
Where Are the Brave Military Voices Against the Forever War? - bkohlmann
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/where-are-the-brave-military-voices-against-forever-war/
======
RUG3Y
After returning from Iraq, I was jaded. Young when I started, I thought we
were doing a good thing. My idealism was stripped away pretty quickly.

After being stateside for a while, there were rumors that our unit would be
deploying to Afghanistan. A Lt. Colonel came and gave a presentation to the
company about conditions there. During the Q.A., I stood up and asked, "Sir,
what are we really doing there? For the life of me, I can't understand the
strategic purpose of invading Afghanistan. They're not even the ones who
attacked us on 9/11."

To put it mildly, that did not go well. I exited the Corps after my first
enlistment and I'm a bitter old veteran now.

The point I want to make here is that the voice of integrity in the military
are in the lowest ranks, and they leave as soon as they can, as the situation
is intolerable for them. You don't rise in the ranks as a career officer or
NCO if you don't believe in the mission.

~~~
zeveb
> For the life of me, I can't understand the strategic purpose of invading
> Afghanistan. They're not even the ones who attacked us on 9/11.

The Afghan government at the time offered sanctuary to Al Qaeda, refusing to
hand over its members after they had declared war on the U.S., attacked USS
Cole, hijacked four civilian aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade
CEnter & the Pentagon, killing thousands; the strategic purpose of invading
Afghanistan was to demonstrate to every country that shielding those who
commit acts of war against the United States is itself an act of war against
the United States — and that being in a state of war with the United States is
an unhealthy condition.

What's the strategic purpose of _staying_ in Afghanistan? 'You broke it, you
fix it': having invaded, having destroyed the previous government, it is our
responsibility to build a functioning government. Additionally, we desire to
prevent the resumption of conditions similar to those which enabled the rise
to power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the first place.

~~~
RUG3Y
I asked the question ~2009. What never made sense to me is that with unsecured
borders, what's the point of invaded a poor country of goat farmers? Ok yeah,
so Al Qaeda supposedly attacked us and they were allegedly being harbored in
Afghanistan. But the guys in the planes were Saudi. Why didn't we invade Saudi
Arabia? (That's a rhetorical question). If someone wants to come here and hurt
us, they can do it pretty easily. Invading Afghanistan doesn't solve that
problem. The whole thing is a joke.

Now I'm aware of a host of reasons for us to be there, none of them good. Of
course we're in Afghanistan for some purpose.

~~~
ashark
Yeah, by '09 there was clearly no reason. When they originally sold the war
they played up Al Qaeda's size, power, and level of infrastructure
(specifically in Afghanistan) so, assuming you believed that[1] the original
invasion kind of made sense.

[1] personally, my suspicions that the claims that this organization was so
huge and capable and dangerous, yet had only just now managed anything so big
and had totally failed to achieve any of the more obvious follow-on attacks,
smelled a bit of BS (that is, its size and capabilities were being wildly
exaggerated) were confirmed when IIRC Rumsfeld went on the news with a diagram
of some GI Joe playset-style giant underground base thing that couldn't
conceivably have been built in secret due to its scale and equipment, and
claimed that Bin Laden had "not one, but several" of these obviously-fantasy
supervillain lairs hidden in Afghanistan. That they were clearly lying about
the _popular_ war that was an easy sell definitely colored how I received
their later pitch on Iraq. Not that it mattered.

~~~
jMyles
Here's that interview:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo)

