July 30, 2007
Baghdad Raid Night
By Michael J. Totten
BAGHDAD – “We want to use you as bait,” Sergeant Eduardo Ojeda from Los Angeles, California, told me before I embedded with his unit on what was shaping up to be a night raid.
“Excellent,” I said. “That’s why I’m here.”
This is what passes for black Army humor in Baghdad.
“Our TST [time-sensitive target] blew up a vehicle and killed four soldiers and an interpreter in the next AO [area of operations],” he said. “He’s somewhere in our AO now.”
He could tell by the frozen and dubious look on my face that I wasn’t sure I wanted to go on the mission.
“Don’t worry,” he said. “These guys hardly ever fight back when we nail them. And they always lose when they do. Come on. Let’s go f*ck ‘em up.”
I donned my body armor and helmet, strapped my Nikon around my neck, and jumped in the back of one of the Humvees.
“I need your full name and blood type,” said First Sergeant Ray Fisher, from Keokuk, Iowa. “In case something happens.”
Everywhere in Baghdad is dangerous – even the Green Zone – but danger is relative. Not every place in the Red Zone is the same shade of crimson. The 82nd Airborne company I embedded with hasn’t suffered a single casualty since they arrived in Iraq in January even though they patrol their part of the city – the neighborhood of Graya’at, just north of the Adhamiyah wall – 24 hours a day. I comforted myself with the idea that if I’m the first to be shot here, God apparently hates me.
“Stay close to me,” said Sergeant Ojeda as he plugged his mouth with tobacco. “In the dark just look for the short guy. And call me Eddie.”
The military intelligence officers at Coalition Outpost War Eagle knew the target was somewhere in their area, but they didn’t know precisely where or for how long. My unit’s job was to go out and patrol the neighborhood known as Tunis until they could pinpoint his exact location.
We drove in the dark. The soldiers used night vision goggles. I had to rely on my eyes.
“How long are you in Iraq, sir?” Sergeant Fisher asked me.
“As long as I feel like it,” I said. “A month and a half maybe.”
“You’re lucky, sir” he said. “We’re here for 18. I just got back from leave and missed the birth of my baby boy by two days. At least I got to see him.”
“You don’t have to call me sir,” I said.
“Ok, sir,” he said and laughed.
“What’s the situation in Tunis?” I said.
“It’s not too bad anymore,” said Lieutenant Evan Wolf from Omaha, Nebraska. “It’s a rich neighborhood. Lots of educated and cultured people live there, doctors and lawyers, people like that. It was infested with Al Qaeda a while ago, so the neighborhood formed a protectionist militia. They set up road blocks, gates around the mosque, and they drove Al Qaeda out. But now the militia harasses and extorts the residents. They follow us from house to house and intimidate whoever we talk to.”
Our convoy of Humvees crossed an overpass above the Iraqi equivalent of an Interstate freeway and stopped on a dark road among trees just outside the neighborhood. Half the soldiers dismounted the vehicles and set out to patrol the streets on foot. The other half stayed with the Humvees.
“How long will we be out?” I said to Eddy.
“Could be a while,” he said and plugged his mouth with more smokeless tobacco. “Last time we had a raid night we were we out for more than twelve hours.” He spit on the sidewalk. “We chased a guy from house to house to house. Didn’t catch him that night, but he was caught somewhere else three days later.”
I could barely see anything, but the soldiers could see everything. It was next to impossible to tell who was who in the dark.
Eddy was obvious, though. He was the short guy. He told me to stay next to him, so I did.
“This country would be beautiful if it were not for the invention of the plastic bag,” somebody said. “That bag is everywhere – in the trees, stuck in barbed wire, on the sidewalks, crammed in every corner. Man, when this war is over I’m coming back to open a recycling factory. I’ll be raking it in.”
The area did appear to be nice, billowing plastic bags notwithstanding. Every house was considerably larger than the average American home and seemed to be well-maintained. I wouldn’t mind living in a neighborhood like it myself if it weren’t in Iraq.
“I suppose I shouldn’t smoke,” I said to Eddy.
“You got that right,” Eddy said. “Snipers wearing night vision can see the tip of your cigarette from a mile away. They’ll watch as you lift the cigarette to your mouth and figure out where your head is. Then BLAMMO. They’re really good shots.”
I kept the cigarettes in my pocket.
“We’re being followed,” said Sergeant Fisher.
Eddy, the rest of the soldiers, and I turned around.
“Four of ‘em,” Eddy said.
I couldn’t see anyone but the soldiers standing right next to me without night vision goggles.
“Where are they?” I said.
“In the shadows two blocks behind us,” Eddy said. “There weren’t there a minute ago.”
Curfew enforcement in Tunis was total. In some areas of Baghdad only military aged males driving cars are stopped by Army patrols after 10:00 p.m. But Tunis is infested with a militia. No one is allowed on the streets after dark except licensed generator repairmen.
We kept walking. Half the soldiers walked backwards so they could keep an eye on the men following us.
Some of the soldiers stood in the light from a storefront lit by generator power.
I tried to stick to the shadows. Presumably the men following us were militia. If they didn’t have night vision goggles – and they probably didn’t – they wouldn’t be able to see me any better than I could see them. And I couldn’t see them.
“Five of ‘em now,” somebody said. “They’re still following.”
The soldiers took up positions, crouched on one knee, and pointed their rifles down the street in the direction of our stalkers. I ducked behind a wall separating two driveways and checked the windows and the roofs of the houses to make sure nobody saw me.
“Why don’t you send the Humvees after them?” I said to the nearest soldier.
“We’re sending them now,” he said.
“More are out now,” said another. “Seven or eight of them.”
No one knew how many were coming out of their houses on side streets. No one knew who they were, either. They could have been local militia thugs, or they could have been the point men of the Al Qaeda leader the Army was trying to home in on. They knew he was somewhere in the area. Maybe he found us before we found him. “We want to use you as bait” no longer sounded so funny.
An old man speaking on a cell phone walked toward us from the direction of our stalkers.
“Turn that phone off right now!” yelled one of the soldiers. “Right now!” He ran toward the man. “You turn it off now!” The man kept talking in Arabic.
Our interpreter told him to shut it off. He shut it off. Perhaps he was giving information to the militia. Perhaps he was talking to his wife. Nobody knew. Either way he was violating the curfew.
“Go home,” somebody told him.
Suddenly the soldiers started walking back in the direction we came from – toward the men who were following us and who hid in the shadows.
“We’re walking toward them?” I said to the soldier next to me. I still couldn’t tell who was who. “Are they still there?” I still couldn’t see them.
“They’re still there,” he said. “We’re pushing back to see what they do.”
For the first time since I arrive in Iraq, I wished I had a weapon myself. When I couldn’t stay in the shadows, I zigzagged at random to make myself a much more difficult target.
Eddie sidled up beside me.
“Stay right next to me,” he said. “If there’s shooting I’ll get you in the safest possible place.” The safest possible place, I thought, was outside Iraq. “If it escalates…” He trailed off.
“If it escalates…what?” I said.
“If it escalates we’ll deal with it,” he said.
“Four more to west,” said a soldier. “They’re running.”
This time I could see them – four men rounding a corner and running away down a street. They were more afraid of us than we were of them.
“Does this kind of thing happen around here a lot?” I said to Eddy.
“It happens,” he said.
The Humvees finally pulled up to the area where the Iraqi men lurked in the shadows. When our foot patrol caught up with them I saw that two of our stalkers had been caught.
The rule for properly building suspense in horror movies is based on how fear works in real life. Faceless and invisible enemies are scary. Real human beings with faces and fears of their own aren’t so much.
Our two busted stalkers looked a lot less intimidating in person. They seemed rather pathetic, actually, and they were not armed.
“My air conditioner is broken,” said the first through our interpreter. “I was just going to a friend’s house to get another one. I can show you the broken one now.”
I’ve been on patrol with soldiers after curfew many times. Most Iraqis out after dark don’t appear to be threatening or up to no good. This guy stood out, though. I didn’t believe he was only trying to borrow an air conditioner. He was twitchy and much more nervous than anyone I had seen captured before.
And anyway, aside from the twitchiness, why was he stalking Army soldiers in the dark with other military aged men?
Our Iraqi interpreter – who wore a mask over his face to avoid being recognized by the locals – checked the suspect’s identification.
He did live in the area. ID cards, though, don’t say “militia man” on them.
Two soldiers guarded the second suspect while the rest of us walked to the first suspect’s house and knocked hard on the door.
No one came to the door. A soldier kept knocking. “Open up!” he yelled.
The residents of the house finally stirred.
“There are lots of people in there,” someone said.
I stepped back, having no idea what to expect.
A large man wearing shorts and no shirt opened the door. An old man in a dishdasha stood behind him. They weren’t armed and didn’t seem threatening.
“Salam aleikum,” said the shirtless man.
“Can we come in?” said the soldier who knocked.
Shirtless beckoned us in, and so we went in.
Soldiers dispersed throughout the house and rounded everyone – four men, three women, and two children – into one room. Everyone, soldiers and Iraqis alike, were mellow and cool. No one seemed to be angry at anyone. Shirtless seemed to be the head of the household, so the soldiers spoke mainly to him instead of to the young man they had captured outside.
“You’re right, he was bad,” Shirtless said.
“The curfew is for your safety,” said a soldier through the interpreter. “We’re hot, too, okay? Finding an air conditioner isn’t a good enough reason to go outside after dark.”
“Sorry,” Shirtless aid. “Please forgive us. Anything you want, we are with you.”
“There are bad guys out after dark.”
“I understand, very sorry.”
We said goodnight and left the house. There was no interrogation. All the soldiers did was drop the guy off at home to get him off the street. Whether he really was trying to borrow an air conditioner, or whether he belonged to the neighborhood militia, I’ll never know.
The second captured man was still being detained.
“I work at the mosque,” he said through our masked interpreter. “I work there at night. I was just out getting some dinner.”
We had walked past the neighborhood mosque earlier and there were no lights on inside. It didn’t seem that anyone worked there at night, at least not in any normal capacity.
All of us started walking toward the mosque.
