -- you want to talk about resentment? -- who are probably making my subway commute less safe by the day.) Just as large numbers of people who supported that decision are decent, well-intentioned people with only the best interests of our community, society, nation, and world in mind -- even if I might disagree with them. I assume that the right of all of these folks to freely express their beliefs and engage each other in dialogue -- free, that is, not simply from government interference, but also from having their motivations reflexivly impugned without any basis -- is, in fact, what people like Captain Prakash are fighting for.

Sure, some people who oppose the war are disrespectful morons. But then again, so are plenty of those who ordered us into it support it.

Is that the discussion you really wanted to invite when you posted this story? Gross negligence on your part if you thought that you wouldn't to some extent invite that kind of discussion -- mind you, a perfectly legitimate discussion in many, many contexts -- after waving the red cape suggesting that "some will sneer...." I mean, one only has to read this blog for a few days hours to know that it takes a lot less than that to cause things to get overheated and ridiculous rather quickly.

:+: [borrowed transitional device]

Deep appreciation and much respect to Captain Prakash for his service, and to you, Vinod, for sharing this story with us, which certainly might not have happened if you hadn't done so. Really. And ongoing thoughts for the safety and well-being of Captain Prakash, ANNA's sister, and everyone else on the front lines -- and for the peace of mind of their loved ones, who must be both proud and anxious during every last moment that they are over there.

peace
pp

the book by anthony shadid, the reporter for the washington post who has perhaps been the best, most informative and enlightening american journalist in iraq, receiving a pulitzer for his reporting there.

Anthony Shadid is awesome. He very well might be the best American reporter in the Middle East. His reporting on Iraq was indeed brilliant. He is probably the only American journalist who understand the Shiites at any level and should be the man to read if the US goes to war against Iran. He was almost killed in Ramallah while working for the Boston Globe. I am glad he survived.

*understands

I'm definitely proud of this soldier, but I feel dubya is squandering these lives on a pointless exercise. My opposition is not based on pan-brown identity politics, but rather the impossibility of achieving the stated neocon goal (i.e. the creation of a secular democracy). How do you console bereaved families with "Your soldier died giving the Iraqi people the right to vote, which they promptly used to create a backward state that will lean towards Iran" ?

What is it that compels you to anticipate such sneering before it takes place? ...But for you to take a page out of the O'Reilly playbook ...News flash, my friend...Gross negligence on your part...

well, a clever response, but not well-edumacated enough. and don't underestimate the extent to which you -- the extent to which we all -- reap what we sow.

The second is the complicit slaughter of a people who did not harm one American

I am not going to argue. I am just trying to understand the other side. So a few questions ( the reason for going to war notwithstanding ). Could you please tell me specifically who slaughtered whom? Are you telling me that Americans are going around killing Iraqis? Or is it Sunnis killing Shias and vice versa? Or are you saying that Americans have somehow sowed the seeds of hatred among those two sects overnight that they have now begun to kill each other? Whatever happened to the sensitive liberal's compassion for the minority community? Shias and Kurds freed after decades of repression. Was there a diplomatic way to achieve this? How long would it have taken? How long would it have taken for statecraft to dislodge brutal Saddam and his goon sons? Do you also imply like many liberals do that Arabs/Muslims are inferior enough to appreciate democracy and so should be left to their own primitive devices?

About 2 yrs of history on this blog compels me to anticipate the sort of response an article like this would generate.

You were prescient;

Alright, no more sarcasm laden posts from me about Neil Prakash

it's all about human beings, and stories. the stories of the soldiers are as 100% legitimate as are anyone else's, and given the state of things, they deserve more broadcasting, not less.

I'll second this. Listen to the stories of Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, or Airmen. Take it for what it is. Some of it may not fit your world perspective, some of it may, but you will most definitely be educated for having heard them out. Their experiences are unique and the public at large, considering how much the military has been a part of our system, are still particularly uninformed on the workings of the military, code, structure, attitude, missions, officers, NCOs, green boots, etc.

Today's volunteer military is probably the best it's ever been, yet many challenges remain. Brown, White, Black, whatever color or religion, troops do their job. These folks aren't demigods, nor are they 'necessary' evil. They're citizens just like you and me who decided to embark upon a journey that puts them in dangerous places, trusting the Republic (you, me, leaders, professionals, etc.) in making whatever call it feels necessary.

This isn't a 'brown' blog, but please go ahead and read it: Magic Kingdom Dispatch. It is about an Army Ranger's experiences in Grenada, Ranger training, Special Forces medic training, and life in general. It isn't about the current events, but I'll be damned if the Ranger doesn't pour his soul into words and gives an outsider and very deep look into someone who has been through conflict (a mere footnote for Americans and history, but very real lessons learned indeed). It is mature, soulful, touching, and raw.

