Sunday, August 12, 2007

Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq

So, Peter Beaumont is allowed access to soldiers by the US army public affairs office with the aim of finding out how well the surge is going. The story that comes from the soldiers is not about how well things are going, but about how the army is wiped with exhaustion.

Lieutenant Clay Hanna looks sick and white. Like his colleagues he does not seem to sleep. Hanna says he catches up by napping on a cot between operations in the command centre, amid the noise of radio. He is up at 6am and tries to go to sleep by 2am or 3am. But there are operations to go on, planning to be done and after-action reports that need to be written. And war interposes its own deadly agenda that requires his attention and wakes him up.

When he emerges from his naps there is something old and paper-thin about his skin, something sketchy about his movements as the days go by.

The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan - a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad - hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq.

Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'

A week later, in the northern city of Mosul, an officer talks privately. 'We're plodding through this,' he says after another patrol and another ambush in the city centre. 'I don't know how much more plodding we've got left in us.'

When the soldiers talk like this there is resignation. There is a corrosive anger, too, that bubbles out, like the words pouring unbidden from a chaplain's assistant who has come to bless a patrol. 'Why don't you tell the truth? Why don't you journalists write that this army is exhausted?'

Click title to read the whole thing.

9 comments:

Unknown said...

Your concern for the US fighting men and women is touching.

Kel said...

I have always supported the soldiers themselves, Jason. It is the people who lied to send these young working class men and women into danger who I reserve my scorn for.

You should know that by now.

Unknown said...

I have always supported the soldiers themselves, Jason.

You're a cheerleader for their defeat. Who do you think you're kidding?

Kel said...

I do not support the illegal war that Bush has sent them to, that does not mean that I do not support the soldiers. You appear to regard war in the same way that people approach baseball, that one must always support "our" side. War is far too important for it to be treated with such a lack of principles.

Unknown said...

You actively champion their defeat. Only in liberal fantasyland does that constitute "support".

Kel said...

You support your government's every stance with as little critical oversight as some German's supported the Nazis. You demand that we all support the military, even if we believe the campaign they have been sent on is illegal. The lack of morality in your demand that we all suspend our critical faculties and support the Dear Leader leaves me speechless.

I support the troops by demanding their withdrawal from an illegal war that is not worthy of the sacrifice of their lives.

It might not be the kind of support you would like, but it is support.

You say you are supporting them whilst demanding that they stay in a war which we all know they will not win. That's not support in my eyes, that's a suicide call.

How many more should die before the US packs up and goes? Because we all know, in the end, that's exactly what she's going to do.

Unknown said...

You support your government's every stance with as little critical oversight as some German's supported the Nazis.

I guess you're not familiar with Godwin's Law?

You demand that we all support the military, even if we believe the campaign they have been sent on is illegal.

I have made no such demand. I have merely pointed out the obvious, which is that onecannot support someone and cheerlead for their defeat at the same time. Anyone is quite free to not support the military, but they shouldn't be pretending they are doing otherwise when they're not.

The lack of morality in your demand that we all suspend our critical faculties and support the Dear Leader leaves me speechless.

I've clearly made no such demand, and have also certainly not demanded that anybody suspend what may pass for their critical faculties.

I support the troops by demanding their withdrawal from an illegal war that is not worthy of the sacrifice of their lives.

Who are you to judge what someone else may believe is or isn't worth risking their lives for?

It might not be the kind of support you would like, but it is support.

In your arrogance, you assume that what you feel is support is of any importance. It is what the troops feel is support that matters. Do you think any of them are going to come up to you and thank you for your support? Do you think you know what is better for them than they do? Do you think they are too stupid and uneducated to make decisions for themselves?

You say you are supporting them whilst demanding that they stay in a war which we all know they will not win.

Spoken like someone who lacks the balls or moral fortitude to fight for anything, regardless of the cost. When you say "we all know they will not win", your presumptuousness shows, and the US military forces doing the fighting don't share that defeatist attitude.

Because we all know, in the end, that's exactly what she's going to do.

That would be more of that "cheerleading for their defeat" support of yours.

Kel said...

I am, of course, aware of Godwin's Law, which doesn't apply here. I have not called you a Nazi. I have, however, pointed out that the kind of support you demand for "our" armed forces has no moral aspect to it. You simply demand that we support "our" side.

Given your logic, there is no dictator you would not have supported had he led "your" country.

You demand that we all support the military, even if we believe the campaign they have been sent on is illegal.

I have made no such demand. I have merely pointed out the obvious, which is that one cannot support someone and cheerlead for their defeat at the same time.

Oh yes, you have. You demanded that I must support the war because my nephew was involved in it, even if I believed the war was illegal. You demanded that I suspend my own moral judgement of that war and offer support. Indeed, you appeared pretty outraged that I didn't support the war for that very reason.

It might not be the kind of support you would like, but it is support.

In your arrogance, you assume that what you feel is support is of any importance.

There we have it, in your own words, the belief that my personal morality has no bearing in this matter. I must push aside my feelings and surrender to the Higher Power for the Greater Good.

It is what the troops feel is support that matters.

My God, you really love subjugating your own feelings to Higher Powers don't you?

I offer support according to MY personal morality. You appear to subjugate yourself to other people's needs and fashion your personal morality to THEIR needs.

It's the perfect example of what I have always said about you: you demand BLIND loyalty to "the cause". People must SUBJUGATE their OWN beliefs in order to support others. MY beliefs become unimportant in order to support the greater good. ( Which is, of course, defined by OTHERS)

You say you are supporting them whilst demanding that they stay in a war which we all know they will not win.

Spoken like someone who lacks the balls or moral fortitude to fight for anything, regardless of the cost. When you say "we all know they will not win", your presumptuousness shows, and the US military forces doing the fighting don't share that defeatist attitude.

Jason, you have already - on this blog - stated that you do not think the US "will be given enough time" to win. In other words, you have already predicted their defeat, whilst blaming others for that defeat.

But that "defeatist attitude" has already been expressed by YOURSELF.

Unknown said...

Given your logic, there is no dictator you would not have supported had he led "your" country.

As no dictators have ever led my country, that would not be the case.

You demanded that I must support the war because my nephew was involved in it, even if I believed the war was illegal.

What I am stating is that if you are supporting the military, then you are supporting the successful completion of their mission. If you are not supporting the successful completion of their mission then you are not supporting them, period. And that's fine, nobody is holding a gun to your head making you support the troops. Just be honest about it. If you feel that being vocal about your own personal beliefs is more important than providing support to the troops (even if that includes your relatives), there's nothing wrong about it as long as you are doing so honestly.

Indeed, you appeared pretty outraged that I didn't support the war for that very reason.

Surprised would be a better word. Having been in wat zones, I can't imagine my family not wanting me to be successful. I can't imagine anyone's family not wanting them to successfully carry out their mission. Family members all have their own opinions on these things, but usually supporting family trumps everything. If I had a gay son for example but was strongly against homosexuality, I would hope that I would suppress my beliefs and do my best to be supportive of his choice. On the other hand, I guess I could just decide that my beliefs were more important and castigate him and tell him that I hope he recovers from his sinful ways.

But that "defeatist attitude" has already been expressed by YOURSELF.

You just keep telling yourself that.