“What are you going to do with him?” I said to Eddy.
“We’re going to take him to the mosque and see if he really works there,” he said.
When we arrived outside the mosque, some of the soldiers squatted in driveways across the street and scanned the roof. I joined them as Eddy and the others took the suspect to the gate.
I crouched near the ground.
“There are four men on the roof,” a soldier said. “You can’t see them anymore. They just ducked away as we got here.”
“They have a little bunker up there,” he continued. “You can’t see it from here, but it has sand bags and sniper netting around it.”
“What are you going to do?” I said.
“Nothing,” he said. “It’s a mosque.”
“They’re violating curfew,” I said, “and stalking us in the dark from a militarized mosque. And you aren’t going to do anything?”
“Our rules of engagement say we can’t interfere in any way with a mosque unless they are shooting at us,” he said.
We left our stalker with his “co-workers” and walked away.
While waiting for the call from Military Intelligence at the outpost, we walked the streets of Baghdad at midnight. If they could determine which exact house the Al Qaeda target was in, the soldiers I patrolled with would be the first on the scene. Our local infamous insurgent commander would be quietly surrounded by two dozen elite infantry soldiers, and myself with my notepad and camera, before he had any idea he what was happening.
In the meantime we chased shadows and silhouettes and dark vehicles on blacked out streets without any headlights.
We chased a car so far from our starting point I wondered if the soldiers still knew where we were. Eventually the driver pulled his car over and parked on his own. I got out of my Humvee and followed Eddy to the stopped car. Vicious dogs snarled at us from behind a gate.
Three men were inside. All were told to get out of the vehicle and were questioned and patted down.
It’s possible the three young men in the car didn’t even know we were trying to catch them. Humvees are driven in Iraq in the dark without headlights, and they don’t go very fast.
None of the young men were armed. The vehicle was searched and nothing was found. They were sent home and told to stay indoors after curfew.
This is what it is like most nights during counter-insurgency warfare. “It’s like we’re Baghdad PD,” one soldier put it. It isn’t always open war and explosions and bang-bang. Much of it entails patient police work and the chasing of ghosts.
We never did get the call from Military Intelligence. The insurgent commander, whose name I know but cannot reveal, was almost, but not quite, captured that night. His capture would have saved lives, and it would have been something to see.
This isn’t the movies, however. The Iraqi counter-insurgency would be a hard war to film accurately. Most of the time it’s so quiet. But it’s the quiet of an Alfred Hitchcock movie, not of rural Middle America. Explosions, mortars, bullets, rockets…these things can come flying at you at any time.
I watched the dark city of Baghdad through bullet-proof glass. Most homes were blacked out – the electrical grid supplies only one hour of power each day. A few families stayed up late and ran their generators past midnight. Most Iraqis, I knew without seeing, slept on the roofs of their houses where it’s cooler at night.
The palm trees somehow looked both menacing and benign at the same time. They looked slightly more ominous we drove into a dense grove bathed in an eerie glow from starlight shining through dust.
What may have been waiting for us on the road up ahead? Who may have been watching, perhaps even with the same night vision goggles the soldiers themselves wore?
Suddenly the trees were gone and the sky opened up. I couldn’t see anything.
“We’re in the slum now,” Lieutenant Evan Wolf said. “It’s a nasty one, too. Some houses are literally made out of cardboard. I would kill myself before I lived here.”
I have no idea how these people survive without air conditioning and clean water. The environment here in the summer is unrelentingly hostile.
“How did you get into this job?” Eddy said.
“I was in the high tech industry a few years ago,” I told him. “I got bored of the cubicle farm and needed to get out of the office.”
“You’re way out now,” Eddy said and laughed.
“I can’t wait to get in the office,” Lieutenant Wolf said.
“Do you like your job?” Eddy said.
“I love my job,” I said. “It’s the best I’ve ever had. Do you like yours?”
“I wouldn’t say it’s the worst decision I ever made,” he said. “It’s hard for soldiers. We all want to go home, of course. But we also want to stay and make sure our buddies did not die for nothing.”
There were no street lights. All I could see was absolute darkness and the faint outlines of hovels against a backdrop of stars.
“It’s always interesting, though,” Eddy said. “No one gets to see places like this. Only Iraqis. And you. And us.”
Postscript: Please support independent journalism. Traveling to and working in Iraq is expensive. I can’t publish dispatches on this Web site for free without substantial reader donations, so I'll appreciate it if you pitch in what you can. Blog Patron allows you to make recurring monthly payments, and even small donations will be extraordinarily helpful so I can continue this project.
If you prefer to use Pay Pal, that is still an option.
If you would like to donate for travel and equipment expenses and you don't want to send money over the Internet, please consider sending a check or money order to:
Michael Totten
P.O. Box 312
Portland, OR 97207-0312
Many thanks in advance.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at July 30, 2007 05:38 AMGreat Stuff as always.
Posted by: mantis at July 30, 2007 06:32 AMGreat post, Michael. And whoever thought this up ought to be drummed out of the service: “Our rules of engagement say we can’t interfere in any way with a mosque unless they are shooting at us,” he said.
Imagine how much quicker this war could be won had the soldiers been allowed to attack a bunker in a mosque.
Posted by: Patricia at July 30, 2007 08:11 AMI can understand not having US soldiers attacking a mosque for propaganda reasons. But I would hope that the area could be tagged and the Iraqi soldiers could clear out the nest.
Great read. It always amazes me when I scroll through the post and it goes on forever-but when I read it is feels like it took seconds and I am left wanting more.
Best articles and comments on the WWW in my book.
Thanks MJT
Sir,
Great report as always- it is obvious that you are becoming acquainted with the more patience-trying aspects of a tour in Iraq. I appreciate all that you are doing. Be cautious and, remember, heed all directions from the First Sergeant; he’ll keep you safe.
I am monetarily off to the gym, but I have already recognized a particular detail of your report that is going to generate a bit of discussion here. This same detail has even brought me to a question:
Does your company have any support from counterpart Iraqi Army?
This is in reference to the mosque situation that you described that I am sure will become primary focus of discussion in these comments.
At the time just prior to my redeployment from Ar Ramadi back to the States, our battalion’s numbers in our Area of Operations was nearly matched, by a man, by Iraqi forces. This proved vital in dealing with situations such as hostile mosques. In Ramadi, in fact, we had one particular mosque – the largest in the city – that continued to give us considerable trouble. After time and a long list of authorizing officials, a raid on the mosque was permitted. However, American forces could not and did not wish to initiate the raid. Instead, we left that to our Iraqi counterparts. They did the work and we, basically, followed their lead. We ultimately netted various enemy weapons and equipment that were hidden throughout the ductwork of the building and stored in the minarets.
The use of Iraqi forces is fundamental to the success in Baghdad, by my assessment. The tactical focus in the States is on the “surge.” However, it is likely that people are failing to realize that the surge is primarily only a tool in allowing the more effective use of Iraqi forces to police their own. For this reason, I will be anxiously waiting to hear the status, only insomuch as you can describe without violating operational security, of such forces in your area
Your report does an outstanding job of showing the “kid gloves” that we are attempting to use in our precision-like approach to counter-insurgency in Iraq. A recent dispatch from Michael Yon describing the thought process that occurs when American consider the size and gravity of force to utilize in particular situations also does this particular aspect justice. American people need to realize the intricacies of the current situation to understand why the act of eradicating extremists is such a long, slow and tedious process. You have reported beautifully these arduous processes in the act.
I have been in the shoes of the soldiers surrounding you. Many times, in Ramadi, we knew the exact residence of a known insurgent. One enemy individual comes to mind particularly. We visited his house so often that we had rapport with his wife and family and eventually it became a running joke to guess where the family would report their terrorist husband’s whereabouts on any given raid. He seemed to be off in some foreign, surrounding country more times than not….
Again, thank you for the update. I will be back to check follow-up remarks from the interested parties here and, hopefully, I will be able to use some of my own experiences in an attempt to bring any murky details to clarity. As an aside, I predict that eventually the mosque in question will be cleared by Iraqi forces and the mission will be conducted with the utmost respect and the dignity required of such a facility. It will be interesting to see if I am correct in my prediction and, if so, what the results net.
Thank you.
Steve B.
http://educatedsoldier.blogspot.com
Posted by: Steve B. at July 30, 2007 08:49 AM"Imagine how much quicker this war could be won had the soldiers been allowed to attack a bunker in a mosque."
Or not. A popular recruiting tool used by extremists is a photo, passing around their webs, of American soldiers siting in a mosque with boots on, thats it.
Posted by: Russ at July 30, 2007 08:52 AMNice job, interesting story.
Posted by: demagogue at July 30, 2007 09:04 AMI didn't read about any of those detained after curfew having their pictures taken and fingerprinted to identify them if ever on future expeditions after curfew hours. If they are continuing to go out after curfew, believe me it is to cause no good and maybe evil..
Posted by: Jimmy D. at July 30, 2007 09:08 AMGood read. Wondering if they ever caught the main target on this patrol. The reason I ask is because the attack he carried out was on my son's unit.
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: TacticalSteel at July 30, 2007 09:09 AMOutstanding.
Posted by: M. Simon at July 30, 2007 09:18 AMMr. Totten,
This is another great report. I have a question though. Why do the soldiers in your company assume that those men are "Al-Qaeda" and not "Sunni insurgents?" I ask this because it matters a great deal to properly identify the players in the field. If someone is "Al-Qaeda" you're going to supposedly be rougher on them, but if they end up being "Sunni insurgents" (who we are supposedly now working with), well, I just see so many problems with everything that's going on in Iraq.
Reports have revealed that Al-Qaeda's actual presence in Iraq is fairly small, that foreign fighters represent a tiny fraction of those who are fighting against us (whether Sunni or Shi'ite). Do you ever ask any soldier (if they even know this) what the likelihood is that someone they capture is actually affiliated with Al-Qaeda? Or is it assumed that all males 18-40 are to be considered the enemy?
I ask these questions because after four and a half years, this is not where we should be, based on the assumption that America is a very professional and very effecient country. But perhaps that assumption is wrong. Perhaps we really are this inept.