Anna: Godspeed and goodluck to your Sister.

Could you please tell me specifically who slaughtered whom? Are you telling me that Americans are going around killing Iraqis? Or is it Sunnis killing Shias and vice versa? Or are you saying that Americans have somehow sowed the seeds of hatred among those two sects overnight that they have now begun to kill each other? Whatever happened to the sensitive liberal's compassion for the minority community? Shias and Kurds freed after decades of repression. Was there a diplomatic way to achieve this? How long would it have taken? How long would it have taken for statecraft to dislodge brutal Saddam and his goon sons? Do you also imply like many liberals do that Arabs/Muslims are inferior enough to appreciate democracy and so should be left to their own primitive devices?

The right has become a parody of itself.

Some of the comments on here are disgusting. Give the guy some credit. While you're picking up your extra-extra tall Macchiato, he's putting his ass on the line for you latte drinking,lily-livered ungrateful pieces of shit.
Proud of you soldier.

you latte drinking,lily-livered ungrateful pieces of shit.

Easy there. Thanks. A little courtesy never hurt anyone. As for whether the comments here are "disgusting" why don't you scroll back up and tell me how many there are. Looks like a pretty thoughtful exchange to me, or maybe you didn't notice comments 15 through 21 and 24 through 36. Now, do you have anything constructive to say?

SM Intern....I was trying to be sarcastic...I guess my attempt fell flat on its face.

Admiration for the soldiers should not be confused with support for the war.

On this most of us agree.

But neither should compassion for the soldier be confused with admiration for the soldier.

There's less agreement on this. It's as if we are programmed to automatically admire soldiers no matter what. Heroic, selfless, etc. (read, if you haven't yet, Chris Hedges' book, "War is a Force that Gives us Meaning.")

Personally, I don't support this war, and I don't admire this soldier. Particularly since there is no forcible draft, the question of fighting in this war is firmly in the realm of individual choice. It is an illegal, immoral and ineffectual war. Just because someone's too close to it to see that doesn't automatically earn him my admiration. I don't admire the atrocities taking place in that uniform (and you better believe they are atrocities), I don't admire the "I raided Fallujah because I was just doing my job."

However, I do feel a great deal of compassion for young people who have bought into the narrative of "defending their country," just as I do for the young people in Iraq who have convinced themselves that they are "defending their culture." I'm certainly not going to feel awe for a guy *simply* because he puts on an American military uniform and obeys orders. What those orders are makes all the difference in the world.

I do wonder if people on these boards would find the Americans so heroic if they were occupying Delhi and had just stoked a civil war there. And "collaterally" killed a few grandmothers in the course of their duties. Who it hurts can sometimes make all the difference in our thinking.

While you're picking up your extra-extra tall Macchiato

Oh please! Some of us are picking up the new Banana Coconut Frappuccino (venti always!) with extra malt and whipped cream. Delicious! Has anybody here tried the new Pumpkin Spice blended creme frappuccino?

AlMfD is turning into the Niles Crane of SM ;)

(joking)

(Big fan of Frasier, by the way)

***********************************************

More seriously - AlMfD, you may find the following article quite interesting reading. It's apparently a summary of Al-Qaeda/OBL's global plans for the next 20 years, written by a Jordanian journalist who has been in contact with some of the organisation's leaders. I'm not sure how accurate it really is, but it's very detailed and talks about a "7 Phase Masterplan". Please check it out here.

(Many thanks to Sunny at Pickled Politics for originally supplying the link to the article).

DesiDawg - Aiight, point taken. Thanks for clarifying!

Without feeding the trolls, I have to say I disagree with the sentiment that admiring soldiers does not mean supporting the war. It may not imply it directly, but it is precisely the way we glorify the acts of soldiers as "heroes" that leads us to be so supportive as a nation of military intervention. We put all these stories about Neil Prakash and Pat Tillman and how they are "true Americans" and people like us that "sit in air-conditioned offices" are somehow less brave or worthy because we don't choose to travel halfway around the world to drop bombs on people that look like us.

I remember watching the third part of Lord of the Rings and thinking "This is why so many Americans think war is admirable; they make it look so cool and noble all the time." To me, though I have nothing against Capt. Prakash, there isn't anything admirable about being a soldier. You can't separate the military from the soldiers; they choose to join. Many of my friends from high school are in the army; they mostly just do what they are trained to do, which is follow orders. Personally, I think it's disrespectful to them to assume they don't understand or support the cause they are risking their lives for. They mostly do understand; and they agree. Perhaps that is what's hard for people to support.

