Left Behind

Not only has George Packer put together a really heartbreaking story for The New Yorker about the bleak fate of Iraqis who've worked with the US military in Iraq, but he also managed to get a pretty inflammatory bit of Bush-bashing our of Richard Armitage that was pretty tangential to the main thread of the piece: "The President believes so firmly that he is President for just this mission—and there’s something religious about it—that it will succeed, and that kind of permeates. I just take him at his word these days. I think it’s very improbable that he’ll be successful."

Packer also notes that as discussed in the Iraq sex post, unlike in Vietnam, American officials in Iraq have relatively little in the way of personal relationships with Iraqis -- just professional ones that tend to be fairly shortlived as people rotate in-and-out of country -- and this makes it relatively unlikely that people will go the extra mile to help people who need helping. And, of course, to help anyone you'd first need to admit that we've faled. And, per Armitage, Bush won't do that.

Comments

he also managed to get a pretty inflammatory bit of Bush-bashing our of Richard Armitage that was pretty tangential to the main thread of the piece, we also get some Bush-bashing from Richard Armitage:

Whoa--whoa! Is there an echo in here--echo in here--echo in here...

Posted by dj moonbat | March 19, 2007 12:27 AM

Damn that neocon The New Yorker. Damn it all to hell!

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 12:36 AM

Is Matt pulling a fast one and using a substitute blogger?

Posted by a | March 19, 2007 12:39 AM

Damn that neocon The New Yorker. Damn it all to hell!

Well, look, I didn't want to get into a big thing about it, but Packer does manage to smuggle both incompetence dodging and his trademark smug condescension toward war opponents (in this case, Petey, your boy John Edwards is this proximate target) into the article. It's some really, really good writers they employ at that magazine, but I think Packer has some pretty unsound views.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 19, 2007 12:41 AM

"Is Matt pulling a fast one and using a substitute blogger?"

Actually, the presence of spelling, grammar, and editing errors are your guarantee of authenticity...

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 12:42 AM

"in this case, Petey, your boy John Edwards is this proximate target"

I only read the paragraph mentioning Edwards, as I'll be getting the hard copy today and it's a nicer reading experience that way, but it's worth noting that Packer's "smug condescension toward war opponents" in that paragraph at least is equally balanced between Edwards and Krauthammer.

Yes it's a cheap shot, (or at least a lazy shot), but it's at least an even-handed cheap shot.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 12:51 AM

It seems that in Vietnam there was a whole cottage industry of being friendly to US forces: bars, peddlers, transport and even prostitution were tidy businesses that catered to American customers. It's not that way in Iraq where troops rarely venture outside the green zone and concepts of cultural appropriateness are so radically different.

Posted by Thomas | March 19, 2007 1:37 AM

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/03/19/opinion/19herbert.html?hp

March 19, 2007

Death of a Marine
By BOB HERBERT

Jeffrey Lucey was 18 when he signed up for the Marine Reserves in December 1999. His parents, Kevin and Joyce Lucey of Belchertown, Mass., were not happy. They had hoped their son would go to college.

Jeffrey himself was ambivalent.

"The recruiter was a very smooth talker and very, very persistent," Ms. Lucey told me in a call from Orlando, Fla., where she was on vacation with her husband and their two grown daughters last week. The conversation was difficult. Ms. Lucey would talk for a while, and then her husband would get on the phone.

"We see him everywhere," Ms. Lucey said. "Every little dark-haired boy you see, it looks like Jeff. If we see a parent reprimanding a child, it's like you want to go up and say, 'Oh, don't do that, because you don't know how long you're going to have him.' "

The war in Iraq began four years ago today. Fans at sporting events around the U.S. greeted the war and its early "shock and awe" bombing campaign with chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

Jeffrey Lucey, who turned 22 the day before the war began, had a different perspective. He had no illusions about the glory or glamour of warfare. His unit had been activated and he was part of the first wave of troops to head into the combat zone.

A diary entry noted the explosion of a Scud missile near his unit: "The noise was just short of blowing out your eardrums. Everyone's heart truly skipped a beat. ... Nerves are on edge."

By the time he came home, Jeffrey Lucey was a mess. He had gruesome stories to tell. They could not all be verified, but there was no doubt that this once-healthy young man had been shattered by his experiences.