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 09:29 AMDan,
If we know somebody's name, who they are killing, and where they are staying, we know who they are affiliated with.
Take this to the bank. Iraq is a complicated place with a lot of players, but there are some things we know for sure. One of them is that if somebody killed four soldiers that day, we are no longer working together.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 30, 2007 09:43 AMPosted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 09:29 AM
I'm not sure what you are getting at, or rather I have a pretty good idea but I'd rather first give you the benefit of the doubt. The words 'Al Qaeda' play a very small role in the report. They are used in two contexts.
One, they refer to the insurgent group which had controlled this area before being pushed out by a local militia. It can be inferred that the soldiers refer to that group as Al Qaeda for one of several plausible reasons: 1) that Al Qaeda advertised thier control of the area with banners and other signs, just as street gangs advertise the control of turf with 'gang signs', 2) that the locals refer to this insurgent group as Al Qaeda, 3) that the soldiers have been provided with some other intelligence (documents perhaps) linking the previous group to Al Qaeda.
The other context that the words Al Qaeda is used are to refer to the TST which military intelligence was seeking. Again, it can be inferred that military intelligence has several ways of knowing what group this target is affliated with, either from the signiture of his methods, the targets he chooses (native insurgent groups are much less likely to target other Iraqi's), documentation that they have, or even infiltration of the insurgent network by informants. In any case, they aren't going to document these methods in a public report.
In the rest of the report, there is no indication that the soldiers think of 'these guys' as Al Qaeda. There is no indication that the soldiers treated the locals as members of Al Qaeda. Rather the assumption the report is that 'these guys' are members of the local Sunni militia group. Is there any indication in the report of the soldiers 'roughing anyone up'?
I ask these questions because after four and a half years, these are not the questions an intelligent person should be asking, especially if they begin with the assumption that America is a very professional and very effecient country. I have no idea how you would read that report and take from it that the soldiers are roughing everyone up because they assume everyone of military age is an Al Qaeda member. But perhaps my assumptions are wrong. Perhaps you really are that stupid.
Posted by: celebrim at July 30, 2007 09:51 AMI agree with Dan. Bush has tried to make the public believe AQ is a big part of the insurgency, and it is not. A critical component yes, but if AQ were to just vanish one day, the insurgency would go on with little difference. It also does harm to our strategy to label the enemy wrong as in this BBC report.
Village disputes story of deadly attack
The US military said the dead were al-Qaeda gunmen
A group of villagers in Iraq is bitterly disputing the US account of a deadly air attack on 22 June, in the latest example of the confusion surrounding the reporting of combat incidents there. The BBC's Jim Muir investigates:
What a wonderful report.
Posted by: AG in Houston at July 30, 2007 10:18 AMMichael:
Regarding military humor and interaction with the troops the proper response to being called 'sir' is of course to say with proper indignation: "Hey, I work for a living."
Take care..
Posted by: H. Short at July 30, 2007 10:47 AMTrackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
A great balanced piece, and quite artistic. Keep up the good work, and kudos on keeping it non-partisan.
Posted by: LnGrrrR at July 30, 2007 10:57 AMcelebrim,
It can be inferred that the soldiers refer to that group as Al Qaeda for one of several plausible reasons: 1) that Al Qaeda advertised thier control of the area with banners and other signs, just as street gangs advertise the control of turf with 'gang signs', 2) that the locals refer to this insurgent group as Al Qaeda, 3) that the soldiers have been provided with some other intelligence (documents perhaps) linking the previous group to Al Qaeda.
Or, 4)the military would like us to think it was Al-Qaeda because it continues to justify our presence in Iraq, when it could just as well have been some other group. You don't make this one of your options. I wonder why...
Is there any indication in the report of the soldiers 'roughing anyone up'?
Are you kidding? With a reporter around?
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 10:57 AMI hate to hijack Mr. Totten’s thread and divert any attention from his very informative post, but I think I can quickly provide a sort of abridged answer that may quell commenter Dan’s worries about the use of the term, “Al Qaeda” in identifying Iraqi combatants.
The original remarks by Dan offered three of his own reasons as to why one might associate the term Al Qaeda with the insurgents currently faced in Iraq. The answer that you search for, Dan, is probably a mix of all three of your own answers. However, from my own experience, I am apt to advocate that your second suggestion is the most compelling cause for such application of the Al Qaeda title:
2) that the locals refer to this insurgent group as Al Qaeda
During my time in Ramadi, the term associated with enemy opposition wasn’t Al Qaeda but “Muhjahadeen.” Because of our lack of Arabic language knowledge, we would travel the city, converse with the citizens and question them about the whereabouts of the “Muhj.” This worked temporarily. After a while though, it became apparent that many of the Ramadi citizens defined the term in such a way to denote “patriot.” This would mean that, occasionally, we would be asking about the location of enemy and our Iraqi citizen friends would be telling us the location of fair-minded, peaceful Iraqi loyalists.
The point?
As much as it may be easier, in our laziness, to say otherwise; Iraqis are not dim people. They realize that Americans associate the term Al Qaeda with enemy forces. It is quite possible, and in my assessment very likely, that they are simply using the term for the ease it presents in identifying insurgents of all types. Moreover, the Iraqi citizens may be using Al Qaeda to describe a board array of insurgents and terrorist-types, while we have a very narrow, focused definition of Al Qaeda only applying to a certain organization.
I hope this helps. However, ultimately, Mr. Totten will have to supply us with the absolute answers as they apply to his current situation.
Thank you.
Posted by: Steve B. at July 30, 2007 11:33 AMDan,
Balls.
In every conflict, soldiers adopt names for their opponents/enemies. The names are often derogatory or denigrative, but they always elide details in favor of brevity. Germans were "krauts" or "Nazis", regardless of whether they ever ate fermented cabbage or belonged to the National Socialist Party; Vietnamese were "gooks" or the proto-PC "Charlie", that last being spectacularly absurd in the case of the Russian or Bulgarian MIG pilots or operators of SA-2 sites.
Our soldiers are no different. They are Americans, so it's easy to convince them to avoid obviously bigoted expressions like "sand nigger", but they will and do use shorthand. What you should do is copy Mr. Totten's essays into a word processor and replace all instances of "Al Qaeda" with "possibly al Qaeda, possibly remnant Ba'athists attempting to restore their privileged position, maybe Sunni or Shi'ia engaged in sectarian rivalry, perhaps tribal bravoes engaged in activity indistinguishable from gangbanging, or even one of the minuscule minority stupid enough to believe the Leftist bullshit about imperialism and think of themselves as defenders, any or all of whom may or may not be partly or wholly inspired by al Qaeda propaganda and agitation." It's clear from his essays that Mr. Totten understands the complexity; the vast majority of commenters here appear to have some grasp; and from talking with returning soldiers I can assure you that they not only know what the issues are, they are continually reminded of them by their commands. They aren't going to recite the full litany every time they see a muzzle flash, though.
In any case, tribal and ethnic conflicts can be settled by defeat or subornment, and even the sectarian rivalry between Sunni and Shi'ia is a relatively minor barrier. It is only the ideologues like yourself and al Qaeda that insist on prolonging the agony, and in that sense al Qaeda is, in fact, the problem in Iraq, and using that name as a sobriquet is appropriate.
Find yourself a molehill with more substance. That one doesn't contain enough material to build a mountain you can pose heroically upon, mounted on your magnificent hobbyhorse.
Regards,
Ric
Steve B.
Thank you for that answer. I think it did very well to answer my question. I appreciate greatly your kind reply.
Best,
Dan
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 11:45 AMRic,
It is only the ideologues like yourself and al Qaeda that insist on prolonging the agony,
Me? An ideologue? Hardly. I'm not the one who tries to make this into a battle of good vs. evil that has raged since the pre-existence!
It's alright. I got my answer. Steve B. provided it for me.
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 11:47 AMSteve B,
Forgive me for pressing this just a little further, but your answer necessitates the following question:
If your analysis is correct, would it be wrong of me to conclude that this generalizing the enemy by Iraqis into what we call "Al-Qaeda" over-hype the actual presence of the real Al Qaeda in Iraq, to a point where generals and reporters overplay both the influence and power of the organization in Iraq? This is an important question to ask as our political leaders keep pressing our presence in Iraq with the justification that our enemy "Al Qaeda" is all over the place in the country. Do you see what I'm getting at?
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 11:52 AMI agree with the "no attacks on mosques policy."
We have to win the civilian population over. Nothing would wreck this more than assaulting their mosques. Besides, soldiers can still shoot back if they are under attack.
This Rambo "fuck the rules of engagement" rhetoric is not helping anything.
Posted by: Gifted at July 30, 2007 11:52 AM"It also does harm to our strategy to label the enemy wrong as in this BBC report" Uhm, the BBC is trying its best to harm our strategy...
I like these posts for the same reason that I like, for example, the "Village *" series of videos from Zimbabwe back-country presented by http://www.youtube.com/user/handfp
The role the embed plays is that of perhaps the closest, unbiased (CNN/BBC bias, et al) view of REAL IRAQ we are ever likely to see. Of course, I do hope that Iraq gets its act together and I can visit its awesome history and beauty in my lifetime...
Thank you for the report, Mr. Totten.
Posted by: Filg at July 30, 2007 12:03 PM... excellent work...
Posted by: Eric at July 30, 2007 12:18 PMDan,
To answer your question as briefly as possible as I want to abstain from turning this comment section into a two-person discussion, I would say:
That yes, it would indeed be wrong to make the conclusions that you suggested. While soldiers on the ground and the citizens they interact with may use general terms in describing a common and broadly composed enemy, the Generals that report to U.S. officials and media have a responsibility to refrain from making such generalizations.
I don’t think the existence of this particular detail on the ground influences the rhetoric used by military officials at higher levels. When these Generals say, “Al Qaeda,” I am quite sure that they are referring to the individual terrorist organization as we know it. Whether their assessment of Al Qaeda numbers is inflated or otherwise is an entirely different conversation but one worth having. However, I would caution you from making the “jump” that you suggested in your question.