Mr K -- thanks for that exceedingly thoughtful and thought-provoking set of distinctions.

hey, if you're free sometime, maybe we can go find an air-conditioned office and grab a macaca-hiato. and sneer together, since clearly that's what all people who oppose the war do. ;)

No Von Mises - "The second is the complicit slaughter of a people who did not harm one American."

Unlike the Serbs, who slaughtered Americans by the hundreds.

p.s. not to be nitpicking - they [the eye-rakis] did harm, indeed kill, many Americans in the first gulf war, when the nutcase invaded his neighbour, who had not harmed any eye-rakis.

Vinod - Many thanks!

Re: First Iraq War:

Gulf War casualty numbers are controversial. Coalition military deaths have been reported to be around 378, but the DoD reports that US forces suffered 147 battle-related and 325 non-battle-related deaths, plus one F/A-18 Hornet Navy pilot listed as MIA. [link]

You mean these 147 US battle deaths?

drop bombs on people that look like us.

If that is the yardstick - then the U.S. should not have gone to war with Germany or Italy. Most wars are between nations groups that "look" like each other - India/Pakistan, China/Japan, Germany/France, Tutsis/Hutus.

I remember watching the third part of Lord of the Rings and thinking "This is why so many Americans think war is admirable; they make it look so cool and noble all the time."

Right - cause those American lads couldn't wait to join the army so they could use a catapult or battering ram. Of course, you leave out more relevant films like Black Hawk Down, which shows what sort of chaos ensues when the military is thrust into an arena in knows little about.

IMO - the Arabs are hopeless. We should not expend any more of our lives to try to establish a government they are not ready for. While there are certainly a variety of Arab regimes, ranging from the corrupt family rule in Saudi Arabia, to enlightened royal rule in UAE, to dynastic rule in Jordan and Egypt - to murderous Sudanese. If democracy eventually comes about, all well and good. For those Arabs that are truly ready for democracy - let's give them a a ticket to Dearborn and welcome them with open arms. Let the rest just slaughter each other.

I remember watching the third part of Lord of the Rings and thinking "This is why so many Americans think war is admirable; they make it look so cool and noble all the time."

Lord Of the Rings was written by a British writer and the film was directed by a New Zealander and starred several non-Americans in major roles. Not sure how you make the leap from that to it being a pro-American war propaganda film.

The right has become a parody of itself

And irrational extremists like you have become a millstone around the neck of democrats.

Lord Of the Rings was written by a British writer and the film was directed by a New Zealander and starred several non-Americans in major roles. Not sure how you make the leap from that to it being a pro-American war propaganda film.

This is not what I meant at all. I'm sorry I articulated it poorly. I meant to say, popular films (and LotR is far more popular than Black Hawk Down or other recent war films) tend to portray warfare as heroic and noble. While fighting Orcs with battering rams isn't realistic, neither is dividing the world into "defenders of freedom" and an "axis of evil". Some of the things that are happening in American foreign policy today are straight out of the movies; my thinking was that it is the movies that helps make this acceptable.

Ennis - Amreicans were harmed. No?

Some of the things that are happening in American foreign policy today are straight out of the movies; my thinking was that it is the movies that helps make this acceptable.

Ah yes - the power of entertainment to influence. I mean, after Roots came out - all of America's racial problems were solved. When Schindler's List hit the big screen - there was never any genocide ever again.

Of course if it were straight out of the movies - we would find that the true cause of all this global instability is a band of well-heeled neo-Nazis.

I meant to say, popular films (and LotR is far more popular than Black Hawk Down or other recent war films) tend to portray warfare as heroic and noble. While fighting Orcs with battering rams isn't realistic, neither is dividing the world into "defenders of freedom" and an "axis of evil". Some of the things that are happening in American foreign policy today are straight out of the movies; my thinking was that it is the movies that helps make this acceptable.

Every culture has portrayed heroic warriors and noble wars in their epics... from the Mahabharata to the Trojan War. One can argue till the end of time about the merits of those (real or fictional) wars too. But the heroic soldiers who fought have been remembered irrespective of the history of the conflict. Erwin Rommel was admired as a master war tactician by his Allied adversaries as much as he was by his own German troops.
If it makes you feel any better, two Americans have also acted in "Valley of the Wolves" a very anti-US Iraq war film that has been shown in movie festivals in the US.

Gautham:

"You can't separate the military from the soldiers; they choose to join."