He had nightmares. He drank furiously. He withdrew from his friends. He wrecked his parents' car. He began to hallucinate.

In a moment of deep despair on the Christmas Eve after his return from Iraq, Jeffrey hurled his dogtags at his sister Debra and cried out, "Don't you know your brother's a murderer?"

Jeffrey exhibited all the signs of deep depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Wars do that to people. They rip apart the mind and the soul in the same way that bullets and bombs mutilate the body. The war in Iraq is inflicting a much greater emotional toll on U.S. troops than most Americans realize.

The Luceys tried desperately to get help for Jeffrey, but neither the military nor the Veterans Administration is equipped to cope with the war's mounting emotional and psychological casualties....

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 5:28 AM

The article touches this subject, but too briefly in my opinion : those heartbreaking stories are nothing compared to what is probably going to happen when the US forces leave iraq.

Posted by yabonn | March 19, 2007 6:59 AM

There we have it, the perfect argument never ever to leave Iraq; what terrible things will happen if we choose peace and leave Iraq, so we can never choose peace and leave. No matter the destruction over these 4 years, no matter the destruction yesterday, no matter the destruction the day before, if we choose peace tomorrow will be worse for our having chosen peace.

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 7:17 AM

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/05/04/opinion/04herbert.html

May 4, 2006

When Warriors Come Home
By BOB HERBERT

The list of names on the Department of Defense Web site is ever-expanding: Sakoda, Davis, Mills, Gomez ...

Like a disease for which there is no vaccine and no cure, the war in Iraq drags on. American deaths have now passed 2,400. Tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children have died.

The suffering continues to spread like a fire sprayed with gasoline. Yesterday we heard the tragic story of Jose Gomez, a sergeant in the Army Reserve whose 21-year-old fiancée, Analaura Esparza-Gutierrez, a private, was killed by a roadside bomb in Tikrit in 2003. Last summer Sergeant Gomez, who had served in Iraq himself, was ordered to go back for a second tour. Last Friday he was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

The extent of the suffering caused by the war seldom penetrates the consciousness of most Americans. For the public at large, the dead and the wounded are little more than statistics. They're out of sight, and thus mostly out of mind.

The media are much more focused on the trendy problem of steroids in baseball than, say, the agony of the once healthy young men and women who are now struggling to resurrect their lives after being paralyzed, or losing their eyesight, or shedding one or two or three or even four limbs in Iraq.

The truth is that the suffering comes in myriad forms. I spoke by phone this week with Stefanie Pelkey, a former Army captain who lives in Spring, Tex., with her 3-year-old son, Benjamin. Her husband, Michael, a captain with the First Armored Division, was sent to Iraq just a few weeks after Benjamin was born. Michael was a big man, 6 feet 4½ inches tall, who loved to play golf and, like President Bush, ride his bicycle.

When Captain Pelkey left Iraq and rejoined his family in the summer of 2003, he seemed "really agitated," Ms. Pelkey recalled. He was hyper-vigilant, she said, and insisted on keeping a loaded 9 mm pistol by the bed in their home in Lawton, Okla.

In testimony last year before a presidential commission examining the nation's mental health system, Ms. Pelkey said, "If only the military community had reached out to family members in some manner to prepare them for, and make them aware of, the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, my family's tragedy could have been averted."

Captain Pelkey's distress intensified over a period of several months. He became unusually forgetful. He developed high blood pressure and chest pains. Eventually he began to experience nightmares. He sought medical help, but it was a long time before anyone discussed the possibility of depression, or explored a possible link between the captain's symptoms and his experiences in Iraq.

A civilian family therapist eventually told Captain Pelkey that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and recommended that he be put on medication....

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 7:21 AM

So, then, no matter how bad war and occupation have been, we are always told that if we choose peace there will be worse and we can never choose peace. We have been told these 4 terrible years of how terrible it will be if we choose peace, so we choose occupation and there is death and wounding and material destruction continually but peace we always know will be must be worse.

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 7:26 AM

Anne, I have the impression you read something that wasn't there in my comment. I think the US will leave, and that there won't be an Iraqi authority in place able to mend the wounds/reunite the nation, etc. In these conditions the life of the ones who helped the US forces will be impossible.

