Thread: US Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy took a slow look around the east Baghdad neighborhood that he and his men were patrolling. He grimaced at the sound of gunshots in the distance. A machine gunner on top of a Humvee scanned the rooftops for snipers. Some of Hardy's men wondered aloud if they'd get hit by a roadside bomb on the way back to their base.

"To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."


"What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight."

"Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."

"We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."

lmost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.
"They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.

"When we first got here it was, `Let's put up schools, let's work on a power plant' - but you can't do that without security, and security here is crap," said Evers, 26, of Stockton, Calif. "They keep trying different crap and it doesn't work. . . . They're talking about the inkblot method, and doing that you secure a small area, but the rest is still bad."

The problem, many soldiers say, is that as long as the majority of Iraqis oppose the presence of American troops, a trend that's only accelerated since the 2003 invasion, no amount of bullets or bodies will solve the problem.

"All of our friends who have been killed by (roadside bombs) and snipers, it's like there's no justice for it - it's just another body bag filled," he said. "The guys who died just trying to stay alive and get home, they'll be forgotten. No one will remember their stories."

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 02/03/2007 | Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause


Right wing media in America says we never get the true story from Iraq, but the soldiers on the ground say we're not getting enough bad news to get a true picture. It's not looking promising, is it?

Here's another article about how Iraqi troops don't want to fight :

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Concerns over Baghdad security push


In six months or so it's going to become clear the surge isn't going to work. What is Bush going to do then?

Yup, some US soldiers feel it is a lost cause and many others think otherwise. So what else is new? If you would have askked essentially the same type of questions to US troops from the north in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, etc. you would have found soldiers who would have answered the same way. Story proves little to nothing except troops have opinions. Some good, bad and indiferent.

I imagine the same attitude could be said by US Army troops after they got their butts whipped at the Kassareen Pass in North Africa. Maybe some Marines might have voiced the same style comments during the Battle for Guadlecanal, especially after the US Navy left them high and dry.

It ain't over 'til it's over and many a comment at the beginning, middle and end of a conflict or battle can be vastly different after the conflict when the wider picture can be assessed.

the story is Bullshit. I will believe when u show me a 29 y/o SFC. Not in todays army...........................SSG

Originally Posted by ssgiceman

the story is Bullshit. I will believe when u show me a 29 y/o SFC. Not in todays army...........................SSG

Does the rank SFC exist? I don't know and I am trying to understand the certainty with which you post?

Could you please explain.





Off topic, Tony Blair's quote is wrong and it is an afront to all law enforcement and fire personnel. They risk their lives daily for us and sadly, it wasn't until 9/11 that their efforts were truly appreciated and since then, their efforts seem to have been forgotten.

Originally Posted by celtic pax

Yup, some US soldiers feel it is a lost cause and many others think otherwise. So what else is new? If you would have askked essentially the same type of questions to US troops from the north in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, etc. you would have found soldiers who would have answered the same way. Story proves little to nothing except troops have opinions. Some good, bad and indiferent.

I imagine the same attitude could be said by US Army troops after they got their butts whipped at the Kassareen Pass in North Africa. Maybe some Marines might have voiced the same style comments during the Battle for Guadlecanal, especially after the US Navy left them high and dry.

It ain't over 'til it's over and many a comment at the beginning, middle and end of a conflict or battle can be vastly different after the conflict when the wider picture can be assessed.

Our top Generals all say we can't win this militarily. In a few months it'll be obvious to the 25% of Americans who are still drinking the kool aid that we can't win this. Most of them, anyway.

Originally Posted by ssgiceman

the story is Bullshit. I will believe when u show me a 29 y/o SFC. Not in todays army...........................SSG

If there'd been anything incorrect in the article, it would have been spotted by the US cnesors the story has to go through and retracted. It's you who doesn't know what they're talking about, not the guy who wrote the story.

Originally Posted by Vortex

Does the rank SFC exist? I don't know and I am trying to understand the certainty with which you post?

Could you please explain.





Off topic, Tony Blair's quote is wrong and it is an afront to all law enforcement and fire personnel. They risk their lives daily for us and sadly, it wasn't until 9/11 that their efforts were truly appreciated and since then, their efforts seem to have been forgotten.

I beleive it stands for Seargent First Class.

BTW Tony Blair is just kissing our assforget the qoute.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I beleive it stands for Seargent First Class.

Thank you for your response. So, if you look at the list of casualties and there is a Sgt listed that is 29 years of age, does that resolve the issue he has with the article?

I meant like:
Taft V. Williams, 29, Army Sergeant, Aug 12, 2003
Steven W. White, 29, Army Sergeant, Aug 13, 2003
Michael S. Hancock, 29, Army Sergeant, Oct 24, 2003

And there are others on this list Iraq Coalition Casualties: US Names By Date

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

BTW Tony Blair is just kissing our assforget the qoute.

LOL, oh, Blair's quote doesn't surprise me, it's the fact that a USofA serviceman uses it and apparently overlooks or ignores the sacrifices and dedication of others.

thanks again

hristopher R. Willoughby, 29, Army National Guard Sergeant 1st Class, Jul 20, 2003

Mickey E. Zaun, 27, Army Sergeant 1st Class, Jan 28, 2005

Ronald T. Wood, 28, Army National Guard Sergeant 1st Class, Jul 16, 2005

Richard J. Herrema, 27, Army Sergeant 1st Class, Apr 25, 2006

Charles Jason Jones, 29, Army National Guard Sergeant 1st Class, Sep 20, 2006