« A Pinko Speaks | Main | Thanksgiving »
November 22, 2005
A Marine Reports - We're Winning
In today's Washington Times there is a very long report from a Marine in Iraq. Here's the introduction:
Editor's note: There's nothing like word from the field to know what works, what doesn't and how the enemy's tactics are affecting our soldiers in battle. Below is one U.S. Marine's take on those questions, verified and relayed to us through his father, a retired Marine. We've withheld the Marine's name and his father's to spare them the inevitable political or institutional flap. Among the most interesting tidbits: Our Marine reports that servicemen are shocked at negative press coverage of the war, and they believe the United States is winning decisively -- but that the number of troops in the field should be bolstered. On equipment, our Marine thinks the older, battle-tested parts of the U.S. arsenal are the most useful equipment in the fight against insurgents. M-16s aren't much good, but "Ma Deuce" is, and the .45 pistol is highly coveted. Body armor has plusses and minuses
The report itself was written by the father, who is relating what his son told him while on leave recently.
I'm not going to comment much on the report, because it speaks for itself. As the Times notes, much of it concerns weaponry, both ours and theirs. He also discusses the "bad guy's" tactics, which is also interesting.
But it's the last few paragraphs that everyone should read:
The Iraqis(on our side) are a mixed bag. Some fight well, others aren't worth a s***.Most do okay with American support. Finding leaders is hard, but they are getting better. It is widely viewed that Zarqawi's use of suicide bombers, en masse, against the civilian population was a serious tactical mistake.
Many Iraqis were galvanized and the caliber of recruits in the Army and the police forces went up, along with their motivation. It also led to an exponential increase in good intelligence because the Iraqis are sick of the insurgent attacks against civilians. The Kurds are solidly pro-American and fearless fighters.
According to [name redacted], morale among our guys is very high. They not only believe they are winning, but that they are winning decisively. They are stunned and dismayed by what they see in the American press, whom they almost universally view as against them. The embedded reporters are despised and distrusted. They are inflicting casualties at a rate of 20-1 and then see s*** like "Are we losing in Iraq?" on television and the print media.
For the most part, they are satisfied with their equipment, food and leadership. Bottom line, though, and they all say this: There are not enough guys there to drive the final stake through the heart of the insurgency, primarily because there aren't enough troops in-theater to shut down the borders with Iran and Syria. The Iranians and the Syrians just cannot stand the thought of Iraq being an American ally -- with, of course, permanent U.S. bases there.
I can't say how many articles I've read about returning soldiers who comment "I thought we were winning until I came home and saw the news". I know my readers have also.
I'm going to address the issue of "more troops" in another post, because it's fairly complicated.
Posted by Tom at November 22, 2005 9:40 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/525
Comments
I'll look forward to the "more troops" post. I'm confused on that issue.
Happy Thanksgiving, Tom!
Posted by: GunnNutt at November 24, 2005 12:14 AM
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving Tom!
Posted by: Anna at November 24, 2005 12:48 AM
So, we win if the troops are happy? That seems like a pretty lame metric to me, something a preschool teacher tells the class: "when we're all happy, we all win! Yay!"
Posted by: jpe at November 28, 2005 2:28 PM
But of course if the troops were unhappy, jpe, you'd be the first to tell us that was evidence we were losing, right?
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at March 12, 2006 9:10 PM