There would be a solution, a big immigration wave from Iraq. I am pessimistic about this - more out of habit than for precise reasons, i admit.

You could use the fate of the iraqi US workers as a case for staying, if you wanted to, but it's a strong case only if the US really cares about the fate of (some of) Iraqi people. I think it's posturing : the US doesn't care much in the end, and these people will be left on their own.

Posted by yabonn | March 19, 2007 8:04 AM

Then, offer refugee status for all Iraqis who have assisted us. Sweden, for instance took in more Iraqi refugees last year than the woefully low American number. The argument however goes much beyond accepting refugees. These 4 years, I have read and been told repeatedly that destruction will be terrible if America chooses peace and leaves Iraq offering assistance in turn. I only know I do not know the future, but war is not peace and we can choose peace.

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 8:33 AM

Remember, even the leading Democratic candidate for president has told us of keeping American troops in Iraq through her presidency. Where then is peace seriously being entertained other than in the struggle in the House of Representatives? Even Hillary Clinton though firmly chooses war and occupation over peace.

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 8:37 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/15/opinion/15herbert.html?ex=1255579200&en=c6d0a53544563b0e&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

October 15, 2004

Paralyzed, a Soldier Asks Why
By BOB HERBERT

DALE CITY, Va.

Sunlight was pouring through the doorway to the furnished basement of the neat two-story home on Reardon Lane. The doorway had been widened to accommodate the wheelchair of Army Staff Sgt. Eugene Simpson Jr., who was once a star athlete but now, at age 27, spends a lot of time in his parents' basement, watching the large flat-screen TV.

I asked the sergeant whether he ever gets depressed. "No," he said quickly, before adding, "I mean, I could say I was sad for a while. But it didn't really last long."

Sergeant Simpson's expertise is tank warfare. But the Army is stretched thin, and the nation's war plans at times have all the coherence of football plays drawn up in the schoolyard. When Sergeant Simpson's unit was deployed from Germany to Iraq, the tanks were left behind and the sergeant ended up bouncing around Tikrit in a Humvee, on the lookout for weapons smugglers and other vaguely defined "bad guys."

He said he felt more like a cop than a soldier.

One evening last April, Sergeant Simpson was the passenger in the lead vehicle of a four-vehicle convoy on a routine patrol in Tikrit. "It was a little housing area," he said. "We were just there to show a presence."

Iraqi soldiers were in the second vehicle of the convoy.

"I looked back and the Iraqi truck had stopped for some reason," Sergeant Simpson said.

He waved the driver forward, but the truck remained motionless. "That was odd," he said. "They wouldn't follow us....

Posted by anne | March 19, 2007 8:40 AM

Please keep your spam on topic to the post...

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 8:42 AM

We seem to assume that mass killings will take place after we leave Iraq. I don't. My predictions are that the Kurds will make common cause with Maliki's government in exchange for Kirkuk and form an armed and independant country in all but name in the north. The south is already under Maliki associated party and militia rule (that is to say various Shia religious parties in Maliki's coalition). Maliki will stop pretending the military and police are not disguised militias and the uniformed and nonuniformed militas will join to provide security for the Shia areas and kill or relocate any remaining Sunnis from their areas. The tricky part is the reaction of the Sunnis and their neighborhood allies, especially the Saudis. They could see the hopelessness of their situation and make peace with the Shia, or choose to fight it out. I think the former is much more likely than the latter.

When we invaded Iraq their population was estimated at around 23-24 million with 20% Sunni, or about 4.7 million. If you estimate that the 1.5-2 million refugees in Sunni countries are Sunni, and add the insurgents killed or captured, the Sunni population in Iraq may be down to 10-15% with most professional class people long gone. With the Americans gone, al-Qaeda forces will not have the incentive to keep the civil war going to continue our slow bleed.

The end result in Iraq will be the same whether we stay for 6 months or 6 years; a Shia dominanted theocracy similar to Iran,s, allied with Iran with a semi-autonomous Kurdistan and a Sunni population not much different in size or clout than the Turkmen, Christians, etc. The one thing that could blow all this up and insure that violence will continue in Iraq for years after we leave is if we engineer a government change to put secular Shias under Allawi and Kurds in a coalition government. Then the secular forces and religious forces will have to fight for control with a huge blood-bath the result. The end result will be the same and we will have made another in a long line of terrible mistakes.