Thanks for your interest, questions, and dedicated thought concerning the Iraq situation. It means a lot to this former soldier if that gives you any sort of satisfaction.
Steve B.
Posted by: Steve B. at July 30, 2007 12:33 PMPlease, let's hear only the facts from those in Irag, not the opinions of couch potatoes or cube dwellers. (Dan)
The story is real and the commentary unbiased. What a relief. Please keep it comming.
Posted by: MIchael Sperry at July 30, 2007 12:43 PMThank you Steve B. for your measured and insightful explanations of the questions being raised by this post. While our host has limited internet access it is invaluable to have a resource such as yourself to explain the finer points of discussion. I enjoyed visiting your site as well.
Thanks again,
Lindsey
Steve B,
Thank you for your answer. I truly hope the generals don't overhype Al Qaeda, but from my vantage point, I cannot give them the benefit of the doubt. I won't continue this point, however. You answered my question very well, and I appreciate it.
I do hope things go well in Iraq. My sister is currently in Iraq.
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 01:45 PMI agree with steve on many points, yes it is on our generals to verify which groups are doing what in Iraq. But having seen the grounds myself, most insurgents recognise themselves with AQ and claim to be part of them. It is no simple thing to say well group A killed these 15 people, but these 3 were killed by B. And since all claim to be the same group...... where can we go from there??
Posted by: Ben at July 30, 2007 02:08 PMThis is one of the best articles I have read in a long time from a reporter in Iraq. He kept it straight forward and only talked about what he saw and heard not about what he thought of it politically in other words he kept it neutral. Now for some of the questions and answers I have seen on here. Having been to Iraq my self and having a brother who has been there once and is going back we do not refer to people as al qaeda as some type of generic term. We actually use frases like terriorist or insergent. When we talk about Al Qeada we mean Al Qeada. As for them not being there in any large amount. Two things it doesn't take many people to cause the damage they have and second have you missed were Al Qaeda has come out talking about Iraq being there central front in defeating us in this war. I would ask some the people who have posted here to stop always thinking the worst of the troops and the government and start understanding the Terrorist in the world really do want to destroy us and it is not something made up by our government. Or has everyone forgotten those two big holes in the ground in New York City.
Posted by: Jim at July 30, 2007 02:29 PM"Or, 4)the military would like us to think it was Al-Qaeda because it continues to justify our presence in Iraq, when it could just as well have been some other group. You don't make this one of your options. I wonder why..."
Apparantly, because I have sinister motives. Is anyone surprised by this turn of the debate?
The reason that I don't include it in the alternatives is that it makes no sense and is broadly insulting. Essentially you are implying that the ordinary soldiers in the field are themselves anxious to continue to spread a lie in order to justify thier continued presence in Iraq, and that they (and apparantly myself) are a part of some propaganda apparatus designed to continue the illusion that Al Queda has forces in Iraq.
There really isn't any point in having this conversation because you show no sign whatsoever of arguing in good faith. I've seen what you've been getting at with your innuendo since the beginning, and its less than rhetorical dog turds.
Regardless of whether the high command or political leaders in Iraq is hyping the presence of Al Qaeda, and I've not seen anything but insinuation and suposition on that front, there is absolutely no evidence that average troops either do so or have the motive to do so. All the evidence given in interviews of the troops leads me to believe that they have a pretty sophisticated view of the situation on the ground - one that is by necessity more sophisticated than is generally portrayed by any sort of partisan media.
Stephen B is quite right to see the ambiguity in my answers. The ambiguity was intentional and he takes the discussion in a very appropriate direction. None of them imply conclusively that any particular individual actually is Al Qaeda. Intelligence can be wrong. Reports from the local population can be mere rumor, or worse simply telling us what they think we want to hear and so forth. And its almost certainly true that some things labeled Al Queda are labeled wrongly and that there is a very human institutional bias to err on the side of treating something as Al Qaeda if no counter-weighting evidence is around. But on the other hand, I've seen alot of evidence that the S-2's on the ground experiencing things first hand have come to have extremely nuanced and sophisticated understandings of the enemy and the terrain in which they work.
What you really want to argue has been clear from the beginning: that because in some cases things may be labelled Al Qaeda that are not then Al Qaeda's role in the Iraq insurgency must be minimal, and this is an entirely counter-factual claim. No one is here discounting the role of the half dozen native Sunni insurgencies, whether they be baathist holdouts or native islamists not allied with Al Qaeda, or of the criminal gangs, or the tribal militias, or of the Madr army and other Iranian backed Shia groups. But there is significant evidence that Al Qaeda is the lynchpin of the insurgency, that they are pound for pound the most dangerous, most professional insurgent group in Iraq, that they are responcible for many of the bloodiest attacks on the Iraqi's themselves, and that they have been able to successfully through murder, intimidation and propaganda assimilate many of the smaller native Islamist groups. You simply aren't going to be able to spin them out of existence.
As just one of many examples, consider the state of the Anbar province before and after the local tribal leaders turned against Al Qaeda. Or if you like, try examining some of thier own propaganda which contains video documentation of the role in the insurgency. If anyone is trying to hype thier role in Iraq, its Al Qaeda, but even taking thier stuff with a grain of salt, its still clear that what remains is significant and that Iraq cannot enjoy peace until Al Qaeda runs out of room to manuever.
I do not see any evidence that you are reluctant to jump to certain conclusions. If you want to continue to slander someone, I suggest you try a different and more reasonable tack.
Posted by: celebrim at July 30, 2007 02:33 PMThis is my first visit to your site and I enjoyed your report. To understand the reason for the rules of engagement you should read the US Army/Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual. It explains that the ROE are a conscious tactical decision of the military (led by Gen. Petraeus) to implement the larger strategy of trying to win the counterinsurgency war over the long term by winning the populace over. By definition, ROE always limit the actions of soldiers on the ground. They do that to implement the big picture strategy. The soldiers have to live with the risks that the strategy puts them in. That is why they are heroes. They are bearing those risks for the greater good of their country.
Posted by: MT at July 30, 2007 02:50 PMWe all want to go home, of course. But we also want to stay and make sure our buddies did not die for nothing.
While the Democrats are doing everything in their power to ensure his buddies did indeed die for nothing.
Posted by: Carlos at July 30, 2007 03:30 PMCarlos,
While the Democrats are doing everything in their power to ensure his buddies did indeed die for nothing.
Actually that would be the Republicans and the Bush administration that have been so inept and utterly brainless in running this occupation.
Posted by: Dan at July 30, 2007 04:40 PMSo, Dan.
Have you been over there in Iraq to witness all this you believe you are such an expert on?
If not, please shut up. Asking nicely.
We get quite enough of these sophmore opinions from the left wing media that is supposed to be simply an unbiased source of news.
Posted by: Michael at July 30, 2007 05:12 PMGreat report Michael. Thank you for your writing and your sacrifice. It is neat that you believe this is the best job you've ever had.
Heh, "Bait"; pretty funny.
I have to think that the troops appreciate what you are doing, though I imagine they would be a bit cynical/skeptical at first.
For those Political Partisan Posters; neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are without fault. Would be more productive to focus on solutions rather than which Party is the greater evil. (Though I confess I lean quite a bit to starboard so I am a bit biased).
We need leaders from both parties, not politicians whose primary concern is being reelected.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at July 30, 2007 05:19 PMDans right,
I haven't been over there but a few of these guys have...
WASHINGTON, May 15 (IPS) - Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush's nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM, according to sources with access to his thinking... [thanks cluado]
Update 6/4
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez commanded U.S. forces during the first year of the Iraq war. In “his first interview since he retired last year,” Sanchez has said that the war in Iraq is lost, and the best outcome America can hope for is to “stave off defeat.” From his remarks after a recent speech in San Antonio: Think progress
Update 5/21
One of the problems for the Bush administration with regard to the history of their fiasco in Iraq is that they invited in so many eyewitnesses from among "the willing." Gradually they will start to talk. Col. Mike Kelly of Australia, for instance, has started spilling the beans about former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. He says that he urged Rummy to stop the looting in April of 2003, and that Donald over-ruled him. He calls Rumsfeld "criminally negligent."
Yesterday, the NYT highlighted former General John Batiste, who (along with General Paul Eaton) retired early to speak out against the President’s handling of the Iraq occupation and called the President to task in this video for VoteVets.
MR. RUSSERT: As you know, there’s a widely publicized search for a war czar. One of the people who turned the job down was retired General, General John Sheehan, and let me read this to you: “‘The very fundamental issues is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going,’ said retired” Gen—“Marine General John ‘Jack’ Sheehan, a former top NATO commander...
“Sheehan said he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape. ‘There’s the” resitue—“residue of the Cheney view--‘We’re going to win, al-Qaeda’s there’—that justifies anything we did,’ he said. ‘And then there’s the pragmatist view—how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence.’” What does that tell you?
“Mr. President, you did not listen,” General Batiste says in new television advertisements being broadcast in Republican Congressional districts as part of a $500,000 campaign financed by VoteVets.org. “You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our great Army and Marine Corps. I left the Army in protest in order to speak out. Mr. President, you have placed our nation in peril. Our only hope is that Congress will act now to protect our fighting men and women.”
“There was never enough. There was never a reserve,” he said. “Again and again, we had to move troops by as many as 200 miles out of our area of operations to support another sector. We would pull troops out of contact with the enemy and move them into contact with the enemy somewhere else. The minute we’d leave, the insurgents would pick up on that, and kill everybody who had been friendly.”
“In the Army, you communicate up the chain of command, and I communicated vehemently with my senior commanders while I was in Iraq,” he said. Of his departure from the Army, he said: “It was the toughest decision of my life. I paced my quarters for days. I didn’t sleep for nights. But I was not willing to compromise my principles for one more minute.”
- Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom called on Bush to sign the bill specifying a US troop withdrawal from Iraq. April 28, 2007
The war was `a terrible mistake', as the Royal Institute for International Affairs recently noted.
-former head of the National Security Agency, called the war `the greatest strategic disaster in American history'.
- retired general Barry McAffrey, a veteran of the Gulf War, has taken up the mantle. McAffrey has recently carried out a study of the situation in Iraq. April 22, 2007
-Retired Army Col. David Hunt, a regular FOX NEWS Contributor who recently returned from Iraq.