I don't think it's this black and white, sometimes that choice is not really much of a choice at all. It's well known that certain areas are targetted for military recruitment much stronger than others, and done so in very unscrupulous ways. Yes, a draft doesn't exist, and it's a voluntary army, but more often than not it's people living in impoverished areas signing up to pay for school, or simply because they have nothing else to do.

It cannot be categorically stated that each and every soldier agrees 100% with the decisions their government makes.

But I do agree that having the kneejerk "support the troops" response isn't without problems for someone who doesn't agree with the current US military action. Most of the time, it's something we must say in order to defend ourselves against being labelled "unpatriotic."

Gautham - By your [deeply flawed, imo] logic, all of India should be one big happy family, where the young sing and dance aroud trees.

Point taken. Ignore my movie comment. I still believe that glorifying soldiers is part of the reason we are such a violent society as a whole though.

And irrational extremists like you have become a millstone around the neck of democrats.

Sue me for not lionizing the US military. I am sure the US military has brave troops just as the Indian, Israeli, Iranian armies have brave troops who would perform heroically in a battlefield. Romanticizing the soldiers when they are in the middle of a war against a country which did not present an imminent threat is in bad taste. Cheering on their war exploits and gleefully narrating their mowing down of the other side does nothing for me. I don’t get wargasms when I hear stories about the killing efficiency of fellow desi US soldiers. If that makes me an extremist, so be it.

Shitting on troops who're fighting an unpopular war isn't constructive. No one is every going to agree whether to admire troops or not. Or to look upon them neutrally at least.

War, as much as any of us would like to have it 'sanitized' or go away because it may fit our sensibilities, won't. Heck, there were groups of people opposed to war even after the US joined the fight in WWII. One of the Iwo Jima flag raisers (the second raising) mother/family was from a religious background that opposed war on any account. She wasn't too happy when her son joined the Marines with rest of his high school buddies.

Personally, I don't support this war, and I don't admire this soldier. Particularly since there is no forcible draft, the question of fighting in this war is firmly in the realm of individual choice.

This is where I believe you and those who make this argument are making this too simplistic. Many who fought from 2001-2003/4 joined a peace time military. These wars were not their choice. If you are gravitating to the idea that the very fact they decided to join up and ultimately fight is a reprehensible act, well, you're entitled to an opinion. However, once you've decided to join, you sign on and submit yourself to an order. The order/chain of command exists because that is how effective fighting forces have worked since the beginning of conflict/human civilization. If individual choice and a 'democratic' setup was used, you'd see your own guys get slaughtered by the dozens even if the chose to fight. Military does what they're told to do because it is understood that they can't hold public opinion or a tool as vital and dangerous as the military hostage with their own opinions. A minority of the population with such power is dangerous in itself. When troops start picking and choosing it sets a very, very, very dangerous precedent. Civilian control of when and where to fight is absolutely necessary. So is personnel in uniform following the decisions of said civilian personnel responsible for the republic.

If troops started to revolt everytime they felt a war was 'unpopular', 'immoral','unecessary', there would only be chaos. It just can't work that way.

As the drumbeat for an invasion of Iran gets louder it is high time that we pull back from the 'I heart soldiers' platitudes and seriously consider the consequences of the coming war for the Iranian people and the soul of this nation. Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong? After all the soldiers would only be following orders when they invade Iran/Syria. I am sure most of the soldiers would again believe that they are fighting them in Tehran so we dont have to fight them in Tampa.

This is where I believe you and those who make this argument are making this too simplistic. Many who fought from 2001-2003/4 joined a peace time military. These wars were not their choice.

A fair point to keep in the mix of things to think about. One also might point to the unprecedented use of National Guard and Reserves in this war, not to mention the class and race disproportionalities associated even with the "all-volunteer" military.

I still believe that glorifying soldiers is part of the reason we are such a violent society as a whole though.

Um, which society doesn't glorify their own warriors, current, or of the past?

You're reading far too much into it. Dude, bollywood films have a ton of fighting in it and have made war movies, too. If they (or anyone else for that matter) had the budget us Americans work with, they'd make em the same/similar way, too. What about all those martial arts movies from Hong Kong or China? Warriors will be glorified to some extent as long as conflict exists. Some will like it, some won't. That is life.

Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong? After all the soldiers would only be following orders when they invade Iran/Syria.

The soldiers are not the ones who make the decision about declaring war, so your ire is misdirected. You don't have a problem defending questionable people in your line of work even if you personally disagree with their social views as you have said. So why not extend that same logic here ?