Posted by Th | March 19, 2007 9:04 AM

The debt we owe to the Iraqis whose lives have been lost or ruined has long been the best argument for staying.

But, as the bodies pile up, Iraq is looking less like the glories of WWI and more like slavery in that we're piling up a debt that no one could ever pay.

Unfortunately, that's no accident.

Posted by Ric Caric | March 19, 2007 9:12 AM

Little Petey is upset, imagine how much we care. Is that in keeping with the minor positive of Iraq policy for Republicans? Little Petey, poor little Petey who quails at the thought of American soldiers suffering in Iraq. Is that a negative negative or a positive positive, Little Petey?

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 9:18 AM

What is it, Little Petey? "Shut the eyes of the dead, not to embarrass anyone." Anymore cogent thoughts on war, Little Petey?

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 9:21 AM

"With the Americans gone, al-Qaeda forces will not have the incentive to keep the civil war going to continue our slow bleed."

Suddenly al-Qaeda is responsible?????

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 9:24 AM

Part of the reason we've failed is that they hold contradictory positions about Islam and Muslims. One, that they're all devilish, murderous rag heads who've never left the 6th century. Two, that the devilish murderous rag heads constitute a small minority and that most Muslims are a peaceful people. That isn't going to produce a coherent policy.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 19, 2007 9:32 AM

Hillary Clinton gives "al-Qaeda" as a reason to keep American soldiers in Iraq during her (not a chance) presidency. These kitchen-warrior know all the right words to use. (Can Molly Ivins or I say that?)

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 9:33 AM

"Anymore cogent thoughts on war, Little Petey?"

Not at the moment. But I think that asking folks to stay on topic is pretty damn cogent on its own.

Here in the blogosphere, staying on topic in comments threads is a basic show of respect to everyone else reading and writing in the thread. Folks who have trouble with that basic concept are known in blogospheric terms as "idiots" or "social retards".

Thanks for playing, though, Jenniferette.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 9:50 AM

Little Petey, does that rottenness represent you or your negative positive love of Republican warrior strategists? Got some more rotten names, that show us who you are. that the way you used to bait the younger kids in the playground? Like to call attention to disability before you beat someone up? What do those words mean to you Little Petey? Like to be the bully, Little Petey? Who else you going to bully today? Help me understand?

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:08 AM

Jennifer, are you saying Zarqawi's people did nothing to spark the civil war and that the few foreign fighters in Iraq are not actively instigating conflict between Sunnis and Shias? There are many moving parts, and I have only covered a few. Obviously the intentions of the al-Qaeda members in Iraq will determine to some extent what happens were we to leave. Let's remember that documents found in Zarqawi's house said it was in al-Qaeda's interest for the war to continue. I disagree with Clinton that we need to keep troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda, they will leave when we leave.

A bigger problem for Iraqis would be for nationalist Sadrists to resort to open warfare with their present Shia allies who support the soft partition of Iraq.

Posted by Th | March 19, 2007 10:09 AM

What other bullying techniques you got, Little Petey? I don't have to use the sort of rotten names you use to drive you wild, Little Petey. Like being a bully, Little Petey?

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:11 AM

I am saying that the terms you are throwing around were the terms that got is into Iraq and have kept us there and will keep us there. I am saying that the terms have as much validity as WMDs. All we have to do to make sure we stay is Iraq forever is shout the magic terms.

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:15 AM

"Help me understand?"

I'm somehow doubt that's possible.

I'm opposed to spamming threads with lengthy cut 'n' paste that aren't on topic to the original post. It seems to decrease the usefulness of the thread for everyone but the spammer. Sorry again if the concept is too difficult for you.

Cheers.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 10:15 AM

You know all the terms, while I know none of the terms, but after 4 years our soldiers have no true idea who we are fighting and why. How many Iranis for instance are among the tens of thousands of prisoners being held in Iraq? (Can I say that, Little Petey?)

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:18 AM

I think articles on the suffering of American soldiers are exactly right for this thread and I was moved and grateful they were posted. I will stop being angry, now.