-The Joint Chiefs unanimously disagree that surge in troops to Iraq is the right course.
_.Abizaid and General Casey who believe an increase in troops is unwise, primarily because it would discourage Iraqis from taking responsibility for their own security.
Excerpt from Thomas Rick's interview with Hugh Hewett
"That's not a good way to go to war, and that was symptomatic of the way we went to war. So it was not a prudent act to exclude people. So when a military intelligence officer expressed concerns about some aspects of the war plan, he was not invited back at the next meeting. When General Shinseki expressed concerns, he was slapped down. The best professional military advice was disregarded, and area experts' advice, people who spoke Arabic, who understood Iraq, was disregarded."
Posted by: Russ at July 30, 2007 05:34 PMGreat Report. It is amazing to hear a non biased report from Iraq. I think the fact fact he is self supported adds to his ability to think outside the box of right or wrong, left or right.
Regardless of how you feel about the war you have to respect the troops and what they are going through.
Thank you Michael for your reports.
Posted by: Damon at July 30, 2007 05:34 PMDan is a self-loathing Leftist troll who has been on several other blog sites to emot his insipid doggerel crap. He has no comment in regards to the excellent writing of the author but is here to pick shit with anybody who doesn’t hate America and Bush as much as he does.
May I recommend… do not feed the trolls.
Posted by: annoy mouse at July 30, 2007 05:34 PMActually that would be the Republicans and the Bush administration that have been so inept and utterly brainless in running this occupation.
I can forgive this administration's ineptness, but I can't forgive Harry Reid's treason. Apparently you can.
Posted by: Carlos at July 30, 2007 05:40 PMRuss,
We all know war is hell for those who are in it.
One of the generals (Batiste) you quoted berates the administration for leaving a secured area to attack a different front, only to have the ruthless enemy return and kill everyone friendly to us. Certainly this is reprehensible. It's a Vietnamese tactic of terror that saps resolve. It is an enemy tactic, not a failure of our military. How could such a tactic indear the populace, though. Terrorize them, yes.
I find it pathetic that you and your ilk want to abandon the entirety of Iraq to this same fate.
Well maybe they deserve it? I have never been there, but I have friends who have. None of them have said the Iraquis deserve that fate.
You want this so bad that you aid our enemy with your poison. You strengthen their resolve and show them the path to victory.
What do you think Iran will do when we leave Iraq? Just leave Iraq alone? Really think so?
Maybe we can get Iraq to pay us in oil - to stay. Hmm. Now there is a thought. Think about that Pelosi -:)
Posted by: Michael S. at July 30, 2007 06:49 PMRuss, unfortunately for your argument, most of those comments were made prior to the offensive operations launched in June.
For a current critique, read the op/ed in today's NY Times where two fierce critics are changing their tune and admit we may just win this thing.
Its an interesting read.
Posted by: Dogwood at July 30, 2007 06:52 PMLOL. Eddie Ojeda is also the name of the lead guitarist from Twisted Sister.
Posted by: Mark1971 at July 30, 2007 07:04 PM"Nothing would wreck this more than assaulting their mosques."
How do you know this? Have you been to the Middle East? Or is just one of those things that has such a ring of truth to it, that we forget how we come to believe it?
If the American media has convinced you of this, I would think again. Most moderate Muslims want the killers gone, and we are playing into the killers' hands by some of our ROE.
Posted by: Patricia at July 30, 2007 07:12 PMYour report is vivid without exaggeration. It places the reader right there next to you on the street. I look forward to reading each and every one, as I do the comments from those soldiers who comment here who have served in Iraq. Thank you each and every one.
Posted by: Barbara at July 30, 2007 07:17 PMAnother interesting and informative dispatch.
Michael, if you're only staying in Iraq till the end Aug.("a month and a half"), are you going to have enough chapters for a book?
Posted by: Tom at July 30, 2007 07:22 PMI comforted myself with the idea that if I’m the first to be shot here, God apparently hates me.
-MJT
Thought you were an atheist... you been hanging out in a foxhole or something? ;-)
-----
"Nothing would wreck this more than assaulting their mosques."
I disagree. IMO, treating the mosques as a no-go zone creates a tremendous incentive for the bad guys to take over mosques and use them as bases from which to terrorize the rest of the neighborhood. If mosques were treated as any other building, the incentive to use them as a base vanishes and the badguys will have to find somewhere else to hide.
Yeah, there would be propaganda about American soldiers doing bad things in mosques... but that propaganda would exist regardless.
Posted by: rosignol at July 30, 2007 07:48 PMDogwood,
I appreciate the NY Times tip, thanks.
Micheal S.,
You assume far too much.
Posted by: Russ at July 30, 2007 08:27 PMReally enjoyed reading that, Michael. You are doing much more important work than you were doing in the cubicle farm, whatever your job was! Stay safe.
Kudos to Dan for his excellent journalistic style of commenting! I Especially appreciate the clever editorial use of leading questions!
Dan, since you object to "Al Qaida" so much, can I suggest "scumbags"? Everyone knows what "scumbags" means, right? You've watched that show "Cops" haven't you? Anybody know how to say "scumbags" in Arabic? I bet the Iraqis would know exactly what US troops were talking about. It would suck if they tried to be smartasses and pointed at the troops interviewing them when asked "Where are the scumbags" though, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Craig at July 30, 2007 09:47 PMGreat post Michael. I would give an appendage to be over in Iraq with you. Keep up the good work. I'm sorry, but I can't let the issue of ROE go unanswered from comments above, so I posted on it, and it is one more in a continuing line of ROE articles that I have written. Michael's questions to his partner were salient and on-point. Nothing more needed to be said. I disagree with the comment made by "Gifted" who refuses to use his real name. I use my real name, and call out this issue of recruiting more insurgents by going after a Mosque a "myth."
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2007/07/31/mosques-snipers-and-rules-of-engagement/
Posted by: Herschel Smith at July 30, 2007 09:47 PMrosignol,
I've been with Michael near a combat zone (Kirkuk) and may be the source of the "God Hates You" meme. Sometimes days in Iraq just suck and are at risk of sucking worse and saying "God Hates You" to an atheist allows them a momentary correction in their worldview.
Having said that, while Michael Totten is not actually in a foxhole these days, he is doing the closest thing to it in this war. While there are in fact atheists in foxholes, their pronouncements on chaos theory and mortality are profoundly unconvincing. In other words, nobody listens to atheists in foxholes; they've got nothing helpful to add.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 30, 2007 10:13 PMIn other words, nobody listens to atheists in foxholes; they've got nothing helpful to add.
Atheists and agnostics tend to be pragmatic types. As such, they wouldn't tend to spend time in a foxhole making guesses about a Deity's probable emotions or actions..
But they would tend to use reason and logic to figure out how to get out of the foxhole alive, and maybe find a safe place with cold beer. For that reason, atheists and agnostics would be the most helpful companions in a foxhole.
Posted by: mary at July 31, 2007 07:53 AMGreat read and great job on the reporting Micheal. If you read these posts or run into Lt. Wolf that his neighbor Tim and family says hi and we are praying for him. I watched him grow up and to have him serve our country says allot about the men and women in the service. There is none better.
Posted by: Tim from Nebraska at July 31, 2007 08:26 AMmary,
But they would tend to use reason and logic to figure out how to get out of the foxhole alive, and maybe find a safe place with cold beer.
What I love about this comment is the hypothetical speculation in a discussion about a real and present situation. Most of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines I know are quietly religious. Mostly we don't talk about religion because it makes other people uncomfortable. But I know many people with combat experiences who are simultaneously disturbingly profane, intensely practical, and religious at their core. This is reality and it is complex.
You also misunderstood my point. In combat situations nobody pays attention to the schmuck blathering on about how when we die nothing happens and there is no benevolent deity to bail us out of this mess we are in. There is no comfort or hope there, so the devoutly atheistic are cordially invited do everyone a favor and shut their gobs. To be fair, nobody is going to give much care for anybody who blathers on endlessly about religion when there is work to be done, either.
In my experience though, it is harder to get the atheists to shut up and soldier in stressful times. I suspect that this is because talking to God can be done silently, whereas irritating religious people as a stress relief has to be aloud.
Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell at July 31, 2007 08:53 AMPatrick said:
Mostly we don't talk about religion because it makes other people uncomfortable.
Not to mention the fact that if you talk about it, you might have to confront the reality that God might really be on al-Qaeda's side as they claim he is.
In addition, you might have to acknowledge that religion -- specifically, the belief that faith justifies the use of force against others -- is the root cause of this entire conflict.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 09:47 AMIn combat situations nobody pays attention to the schmuck blathering on about how when we die nothing happens and there is no benevolent deity to bail us out of this mess we are in.
I wouldn't want to try that if I was an al-Qaeda foot soldier.
Posted by: Edgar at July 31, 2007 09:50 AMNot having been in a foxhole, I can only guess that the reason the person is mumbling to the diety is all the pragmatism, logic, and reasoning in the world are not going to get their butts out of the foxhole. They are stuck due to forces beyond their control. Hence please to a purported higher authority.
People, homo sapien sapiens are the reason we are in this mess. Religion is simply the tool de jure. Ultimately it is the inate human trait that 'I' and my beliefs are better than you and yours that drives this and the last several large wars. That and pure greed are responsible for much of human conflict.
Posted by: Ross at July 31, 2007 10:15 AMIn my experience though, it is harder to get the atheists to shut up and soldier in stressful times. I suspect that this is because talking to God can be done silently, whereas irritating religious people as a stress relief has to be aloud.
From what I've seen, when either side brings up the subject of religion or atheism during a stressful situation, zealtory tends to follow. This tends to distract formerly pragmatic people from thinking clearly. That's why most people who deal with emergencies/stressful situations on a regular basis tend to avoid the subject altogether, using jokes and deliberately mundane conversations to keep panic at bay.
Posted by: mary at July 31, 2007 10:45 AMDogwood,
I read that NYTimes report, but the guys that made the op-ed are not what I'd call unbiased or known to have a good track for being right.