Once again just trying to appreciate a different point of view:

AMfD, do you in any case support war ? Or you just plain oppose war no matter what? Do you think going into Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban was a good or a bad thing? Do you believe that US shouldn't intervene militarily in other countrys' affairs no matter how oppressing its regime is? Or do you think it's upto that country's oppressed to start a revolution? What if they don't have the means or guts to but desperately want out? I don't have a particular country in mind, consider these questions hypothetical.

You talk about the impending invasion of Iran. You make it sound like Americans go and kill, colonize and set up empires. I haven't seen that.

As the drumbeat for an invasion of Iran gets louder it is high time that we pull back from the 'I heart soldiers' platitudes and seriously consider the consequences of the coming war for the Iranian people and the soul of this nation. Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong? After all the soldiers would only be following orders when they invade Iran/Syria. I am sure most of the soldiers would again believe that they are fighting them in Tehran so we dont have to fight them in Tampa.

Uh - and exactly which soldiers are itching to fight Iran? Soldiers in general do not voice opinion on policy. I know there are plenty of neo-conservatives who want war with Iran (most of whom have not served in uniform). Remember, it was a man in uniform (Shinseki) who was arguing for several hundred thousand troops to pacify Iraq. It was a soldier in Iraq that asked Rumsfeld where the armor was for their vehicles? If you believe the policy is misguided, then level your criticism at the civilian architects of that policy.

Gujudude-

I agree with your point completely. Most societies do glorify their warriors. But it's not a good thing in my opinion. I happen to be an American citizen, so I am more outspoken on this topic, but yes, I think that glorifying soldiers in any context is idiotic and potentially damaging for the future.

Many who fought from 2001-2003/4 joined a peace time military. These wars were not their choice.

Gujudude, militaries are there to kill people and destroy things. The ends of an army might be up for debate, but not its means. So, no, the "joined a peacetime military" thing doesn't wash with me. What they joined was a Grand Narrative, a very old one, and they knew full well that it involved killing people in foreign countries.

By the way, I'm not saying people shouldn't participate in state-sponsored mass slaughter. If that's what they're going to do, it's what they're going to do. I'm just saying I don't find it as admirable as others do. I refuse to join the applause.

For the same reason I don't believe Jesus died to save me from my sins, I don't believe Captain Prakash machine-gunned eight people to preserve my freedom. They're both very stirring stories, but neither of them is true for me.

As for choice, well there's always a choice, and there are many, many choices in life that are more difficult than an honorable discharge from the army, or even a dishonorable one.

(And, yes, I'm very much aware that my views are in the minority.)

Please stop believing the CAIR propaganda on Iran. Only an idiot would invade Iran.

I would be willing to bet a 100 dollars of my wife's hard earned money, Amfd, on the claim that the U.S. will not invade Iran anytime soon. Ofcourse, If Iran launches a nuke on Israel, then as much as you may dislike it, all bets are off.

p.s. strikes on persian nuclear installations, whether by air or commando action is another matter.

Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong?

Yes and yes. Yes, they can do wrong - look at Abu ghraib but the decision to go to war was made by the President and as a soldier who voluntered you understand that you go when asked. Like the rest of the country (at least the majority) they believed that they were in Iraq to protect American lives and free Iraq. We have to honor the sacrifices of the people who take orders and sometimes lose their life and limb in the process. there is inherent honor in their job

I am worried that the incompetence of the civilian leadership will turn the American public against neccessary wars in the future. Case and point Iran. Hopefully Bush will not allow Iran to go nuclear. Pacifists are trying to argue that since Iraq was a failure, we have no business going to Iran or any other nation where genuine American (and it's allies) interests are at stake..

to the Iraq war critcs - Did you also oppose the war against Serbia ?

Mr. Kobayashi-

All I have to say in response to post #69 is: Word. You can now officially count me as one of your many fans.

Kritic-

Yes. And the war in Afghanistan. And the support of Pakistani dictators. And the sale of weapons to Israel. And...

As the drumbeat for an invasion of Iran gets louder it is high time that we pull back from the 'I heart soldiers' platitudes and seriously consider the consequences of the coming war for the Iranian people and the soul of this nation. Would we still be expected to cheer the soldiers as they march on to Iran? Then Syria? Can the soldiers do no wrong? After all the soldiers would only be following orders when they invade Iran/Syria. I am sure most of the soldiers would again believe that they are fighting them in Tehran so we dont have to fight them in Tampa.

The United States is in no position to fight Iran or Syria for that matter. Say a war did break out for hypothetical discussion, would it make a difference to you and the public if Iran decided to nuke Israel? Or if they took steps that clearly not only rattled the cage of the US, but the world at large? How would that change your perspective if world public opinion swung to an anti-Iranian one?

