Soldiers speak out

And talk back:

A British soldier has broken ranks within days of returning from Iraq to speak publicly of the horror of his tour of duty there, painting a picture of troops under siege, "sitting ducks" to an increasingly sophisticated insurgency.

"Basra is lost, they are in control now. It's a full-scale riot and the Government are just trying to save face," said Private Paul Barton.

The 27-year-old, who returned from his second tour of Iraq this week along with other members of 1st Battalion, the Staffordshire Regiment, insisted that he remains loyal to the Army despite such public dissent. He said he had already volunteered to go to Afghanistan later this year.

But, he said, he felt strongly that somebody had to speak out: "I want people to see it as it is; not the sugar-coated version."

His public protest is a sign of the groundswell of anger among the troops, and predictions that more will come forward to break the traditional covenant of silent service. Just last month, Pte Steve Baldwin, 22, a soldier in the same regiment, spoke to The Independent about the way he had been "pushed aside" since being injured by a roadside bomb which killed three others during the Staffords' first tour of Iraq in 2005.

And then (via Bryan at Why Now?):

For the second time in a generation, the United States faces the prospect of defeat at the hands of an insurgency. In April 1975, the U.S. fled the Republic of Vietnam, abandoning our allies to their fate at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war.

These debacles are not attributable to individual failures, but rather to a crisis in an entire institution: America's general officer corps. America's generals have failed to prepare our armed forces for war and advise civilian authorities on the application of force to achieve the aims of policy. The argument that follows consists of three elements. First, generals have a responsibility to society to provide policymakers with a correct estimate of strategic probabilities. Second, America's generals in Vietnam and Iraq failed to perform this responsibility. Third, remedying the crisis in American generalship requires the intervention of Congress.

Helen Thomas

As interviewed by Chicago Dyke at Corrente: (Via Bryan at Why Now?)

Asked about her famous quote that Bush is the “worst president in history,” she reminded me that she said so in 2002. She says that while he could have improved, he didn’t and hasn’t yet, and I don’t think she’s holding her breath waiting for that to change. Clearly the issue that makes Ms. Thomas the most emotional and forceful in her assertion about the failures of this administration is the war. She called it “unconscionable” and a “quagmire.” She seemed particularly irked that the rationale for the war keeps changing, and that to this day it’s hard to get a consistent answer from members of the administration, “you ask five people and you get five different reasons,” she notes with no small feeling.
I can understand why this would be such an infuriating reality for someone who has such impeccable credentials as a journalist and who knows how to talk to politicians; it’s beyond insulting.

Ms. Thomas doesn’t think there is any good reason for the war. “People are killing, and dying, for what?” Asked why she thinks the American people have accepted this war for so long, she said that 9/11, and the fear and uncertainty it engendered, kept people behind the war effort far longer than would’ve been possible otherwise. “Fear is a powerful weapon,” she relates, and she notes how strong the urge is to support the president after an attack. She said that such fear caused people to accept not only the war, but also government intrusions on privacy, and the shifting rationale for the war.

[snip]

Ms. Thomas had two words to answer my question, ‘what is the biggest problem facing good government today?’ “Lousy leadership.” The follow up question about what is different today compared to when she first entered the business was hardly more reassuring. Back then, and unlike today, people understood the true meaning of public service, and followed in the tradition of Lincoln. People in previous governments have wanted to “make a contribution” and help “the sick, the poor, those without shelter” and had concern for issues like fairness and health care. She stressed that this isn’t found in the Beltway today, and she blames much of our current situation on Reagan, “when all this began.”