"It's been endlessly observed that being wrong repeatedly just hasn't disqualified experts from continuing to get platforms such as this one to continue making predictions about the disaster they helped create in however small a way by supporting the invasion and the "surge.""
Posted by: Russ at July 31, 2007 11:44 AMMary,
Your comments are highly off point. But since they are being allowed, I will respond with another highly off point comment. I'm sorry you have apparently never met anyone who is religious and also a thinker. Perhaps your aren't looking hard enough. They're all around you. It is preposterous to assert that religion is a hindrance to clear and rational thought, foxhole or study room, stressful situation or calm. You have absolutely no proof for your position. You need to think in terms of religion being a worldview, a construct, value system, etc., that includes all aspects of a philosophical system: metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, cosmology, etc. You have one, I have one, we all have one. I commend the first chapter of Gordon Clark's book "Religion, Reason and Revelation" to you on defining or categorizing religion. If you think you can do it without falling into his logical traps, write me and give me the solution. Bet you a bottle good wine that you can't.
Patrick is right. I have a son in the Marines. Most warriors are quietly religious, and they do just fine, thank you. The problems to which you allude are merely fabricated by you.
Posted by: Herschel Smith at July 31, 2007 12:22 PMRoss wrote:
Ultimately it is the inate human trait that 'I' and my beliefs are better than you and yours that drives this and the last several large wars.
In the first place, that is not an "innate human trait" -- just witness the vast number of people who believe that all cultures are morally equal -- or witness the vast numbers of Americans who believe that anything non-American is automatically superior to anything American.
More importantly, the mere belief that one is superior does not automatically lead one to initiate the use of force against others. Rather, the justification for initiating force is almost always the claim that something transcends the rights of the individual and thus justifies the sacrifice of the individual to that something. That is the common root of all forms of totalitarianism and all wars.
For instance, National Socialism (the Nazis) asserted the Race to be superior to the individual and held that the function of the state was to advance the interests of the Race no matter how many individuals had to be slaughtered. Communism held that Class was superior to the individual and that members of one Class (the proletariat) had the right to take the property of all other individuals. Japanese Imperialism held the Emperor to be a Deity superior to all other individuals whose role was to serve that Deity through military conquest.
And on it goes. Religious wars, like the Crusades and the Muslim conquests that preceded and triggered the Crusades are based on the notion that God is superior to the individual, whose role in life is to sacrifice for God’s sake by conquering and/or killing the infidels. The fact that Christianity has not done this on a large scale in some time (it has done it on a small scale recently: see northern Ireland) does not change the fact that in the past, Christianity inspired many wars, slaughters, Inquisitions, etc.
The unique thing about the United States is that it was the first nation to be founded on the explicit doctrine that the individual is sovereign and that the government exists only by permission of the individuals and only to protect the rights of the individuals.
Unfortunately, these principles are under great assualt today from the Left, who claims that Society's "needs" trump individual rights and that the purpose of government is to fulfill those needs by taking whatever taxes must be taken from whoever has the money -- and from the Right, who claims that God's laws trump individual rights and that the function of government should be policing of those laws. It's a race to see who can stamp out the last vestiges of individual rights and freedom.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 01:07 PMBut they would tend to use reason and logic to figure out how to get out of the foxhole alive, and maybe find a safe place with cold beer. For that reason, atheists and agnostics would be the most helpful companions in a foxhole.
Mary,
On the other hand, an atheist/agnostic may feel that "pragmatism" is best served by saving his own hide while leaving his buds to die in that foxhole. There's nothing illogical about that (cowardly, but not illogical). And who could blame him. After all, he's only got one life to live.
A religious person, however, might take his religious teachings about an afterlife to heart and dive on a grenade to save his buddies in the foxhole, thus ensuring the favor of his deity of as well as a slot in the afterlife.
Logic is not heroism, nor is it self-sacrifice. I'd rather have a self-sacrificing hero in my foxhole than someone who is merely logical.
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 01:13 PMIn addition, you might have to acknowledge that religion -- specifically, the belief that faith justifies the use of force against others -- is the root cause of this entire conflict.
Michael,
I could name a million things besides religion that people believe justifies the use of force against others-- such as freedom and democracy, or even beer money. If we can't talk about religion because it's the root cause of this conflict then we can't really talk about anything. Not to mention we didn't invade Iraq because of religion, we invaded for wholly non-religious reasons.
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 01:21 PMI'm sorry you have apparently never met anyone who is religious and also a thinker.
I never met Einstein, but he was religious and he was also a thinker. I've met many people who are religious and intellectual. There are too many examples to name. Given that fact, I would never argue that someone can't be religious and also a thinker.
It is preposterous to assert that religion is a hindrance to clear and rational thought, foxhole or study room, stressful situation or calm.
I didn't say that. I said that atheism is not a hindrance to clear and rational thought. The presence of atheists is also not a hindrance to rational or heroic actions. Instead of being useless, they can be helpful in emergency situations. That was my point.
Most warriors are quietly religious, and they do just fine, thank you
Most warriors that I know are not religious, but that's irrelevant since it's a limited, empirical observation. In any case, dividing the world between the 'religious' and the 'non-religious' is also a limited observation. There are many people who believe in God but not in religion, who believe in religion but not in God, who believe in science but who respect religion, etc., so the generalizations rarely apply.
Posted by: mary at July 31, 2007 01:28 PMHerschel Smith wrote:
It is preposterous to assert that religion is a hindrance to clear and rational thought, foxhole or study room, stressful situation or calm.
Religion demands the suspension of reason and rational thought on certain subjects, insisting on compliance with faith-based religious rules instead. So with respect to those subjects, what could be more of a hindrance?
Fortunately, people have the power to compartmentalize their minds, and most people in the west can maintain a belief in God in a separate compartment where its influence is limited to the occassional visit to Church. This permits them to profess a belief in God while going on with their lives as if he were not around.
However, if Christian fundamentalists had their way, religious doctrine would displace reason on a vast array of subjects. If they had their way, any doctor that performed an abortion would be put to death, any teacher that taught evolution would be jailed, any pharmacist that sold contraceptives would be shut down, any scientist that did genetics research would be put in prison, any books that even mention something like witchcraft or sorcery would be burned, any movie that features nudity or depicts a sexual act would be banned, alcohol consumption would be a criminal offence, no business would be allowed to operate on a Sunday, all children would be forced to pray in school and all children would be taught that the earth is only six thousand years old and that all geological and scientific evidence to the contrary is the work of the devil.
So if religion is not much of a hindrance to rational thought in the west, it is not because religion is "reason-friendly". It's because the Enlightenment put it in its place.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 01:33 PMMichael Smith said "Religion demands the suspension of reason and rational thought on certain subjects ..."
Of course, this is false, and Michael Smith has no proof for his assertion. He just made it up, and is allowing his bias to cloud his judgment. Religion demands nothing of the sort.
Alvin Plantinga says otherwise. Perhaps Michael should spend some time with him.
http://www.homestead.com/philofreligion/Plantingapage.html
Enough said on this subject. Let's get back to the war. Michael can write me and I'll enjoy deconstructing his arguments until the "cows come home." We should take this debate offline now. Write me, Michael.
Posted by: Herschel Smith at July 31, 2007 01:43 PMHowever, if Christian fundamentalists had their way, religious doctrine would displace reason on a vast array of subjects.
If militant atheism had it's way, look at North Korea, the USSR, Mao's China. Logic and "reason" would displace archaic and illogical notions of morality, like selflessness, compassion, charity in favor of raw utility, practicality, pragmatism.
So if religion is not much of a hindrance to rational thought in the west, it is not because religion is "reason-friendly". It's because the Enlightenment put it in its place.
Or to put in another way, reason and religion are not incompatible.
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 01:50 PMCarlos said:
I could name a million things besides religion that people believe justifies the use of force against others-- such as freedom and democracy, or even beer money.
Yes, but how many people are initiating the use of force based on such things verus how many are initiating the use of force because they think they are doing God's will? I think the ratio is heavily skewed toward the latter.
If we can't talk about religion because it's the root cause of this conflict then we can't really talk about anything. Not to mention we didn't invade Iraq because of religion, we invaded for wholly non-religious reasons.
I don't claim that we cannot talk about religion. I was just pointing out that one (possible) reason more people are not talking about it is the desire to evade the obvious contradictions this war reveals in their religious beliefs -- such as the fact that, to be consistent, Christians would have to concede that it's just possible God really is telling al-Qaeda to slaughter the infidels. It's easier to evade that conclusion if the subject just goes unmentioned.
As far as the invasion of Iraq goes, religion was indeed the reason we invaded -- not our religion, but al-Qaeda's religion. We invaded because we were convinced that Hussein had WMDs or would get WMDs and we did not want to take the risk that these would wind up in the hands of the nuts that murdered 3,000 people on 9/11 -- nuts whose religious beliefs instruct them to mass murder anyone they consider an infidel.
Had the religious-inspired attack on 9/11 never occurred, I cannot imagine Bush ever advocating the invasion of Iraq. So religion is very much at the root of this conflict.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 01:54 PMThis may have been addressed previously - if so, sorry, but for clarity:
“You’re lucky, sir” he said. “We’re here for 18."
That's an example of scuttlebut. All Army tours in Iraq are now fixed at 15 months - but a great and powerful rumor still floats that it's going to be extended to 18. This in spite of the fact that General Pace on his most recent visit here said - basically - "no way".
There were some caveats attached, but extension to 18 would have to happen next year. Next year is 2008, and will feature a US Presidential election. Ergo, odds of that extension happening: slim.
Another great (and related) one you might hear soon (if not already) Michael involves the pending invasion of Iran. Ask around about that one, you'll find some folks who will assure you it's a certainty. Apply the same logic as above re: election year.
Al Q in Iraq: Generally when the locals are referencing al Qaeda, they at least mean 'foreign fighters". They know who's from out of town, much the same way an American from Wisconsin can identify an American from Mississippi as "not from around here" (and vice-versa) fairly soon after exchanging "hellos". Whether they are carrying al Qaeda membership cards and wearing secret decoder rings is beside the point. They are indeed people who've come to Iraq on a mission of "Jihad" and most are equally gleeful in killing Americans and Shi'ites. (And any Sunni they consider apostate.) At the top of the network are real, card-carrying al Qaeda boys.