Civilian leaders are well aware that they'd be shooting the United States in the temple if they ran their horse completely into the ground. Morale issues, break down in discipline, lower recruitment, etc. etc. etc. would eventually plague the forces to a point, if decisions back to back were SO unpopular that no would would vote for it. Hence no war.

We are not going to Iran or Syria anytime soon, unless Ahmadinejad does something so crazy that not even the Europeans/other world powers would ignore it. Iran isn't isolated like Iraq from the Global economy either. They are major oil providers to China and Japan, the USA's major economic trading partners. Unless there is consensus, no one is going to Iran

One also might point to the unprecedented use of National Guard and Reserves in this war, not to mention the class and race disproportionalities associated even with the "all-volunteer" military.

Here is a breakdown of the military figures. Yes, minorities are slightly overrepsented in the military, however, it isn't as dramatic as the media has made it out to be. The all volunteer military not only includes combat troops, but also far more logistics support, technicians, maintenence, etc. Think of the Navy and Airforce. Their strike/fighting personnel are a minority (I'm excluding the USMC from this, I'm simply talking Sailors). Most of the folks do very technical work.

In terms of economic disparity, I've discussed this before, but joining because they were poor is a factor to some, but not the be all end all for folks who are poor. Many have joined to get away from broken homes and find social stability among comrades and a whole host of others (some actually want to serve, they like the spartan lifestyle, are looking for mentors/role models, family tradition, all your friends are joining up, looking for skills, college, adventure, some have no idea what to do in life and are looking for direction...).

Take broken/dysfucntional homes for example. This may well cross socio-economic lines because families can be screwed up with or without money.

An all volunteer military may not be the gold plated perfect solution, but it is the best one out there. Conscription/drafts are a slow and time consuming process. With a global information age upon us, speed is very important. You want quality over quantity (in the volume necessary), which you can only get from volunteers.

National Guard depolyments are not unprecedented. It is the ratio of active duty-national guard that has been different. The first Gulf War called up a lot of national guardsmen and reserves, too. However, the Government hadn't embarked upon its draw down of active duty forces of the 90s. Does it suck that national guardsmen are on a heavy deployment rotation? Yes. But that was part of the deal when they signed on. Taking care of their needs when they're gone is something that needs better attention.

Discovery Times had a series of the Arkansas or Alabama national guard. These were rural folk who, despite the hardship, did what they had to do because they understood that is what they signed up for. Do troops bitch? Hell yes. If they didn't, they wouldn't be troops.

The solution isn't not to fight because you have to call up reserves, it is to either give them the right tools to manage their lives or beef up active duty in the volume necessary to ensure you don't run the National Guard/Reserve component into the ground if you ever fight a large scale conventional war.

Yes. And the war in Afghanistan

So you must be for the continuation of the Taliban then. Right? Or probably for their removal by peaceful means like diplomacy or for dialogue with them so as to gradually make them see light. Or you just want the Afghans to fend for themselves?

I think I am beginning to have an appreciation for a different perspective on this issue.

Gautham - In that case, much respect.

Kritic,

Ennis - Amreicans were harmed. No?

That wasn't the raison d'etre for the sanctions post-Gulf War I nor the reason for this war now was it?

Vinod - How about a meetup in NYC, for the warmongering desis?

Mr. Kobayashi- All I have to say in response to post #69 is: Word. You can now officially count me as one of your many fans.

I don't know Gautham. Don't believe a word of what I say. Each writes out of his own darkness, and some of us are more troubled than others.

Gujudude, militaries are there to kill people and destroy things. The ends of an army might be up for debate, but not its means. So, no, the "joined a peacetime military" thing doesn't wash with me. What they joined was a Grand Narrative, a very old one, and they knew full well that it involved killing people in foreign countries

I agree with you here. You join to fight, but I was probing to get certain questions answered. Peace time or not, you sign on to fight or support the fight.

As for choice, well there's always a choice, and there are many, many choices in life that are more difficult than an honorable discharge from the army, or even a dishonorable one.

Ok, but you also realize it is more than 'fighting' that holds military personnel together. It is the social bonds they develop and trust they put in each other that makes a choice of not fighting when asked a very difficult one, beyond the legal consequences of their actions.

Again, if the war is THAT unpopular, troops will get withrdawn at some point and time. It is easy for you and me to say "you have the choice, if you oppose the war, take the punishment that comes", but you do know that refusing to go to war isn't a mere dishonorable discharge based upon UCMJ? Right?