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:21 AM

No; Little Petey, I will stay angry for your wanton bullying which goes alone with not understanding why others might feel it so necessary to show the suffering of American soldiers (as well as Iraqis). I understand, well, Little Petey.

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:25 AM

"I think articles on the suffering of American soldiers are exactly right for this thread"

I'm sure you do. I'm sure you would think they were exactly right for a thread on education vouchers too.

Most folks, however, tend to be happier reading and writing in a thread that stays at least vaguely on topic.

Posted by Petey | March 19, 2007 10:27 AM

It is my contention that al-Qaeda's goal on 9/11 was to provoke us into invading Afghanistan where they would slowly bleed us into irrelevancy like they think they did the Soviets. Therefore, our withdrawal from Iraq while still economically and militarily viable and willing to stay involved in the Middle East is a huge failure for their strategy.

My fear after my original post was that people would see all the gaping holes in my argument, not for the fact I used a term used by the pro-war crowd.

Posted by Th | March 19, 2007 10:37 AM

Yes, Little Petey, the suffering in Iraq is the topic here, Little Petey, and should be the topic a lot lot lot more, Little Petey. Of course, would that be a negative positive or positive negative for Republicans or Democrats? I forget. So many hurt sensitivities, thinking about so much sadness. That's war though, so work to end it apart from positive negative positive strategizing. I am done, if you are done.

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:41 AM

Th, that makes sense but I doubt there was more planning than just to hurt Americans and America. There are scattered bands of crazed terrorists against whom we and other countries can and should protect ourselves, and that is what our defense is at least in part about. That is not what Iraq has been about.

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 10:47 AM

Iran is supporting the same people we are in Iraq, the current governing parties of SCIRI and Da'wa. That is why it is so ridiculous for the same people to raise fears over Iran and talk about "victory" in Iraq. They are counting on our ignorance. MY has had some great posts of late about our bumbling and incoherent foreign policy on this score.

Of course lamenting the idiocy that got us to where we are today does not point the way forward. As many have said, it doesn't matter what the smart way forward is, Bush will do what he wants.

Posted by Th | March 19, 2007 10:58 AM

I can't say I am surpised with the zeal. Like, ex-smokers and those who rediscover God/change faiths, someone who had never contributed much would, upon being faced with 9/11 and given the bully pulpit otherwise known as the presidency, be overzealous. Maybe it is all about compensating.

Posted by ET | March 19, 2007 11:06 AM

Thank you, Th. I generally agree with your argument.

Posted by Jennifer | March 19, 2007 12:05 PM

In Jan./Feb. 2002, I felt we were in the sweet spot regarding Iraq. Weapons inspectors were going through Saddam's sock drawers, Saddam was driving bulldozers over his missiles that would fly too far and cable tv cameras were on every street corner making sure Saddam was not up to his old tricks. If we found weapons, we could deal with them; if we didn't find weapons, the whole world would know Saddam did not have them. We refused to accept "yes" for an answer and invaded.

I think we are in about as good a position as we are likely to find ourselves again. The government is about as representative as we will see and has decent enough relations with its neighbors. It is as close to what I think will be the long term outcome in Iraq as we are likely to see. Time to go.

There are many groups with various reasons to think making our life miserable in Iraq helps them. One weapon they use against us is to attack our allies in Iraq to terrorize the population into not helping. These attacks may shift to supporters of various factional leaders, but I think the current coalition will prevail and so the people who cooperated with the current government and us will be on the winning side in Iraq.

That said, it is a crime we are not allowing more Iraqis into the US. I just don't buy the "blood-bath if we leave" scenario.

Posted by Th | March 19, 2007 1:59 PM

I can't say I am surpised with the zeal. Like, ex-smokers and those who rediscover God/change faiths, someone who had never contributed much would, upon being faced with 9/11 and given the bully pulpit otherwise known as the presidency, be overzealous. Maybe it is all about compensating.
Posted by: ET

I believe you're exactly right. It amazes me that this blithering idiot thinks god wants him to blow up the mid east, but his god wouldn't let him listen to 8 mos of warnings before 9/11. What's that quote, those that talk to god a righteous, but those that hear god talk to them a schizoid?

Posted by 1Watt | March 19, 2007 3:38 PM