Whether the most recent suicide bomber from Saudi has personally sworn fealty to Osama bin Laden or not seems hardly worthy of debate - it's not the club - it's the ideology that we're at war with.
(By the way, here's a recent related story.)
Finally, it's worth noting that the "great al Qaeda debate" has unfortunate American political overtones. One side says they're in Iraq and must be fought (I believe most in this camp understand "al Qaeda" to be shorthand), the other saying we must withdraw from Iraq and fight them elsewhere - except for leaving a small force in Iraq to fight the small al Qaeda presence there. (I fear this group has bought into someone's hype.)
Another question you might pose to the average Joes, Michael: try asking around about that "small force left behind to fight al Qaeda and not get involved in 'sectarian violence'" idea - see who would volunteer.
Again - in simple terms, it's al Qaeda and those who share al Qaeda ideology that we're fighting. (And yes, it ain't easy.) I am not spouting political talking points, I'm not regurgitating lines from PowerPoints, I'm offering my own observations from the ground in Iraq. How this fits into anyone's political ideology concerns me not one damn bit.
Posted by: Greyhawk at July 31, 2007 01:55 PMHad the religious-inspired attack on 9/11 never occurred, I cannot imagine Bush ever advocating the invasion of Iraq.
That's not a very logical statement considering you atheists are all so logical. Even a cursory knowledge of recent events tells us the exact opposite. The plan to oust Saddam goes way back to the Clinton administration, and we'd been at war with Saddam long before 9/11, bombing him almost daily from the skies. If the sanctions had been lifted and Saddam reconstituted his nuclear program I'm almost positive it would have come down to an invasion. No religious motives came into play at all.
I think the ratio is heavily skewed toward the latter.
That may be your thinking, but it's not based on any discernible evidence. Aside from islamic extremism, most violence around the globe is based on non-religious reasons.
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 02:16 PMCarlos wrote:
If militant atheism had it's way, look at North Korea, the USSR, Mao's China. Logic and "reason" would displace archaic and illogical notions of morality, like selflessness, compassion, charity in favor of raw utility, practicality, pragmatism.
There is absolutely nothing logical or reasonable about Communism. There is no rational, logical argument that justifies totalitarianism, slavery, or mass murder -- which is what all Communist regimes accomplish.
Reason is an attribute of the individual. It is the individual that all forms of totalitarianism are at war with. To rule the individual, you must get him to obey, not think. It is not an accident that all totalitarian movements go to great effort to manufacture propaganda in support of their regimes -- they have to do so to obscure the fact that their ideology doesn't stand to reason.
Or to put in another way, reason and religion are not incompatible.
Faith and reason are opposites. Faith is what one invokes to justify a belief that cannot be supported by reason. It doesn't get any more incompatible than that.
Reason would never permit you to believe in the existence of a cosmic Jewish zombie who is really three entities rolled into one and who is also his own father, and who can make you live forever provided you communicate to him telepathically that you accept him as your master so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree. No, to swallow that tale requires the suspension of reason and the invoking of faith.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 02:29 PMI wanted a chance to defend my point before Herschel, rightly, closes the discussion.
The inate human trait I refer to is the bottom-up not top down motivation. The peaseant, serf, semi-literate citizen what have you that listened to Hitler, Mohommed, Pope Urban II, Abraham Lincoln, and were moved to act in ways that ultimately led to the deaths of others were motivated by the basic belief that 'I am right and you are wrong'. People have always been willing to prove that point to the death. There are very few civilizaitions that didn't hold the supremacy of their race or creed over all others. The rulers have played on that trait of the masses for recorded history. Religion is one of those tools. It is fairly obvious that that is a trait that evolution would favor. If you don't do that you will dissapear into history-survival of the fittest
Your anti-americans are just playing the tapes backwards. They still believe they are right it just happens that their belief is that the other guy is better.
The multiculturalists believe multiculturalism is RIGHT. They are currently trying (poorly) to figure out how to be tolerant of intolerance. The fundemental flaw of their beliefs. But they are proving increasingly willing to put down those who question multiculturalism. Same techniques, same groups of individuals secure in the knowlegede that what they believe is RIGHT therefore worth the struggle
There is absolutely nothing logical or reasonable about Communism.
Then by your own admission atheism doesn't ensure or guarantee logic. Thank you.
In fact, put into practice atheism doesn't seem to necessarily guarantee anything positive. Unless, of course, you believe the atheist horror show of the 20th century was positive.
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 02:35 PMCarlos wrote:
That's not a very logical statement considering you atheists are all so logical. Even a cursory knowledge of recent events tells us the exact opposite. The plan to oust Saddam goes way back to the Clinton administration, and we'd been at war with Saddam long before 9/11, bombing him almost daily from the skies. If the sanctions had been lifted and Saddam reconstituted his nuclear program I'm almost positive it would have come down to an invasion. No religious motives came into play at all.
Carlos, the fact that you can construct a scenario under which we might have eventually invaded Iraq without the 9/11 attack does not change the reality of what actually happened. The fact is, we did have the 9/11 attack, and it was bad enough to make people finally realize that these people are so thoroughly convinced of the rightness of their faith-based beliefs that they'll do anything.
Furthermore, it is by no means a "near certainty" that we would have necessarilly invaded Iraq if Hussein developed nuclear weapons. We didn't invade Pakistan when they went nuclear.
Our motivations in invading Iraq had nothing to do with our religion -- but the religion of the Islamic terrorists that made the invasion necessary now -- not in some hypothetical future -- that religion is what motivates and moves them.
I really don't see how you can say that the enemy's motivating ideology is not the root of the conflict. It's his whole reason for starting and continuing the conflict.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 02:50 PMCarlos said:
In response to my statement: There is absolutely nothing logical or reasonable about Communism.
Carlos wrote:
Then by your own admission atheism doesn't ensure or guarantee logic. Thank you.
No, nothing "guarantees" logic. Man possesses volition, so the use of logic is a choice one must make -- nothing makes it happen automatically. It is entirely possible to use logic to reach the correct conclusion about one issue but then be totally illogical about other issues.
In fact, put into practice atheism doesn't seem to necessarily guarantee anything positive. Unless, of course, you believe the atheist horror show of the 20th century was positive.
Communism is not some automatic manifestation of "putting atheism into practice". Communism simply replaces God with "society" (or the proletariat) as the object to which individuals must be willing to sacrifice.
The philosophy I hold -- called Objectivism -- holds that nothing, neither god nor society nor the proletariat, nothing can be elevated above the individual's inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The right to liberty obviously includes your right to believe in God and worship any way you wish -- just as it includes my right to be an atheist. What it forbids is the notion that either of us have the right to initiate the use of force against anyone else.
Posted by: Michael Smith at July 31, 2007 03:13 PMThe problem, Mr. Smith, as is the problem now in the those trying to tolerate the intolerant, is when the other guy-who believes that you are wrong-gathers up enough friends and throws you and your objectivist brethren out the window.
Darwinism of belief systems would rate this at the dodo level of survival when meeting a large crowd of determined badguys.
There is a great line from Men in Black. To paraphrase: Individuals are smart, understanding and able to deal with crisis. People are stupid, slow and prone to panic. Many of the modern belief systems are great on an individual level and fall apart on a societal level(socialism, communism, multiculturalism).
Posted by: Ross at July 31, 2007 03:32 PMCarlos, the fact that you can construct a scenario under which we might have eventually invaded Iraq without the 9/11 attack does not change the reality of what actually happened.
I did not construct that scenario. It's historical FACT that we were intent on ousting Saddam WELL BEFORE the attacks of 9/11. FACT. Saddam was considered a REGIONAL threat by us-- and most of his neighbors-- independent of the possibility that he MIGHT pass nukes off to islamic extremists. That's a FACT, not a "construction." So to blame the Iraq invasion on 9/11 and "religion"-- when we were well on our way to war with Saddam is the construction here. Recall that it was only AFTER the invasion (and no WMD's were found) that AQ was cited as a reason for invading. Thus the real construction here is yours and it amounts to no more than a revision of history for the purposes of scoring points for on a blog thread for the cause of atheism.
So, to reiterate. As the atheists have demonstrated, violence would exist in vast quantities even in a world without religion. And such a world would not be any more conducive to logic or reason (as the atheists of the 20th century have so aptly demonstrated) than a world with religion.
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 03:42 PMMr. Totten, Sir, thank you for the great read! Your check is in the mail (seriously).
The comments here were interesting, too.
To summerize, Mary, Micheal Smit, Ross & Dan - want to make negative political hay about the war. They try to use big words and - for them - complex logic.
Unfortunately for them, however, Carlos & Hershel Smith are having none of it.
Mary & Co., I hope you understand how badly you've been taken behind the woodshed and whipped. Why do you keep coming back for more?
Posted by: Steve D. at July 31, 2007 03:58 PMSteve B: To summerize, Mary, Micheal Smit, Ross & Dan - want to make negative political hay about the war. They try to use big words...
Steve. Love you man, but your spelling/grammar flame just backfired in a big way.
Posted by: Edgar at July 31, 2007 04:33 PMMary, Micheal Smit, Ross & Dan - want to make negative political hay about the war.
Huh? My primary complaint about the war is that we're not killing enough of the bad guys, and that our foreign policy refuses to admit that alliances change. I'm not sure why you're assuming that I'd agree with Dan, but I have to guess it has something to do with 'complex logic' or a refusal to condemn atheism?
Anyway, yes, thanks to Michael for the great read.
Posted by: mary at July 31, 2007 04:42 PMYou guys and your absurd stereotypes are funny -- anyone need more proof that religion is far more of a polarizing and conflict-provoking force than a means to transcend differences and bring people and nations together? Formal religion is just organizational trappings which try to reduce spirituality to a man-defined set of social policies and limited, simplified concepts such as punishment/reward.