I don't believe Captain Prakash is fighting for my freedom. Yea, you heard me right. In this case, I don't. But I do think he is still serving the nation's intrests and for that I am thankful. I don't thank these folks only when they're protecting my freedom. The right and left on the country are focused in on the ideas that troops only protect 'freedom' of the nation. No, they are tools of foreign policy that will do everything from assist friendly nations, train them, work with them, fight drug lords to dictators, be peacekeepers, humanitarian aid, patrol seas for pirates, etc. Protecting freedom is a subset of the militaries duties.

I do respect that you're clear about your positions, though I'll agree to disagree.

I don't believe Captain Prakash is fighting for my freedom. Yea, you heard me right. In this case, I don't. But I do think he is still serving the nation's intrests and for that I am thankful. I don't thank these folks only when they're protecting my freedom. The right and left on the country are focused in on the ideas that troops only protect 'freedom' of the nation. No, they are tools of foreign policy that will do everything from assist friendly nations, train them, work with them, fight drug lords to dictators, be peacekeepers, humanitarian aid, patrol seas for pirates, etc. Protecting freedom is a subset of the militaries duties.

I agree with all of that (though you accidentally left out, "advance economic interests through the covert or overt use of deadly force"- a major function of the military).

I do respect that you're clear about your positions, though I'll agree to disagree.

Respect.

It is easy for you and me to say "you have the choice, if you oppose the war, take the punishment that comes"...

Actually, I say it with considerable difficulty.

Bas! I have work to do...

For those who are opposed to the war in Iraq - were you also opposed to the sanctions that were in place in the 90's as well? Iraqis were dying every month from lack of medicine - but there was no hue and cry about our misguided policy then. While we did not have troops there, our policy certainly contributed to Iraqi misery.

The right and left on the country are focused in on the ideas that troops only protect 'freedom' of the nation. No, they are tools of foreign policy that will do everything from assist friendly nations, train them, work with them, fight drug lords to dictators, be peacekeepers, humanitarian aid, patrol seas for pirates, etc. Protecting freedom is a subset of the militaries duties.

I agree. We must ask ourselves where the world would be without American dominance. Where would East Asia be, or Europe be? Where would global trade be given that its the American Navy that protects its most crucial conduits? And what are the long term alternatives to American dominance? Red China? I dread, I dread. That being said, I have to agree with Mr. Kobayashi. The war is immoral, illegal - and woefully ineffectual.

EVERYBODY should listen to this episode of THIS AMERICAN LIFE. It methodically discusses and dissects a study that appeared in the Journal Lancet that claimed the U.S. led war has resulted in 100,000 civilian deaths (much of it through smart bombing that wasn't so smart). The facts surprised me. I think it has a lot of bearing on this conversation because of one of the perspectives it offers. A former U.S. soldier who worked in the Pentagon and who's job was to select high-value targets (e.g. people in the deck of cards), later visits the targets he had bombed as a new employee of Human Rights Watch. Great perspective and insight onto what is going wrong and why even though some soldiers try to do it right.

The war is immoral, illegal - and woefully ineffectual.

This war is immoral, illegal .... I will also add that the attack on Fallujah to avenge the deaths of 4 American mercenaries, was the worst case of collective punishment in a long while. The 4 Blackwater (or whatever was the name of the private security company providing mercenaries) mercs were killed by local population is because locals equated the mercs with the ones who were doing those nasty things in Abu-Gharaib.

BTW, extremely little real reporting is done about Fallujah.

Okay, these message boards are getting a little boring. It's a damn post about a guy of indian desent fighting in a war. Next thing you know people are writing essay's on war in Serbia. Your opinon's are never going to change anyone's mind. You do know that, right? Its's all rich powerfull people playing games with poor people. It's the history of the world no matter what race religion or nationality.
The End.

I came to the U.S. ten years ago for graduate studies. And do not have any American born desi friends. Thus my query.

Do you guys, the U.S. born desis ever query your parents on why they immigrated to this vile, warmongering nation ? That too, at a time, when America was doing some very unsavory things, least of which was the overthrowing of legitimately elected govts and replacing them with despotic, albeit "America friendly" regimes.

Not to mention, to the country, which was built on the back of slaves and "bought" from Indians/Natives.

I will also add that the attack on Fallujah to avenge the deaths of 4 American mercenaries, was the worst case of collective punishment in a long while.

RC, Falluja is not so black and white. Despite the destruction, Americans did follow the correct counterinsurgency tactics there. The local poulation WAS in fact terrified of the insurgents there.

BTW, extremely little real reporting is done about Fallujah.

That's because it is too dangerous for reporters there. If you listen to the This American Life story I linked up above you will see what I mean.

Kritic,
Despite your disclaimer your question is still utterly specious.

Very good discussion. Superb posts by GujuDude and Desitude in particular, along with some thought-provoking comments by Kobayashi-San too.

there is inherent honor in their job

Hmmm. As a Sikh and also as someone with a fair amount of Rajput blood in him, I can sympathise with the notion of "the warrior" having a certain amount of inherent honour due to his martial role. For obvious reasons (especially due to the latter part of my ancestry), I would be the first person to agree that there can be a certain glamour and nobility which is conferred on people taking up arms and "bravely fighting for what's right", even more so when you consider the extreme danger they are exposing themselves to, along with the sheer guts it must take to face large numbers of people trying to killing you. However, I would have to respectfully disagree with the quoted statement.

There is nothing inherently honourable about being a soldier. What makes it honourable is the reason one is fighting (in the immediate conflict and one's motivations for being a soldier in the first place), and the context of the overall battle.

Fighting for glory : No.
Fighting to gain territory : No.
Fighting to gain wealth and/or power : No.
Fighting due to hatred of the "enemy" : No.

Fighting to defend oneself and one's territory against unwarranted aggression : Yes.
Fighting to defend an innocent third-party against similarly unjustified attacks : Yes.

This doesn't mean that soldiers engaged in battle purely/predominantly because they have to put food on the table should be condemned, and -- up to a certain point -- neither does it mean that people who are "just following orders" should be dismissed out of hand. As has been mentioned by a couple of other commenters here, people have all kinds of personal reasons as to why they become soldiers, and it is one of the factors of modern warfare that professional soldiers are expected to follow the commands of their superiors regardless of whether they agree with them. Using a historical example, Guru Gobind Singh himself factored all this into the equation in his own attitude towards enemy combatants. It's not always a black and white issue. However, there comes a point when people have to take personal responsibility for their actions, and the claim that "I had no choice, it was my duty as a soldier of the [insert name of country/military group here] Army" isn't acceptable.

Much easier said than done, of course. But then killing someone is no small matter, and although taking another person's life in the cause of warfare is often "nothing personal", I guess the soldiers concerned have to make a judgement call on whether they really are fighting the right war for the right reasons, and if not, whether the blood on their hands will have an effect on their conscience and psyche.

Ideally, of course, one way to constructively deal with this is to ensure that the "right" people are at the top of the chain of command, so that they really can be trusted to lead their people into war for all the "right" reasons and only when all other peaceful means have failed.

This applies to any acts of war conducted by humans; I'm not just referring to Iraq here by any means.

Most FOBs who emigrated to the US now lean conservative even though back in India they leaned liberal. Interestingly in India they were relatively privileged whereas in America they had to start anew and are relatively marginalized. Most desis born in the US lean liberal and are relatively privileged.

The irony is that these two sentences are separated by just a single blank line

"I came to the U.S. ten years ago for graduate studies"

"Do you guys, the U.S. born desis ever query your parents on why they immigrated to this vile, warmongering nation "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RC: Have you read Bing West's 'No True Glory' about the events in Fallujah? If so, I'd recommend it. I know we probably disagree on a whole Noah's Ark of issues, but it is well worth the read.

The USMC did NOT want to go in full force into the town the first time around, they were thinking of using something similar to the Vietnam era CAP program (which was extremely successful as a COIN operation) that placed squads of Marines intimately close with the local population, living with them, interacting with them, using unconventional warfare techniques to flush out insurgent leaders who were looking for one thing - power. Marines worked with Special Forces and Deltas in one case to collect intelligence and conduct a raid.

It has its share of thanks to Marines and whatnot, and coming from a former Marine, it is expected, but he does dissect the choas and missteps that surrounded the decisions made to go, then not to, then to go back into Fallujah. The confusing in decision making generated by having parellel authorities (Coalition Provisional Authority and CENTCOM), and miscommunication or lack of communication as a result of it is documented. I noticed a few errors, but I'd probably put that as editing errors.

The contractors weren't even on any 'armed' duty. They were on their way to delivering or picking up food and food equipment, got lost, and presented an excellent target of opportunity for local insurgents. Among the insurgents different groups had different agendas, which is documented in the book as well. The local sheiks, mullahs, external foreign fighters, etc. were all vying for power in the area, trying to establish themselves as the top dog.

The fog of war, lack of clarity in decision making, and ultimately stutter stepping into combat made a bad situation worse.

The local poulation WAS in fact terrified of the insurgents there.

I have to dispute this (partly). I know that the local population was anti-US military, within days of the fall of Baghdad due to a specific incident of bombing. I will get the details later. Cant spend a lot of time on SM now, as I have just started this new job. Damn SM .. so addictive. I will post something that backs up my claim tonight.