Never having been trapped in a foxhole under fire, I'm amazed to hear that anyone would think that's a good time to engage in theological or philosophical debates. I suspect most soldiers are quietly spiritual.
I thought mary's initial response was meant with a touch of humor, but heaven help us (so to speak) lest that go unmolested.
Great reporting MJT -- keep it coming.
Posted by: Pam at July 31, 2007 05:20 PMInformative and inspiring! Keep up the good work.
Posted by: john at July 31, 2007 05:56 PMPam,
you're more than welcome to contribute your two cents about it (apparently it's only "polarizing" when a non-atheist pipes in), but if you find the debate polarizing then perhaps it's not religion you have a problem with, but debate.
Oh, and the "silly stereotypes" started with Mary (the one you find so humorous).
Posted by: Carlos at July 31, 2007 06:27 PMexcellent read
Posted by: joedaddy at July 31, 2007 06:54 PMI'm sorry you have apparently never met anyone who is religious and also a thinker.
Mary and I are good friends, so yes she has. And we've had some relaxed conversations about religion. I know anti-religious people who have to vent at everyone but Mary is simply non-religious and has a very live and let live attitude.
But Mary, your first comment on this topic doesn't reflect your actual knowledge of some of your friends.
Faith and reason are opposites. Faith is what one invokes to justify a belief that cannot be supported by reason. It doesn't get any more incompatible than that.
No, reason and "faith" (means different things to different people) are subsets of our complex mental/physical/emotional attempts to understand reality. The are complementary not incompatible. Atheists always try to make out religious people to be incapable of or unwilling to practice rational thought, and all you have to do is get to know a random sample of people to see that this isn't true.
You use different modes of thought for different purposes. You could apply logic and reason exclusively to a poem or a dance or a love affair, but it's missing the point. (Unless you like stalinist monumental art.) (Note I said "exclusively." You don't want to throw your brain out the window, but there is more going on.) Creationists make the opposite mistake - they want to apply faith to science, which means it isn't science anymore.
Posted by: Yehudit at July 31, 2007 07:31 PMPam,
http://www.oregonlive.com/obituaries/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/obits/1185488737282880.xml&coll=7
Earlier today I went to the funeral of my best friend's father, and Air Force veteran with many years of service who died of kidney failure. Charles Longstreth was interred with full military honors and the service was spoken by his brother, a pastor. Both rituals were extremely comforting and helped us all come to a sense of completion about Charles Longstreth's life.
The military ritual was performed with precision by the Willamette National Cemetery's Honor Guard and accorded honor for service. The religious ceremony was a more relaxed ritual and the pastor spoke of Charles's life. Both rituals helped the survivors deal with the passing in different ways.
One of the problems of being an atheist is that you don't get those rituals to help you deal with loss. You also don't get those rituals when you are only spiritual, instead of religious. Most troops I know are quietly religious because the practice of religion has value compared to making everything up as you go along. Also, the military rewards ritual behavior with sanction. For further reference, see Skippy's List:
http://skippyslist.com/
175. We do not “charge into battle, naked, like the Celts”.
Patrick, I agree that religious ritual can be comforting for many people, whether they believe or not -- some very spiritual people find them hollow, on the other hand. I propose that it is the community aspect -- that the ritual is shared -- that really matters in that regard, and fosters a certain appreciation of human-ness.
It's really not inconceivable that a community of atheists or existentialists could develop comforting rituals. I say that because as a Soto Zen Buddhist, I am an a-theist, but the community nevertheless has shared social rituals around life passages, which are simultaneously designed to jam your nose into the inescapable hard and sublime realities of life, and to create a comforting sense of communality.
I think the rather heated either/or argument mounted here is a bit silly. Some religious people are very thoughtful, but most do, by definition, agree to suspend empiricism and logic in some aspects of experience. Some atheists are very thoughtful or artistic and have a lively, complex inner philosophy -- it just doesn't include a deity -- which I think deserves recognition here as well.
I wonder whether it is ritual that the soldier pinned in a foxhole considers, or if it is his spirituality, his inner belief, whether that is theist, existentialist, or what have you. Never having been there, like I say, I'll have to take your word for it. I still can't imagine a bunch of guys under attack haranguing one another, 'IS a God!' 'Is NOT' 'Is TOO!' 'Is NOT!' I think that is more likely in the comments section of a blog.
Posted by: Pam at July 31, 2007 09:47 PMPatrick - I'm sorry to hear about your best friend's father. If I'd known that you were attending a funeral today, I wouldn't have chosen this time to make jokes about religion vs. atheism in foxholes.
..and yes, religious ritual does offer comfort to atheists, agnostics, believers and everyone in between, even naked Celts.
Posted by: mary at July 31, 2007 10:15 PMPam, I really hate to get involved in this debate, but here goes. During my foxhole time in Vietnam, I found, in just about every case, when one felt his life to be in severe danger, he called out or whispered to himself for God's protection.
The fact that we cursed and drank beer afterward didn't change what happened in the foxhole. Perhaps it was the wounding and death around us, I don't know, but I found my belief in God to be a comfort to me, and I don't know anyone in my platoon who didn't feel the same way.
Posted by: joe at July 31, 2007 10:31 PMYikes.
That'll teach me to be more careful with the jokes.
Posted by: rosignol at July 31, 2007 10:38 PMAnd Michael, how could I forget, what a great story. Everytime I read one of your articles, I can't get enough, fast enough, and am always hungry for more. I have a son in the Army, now at Ft. Benning, but probably soon to be in Iraq, and your stories are so very important to me. Thank you so much!
Posted by: joe at July 31, 2007 10:39 PMI think the rather heated either/or argument mounted here is a bit silly.
Pam - Time and Newsweek recently ran articles covering the standard religion vs atheism debate. Most of the people who wrote letters to the editor about those articles complained about the same false dichotomy. Articles in newspapers and on blogs often get a similar response. I think there are a lot of people out there who have quietly moderate views about religion and spirituality that don't fit the either/or model.
Posted by: mary at July 31, 2007 10:42 PMWish all would stop discussing their personal religous beliefs and experiences. Go to Catholic Quarterly (or wherever) if you want discuss your religion.
Posted by: Ron Snyder at August 1, 2007 07:13 AMJoe, I understand that in the most extreme trauma, such as torture, people almost inevitably call out for God and for their mother.
Hmmph. If MJT would post a tad more often, maybe the comments section wouldn't get quite so far astray.
"If MJT would post a tad more often..."
At the risk of being called a religious zealot, amen to that, Pam. But I'm sure Michael does the best he can. And his stories always mesmerize me. Perhaps it's his writing style, I don't know, but I read them over and over, always finding something new, something I hadn't thought about before.
And I have enjoyed the comments for the most part. Regardless of what Ron says, I believe these discussions are worthwhile, even on this blog. But Michael is the one to decide, not Ron. I'll be glad to conform to Michael's rules on his blog.
Posted by: joe at August 1, 2007 08:53 AMAt the risk of being called a religious zealot, amen to that, Pam.
But religious zealot you are. I think it's somewhat of a joke to call these comments "moderated" when people get away with offensive remarks like `amen.'
Posted by: Edgar at August 1, 2007 11:09 AMCarlos wrote:
I did not construct that scenario. It's historical FACT that we were intent on ousting Saddam WELL BEFORE the attacks of 9/11.
Oh come on, Carlos. You are trying to re-write history. You really expect me to believe that on the morning of September 11th, as George Bush sat reading to children in grammar school in Florida, he was secretly thinking of an invasion of Iraq to depose Hussein?
So to blame the Iraq invasion on 9/11 and "religion"-- when we were well on our way to war with Saddam is the construction here.
We were "well on our way to war with Saddam"? Where do you see any evidence of that?
Even when Hussein invaded Kuwait and both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as well as the UN asked for our help -- even with Hussein poised to invade Saudi Arabia and take control of America’s single biggest supplier of oil -- even then the congressional authorization for US military intervention only passed the US Senate by a vote of 52 - 47. In the absence of similar, obvious causus belli, there is no way we were going to war with Iraq, even if they did develop nuclear weapons.
The much-touted "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" called on the president to use "humanitarian assistance" and "international pressure" through the UN to get Hussein out of office. But here is the very last sentence of that Act:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .
Section 4 (a) (s) reads as follows: 2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.
The Act spells out that the “organizations” in question are "Iraqi Democratic Opposition Organizations".
Thus, the act makes clear that there was no intention to authorize the use of military force to get rid of Hussein. We may have viewed Hussein as "regional threat", but it is clear that we didn’t see him as enough of a threat to justify an invasion and occupation to get rid of him.
9/11 changed almost everyone’s thinking on that. And 9/11 was a faith-based initiative.
Posted by: Michael Smith at August 1, 2007 11:10 AMMany of the modern belief systems are great on an individual level and fall apart on a societal level(socialism, communism, multiculturalism).
There is nothing "great" about any of these ideas on any level -- not if your objective is to live in a free society under a government dedicated to protecting the individual rights of all citizens.
Posted by: Michael Smith at August 1, 2007 11:16 AMMichael Smith,
Oh come on, Carlos. You are trying to re-write history. You really expect me to believe that on the morning of September 11th, as George Bush sat reading to children in grammar school in Florida, he was secretly thinking of an invasion of Iraq to depose Hussein?
Why does it have to be on the morning of 9/11?
We were "well on our way to war with Saddam"? Where do you see any evidence of that?
Um, probably in the law passed in 1998 calling for regime change in Iraq. Seconly, the Pentagon had prepared in 1999 several war game scenarios on a full invasion of Iraq complete with a capitulation of the Baathist regime. Ironically, those war games recommended we go in with at least 400,000 combat troops.
Furthermore, the very people influencing the Bush administration called on a full regime change of Iraq in 1998:
Saddam Hussein must go. This imperative may seem too simple for some experts and too daunting for the Clinton Administration. But if the United States is committed, as the President said in his State of the Union Message, to insuring that the Iraqi leader never again uses weapons of mass destruction, the only way to achieve that goal is to remove Mr. Hussein and his regime from power. Any policy short of that will fail.The good news is this: The Administration has abandoned efforts to win over the Iraqi leader with various carrots. It is