It's shocking now to watch. How did anyone ever buy this? I remember being 18
at the time and thinking it was completely ludicrous. I wonder if anyone
seriously believed it or if it was just the story that the media needed to
hear to feel less sheepish about acting like this war made any sense.

~~~
ashark
Heh, we must be around the same age.

Man, I went to Wikipedia because I was curious whether the timeline and events
I had in my head for the early let-the-inspectors-back-in demands and the
later, infamous leave-or-die "ultimatum" Bush leveled against Hussein right
before Iraq invasion was correct (there's very little about all that, and I
found some material on the ultimatum itself but never the actual word
"ultimatum", which is weird since that's what everyone called it at the time
and a big deal was made of it) and now I'm all pissed off again that Bush &
Co. aren't in prison for life, from reading all the war lead-up material,
including some of the suspected-at-the-time-and-now-confirmed stuff about how
they were planning to invade no matter what. Wow, there are some emotions I
hadn't felt in a while. Nostalgic, I guess.

------
arprocter
Colby Buzzell[0] wrote an anonymous blog when he was in Iraq which later lead
to a book - it's a great read

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby_Buzzell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colby_Buzzell)

------
lexwraith
I don't protest because I don't have time, nor would I think it's effective.
People are just too busy for a war that is completely separated from them to
care about it. I did care, at one point, but I too have been grinded down by
both my experiences overseas and the people I served with.

I enlisted in the USMC in 2005. 0311. Felt like I had been ready since I was
11 or 12.

I went to Boot Camp, and then SOI. First taste of reality is bitter. My entire
generation of Marines were called the 'X-Box' generation for our complacency
and lack of earnest effort. Our ranks had swelled up to ~215K in the Marine
Corps, and with it, a lower of the bar to join. That's just the way it was.
Kids were already getting kicked out - hardship, drugs, etc. Still didn't mind
- it felt like everyone was on the same page. We were crusaders to be, and our
religion was America and deliverance was provided in the form of 5.56mm. Felt
good, the narrative. Felt right.

And then I joined the fleet, and that's when I realized I was a fucking idiot.
This whole time, I had believed in something grand, some kind of romanticized
view of war and life and how boys - no, men like me - could make a huge impact
and different in the world against a nefarious enemy that struck out at all
that was good. And you know how many people shared that view? Maybe 5, 10%. We
were intelligent, idealistic, and had some 'reason' to be there. That is not
the case for the vast, vast majority of people who enlist. It usually takes
some life experience for you to join up, hit the fleet, and not be bewildered
by it, and that was something virtually all of us, with the precious few best
of us, lacked.

When we got in country, the shock was amplified. The aimlessness/worthlessness
of my generation was reflected in both wars. I was in Iraq twice, and both
times, it seemed like our only job was to just maintain the security of
Ramadi, and then Al Asad. That was it. Occasionally hunt bad guys, get blown
up all the time, be bullet/bomb shields by proxy for a populace that wasn't
100% sure what it wanted.

What exactly was the mission to stop foreign fighters from flooding into the
country? Beats me. What exactly were we going to do to uproot and prop up a
culture that is has no real concent of loving thy neighbor and working
together to achieve some state of sovereignty? Beats me. How do we turn this
society into a capital G Great society? How were riflemen supposed to achieve
that? Would it even meet the objectives of the mission? Nah we thought, we
should just keep handing out generators, heavy equipment, and speedballs (not
the drug) to the populace. We were just enlisted men on the bottom, evoking
smiles when we did good and hate when we accidentally kill some guy's brother
because he ignored the red flag not to go down this road towards our base.

Nothing changed, day in, day out.

I knew quite a few devil dogs who were in OEF, Kandahar and Helmund, before +
after Marjah offensive. The feeling was the same. What exactly, are we doing
here? For an organization that prides itself on achieving objectives, even at
great individual cost, we sure did a shit job at explaining what exactly our
goals were to the operators.

All this to say, what CAN I say that hasn't already been said? I don't need to
'protest' anything, because I don't hear a lot of people supporting our
operations over there except for chicken hawks. I'm glad McCain's son, and
John Kelly's children served with me. At least they put what is most dear to
them on the line for what they believe. Can't say the same for most of modern
day 'conservatives'. They have nothing on the line when they send people over,
and that's the best I can protest, but what's the point? Nobody else seems to
care either way - it seemed like the wiser of us had realized the whole thing
was bullshit from the beginning, and now just don't care and have accepted it
to be the way things are, sixteen years later. To top it off, we just have too
much shit going on at home. Politics is really showing how bad democracy can
get when the people themselves, the vessels of power, are fucking idiots and
care more about feeling good than making good decisions for the future. I've
got a housing crisis here, insurance crisis there, financial security crisis
everywhere, so where can I fit in some good old protesting time? If I did, who
would hear me? My old friends wouldn't want to hear it either. We just want
some kind of peace of mind and happiness in our life, not dwell on the
pointlessness of it all.

We are the aimless generation, just trying to survive the journey through the
minefield our forefathers had left us, day after day.

~~~
technics256
"We are the aimless generation, just trying to survive the journey through the
minefield our forefathers had left us, day after day."

Quote of our generation. Well said.

------
slamdance
a decent article until it went political at the end - almost as a "BTW..."

It failed to bring most of the wars (or "police actions") into the picture.
Maybe because all of the 'major' conflicts prior to desert storm (C/WW1/2/K/V)
were headed by the opposite political party than that mentioned. This is not
to say other conflicts didn't happen under other parties as they obviously
have.

While the reasoning is sound insofar as the 'unmentioned' conflicts were
fought primarily by draftees (again - politics?), it really gives no
satisfactory reason, only conjecture and opinion (politics) on the current
military actions - which SPANS political parties.

Sadly, the introduction of politics into an article initially put forth as
something about the "morality or war" says more about the intent of the author
than the question the article brings up.

~~~
danharaj
You want to talk about war without talking about politics? And do you think
the level of politics where war is decided really care which party is in power
at the time?

~~~
slamdance
no - war and politics are always going to be intermingled. The issue is that
people (especially in today's climate) are polarized, emotionally blaming one
'side' or 'the other' when both are equally culpable.

My point is that this _could_ have been a great article. The 'morality of war'
is always something that should be talked about and debated, etc... but when
one 'side' brings up 'such-and-such-party', that party's 'true followers' feel
the need to defend them, and reply in kind and _nothing_ is resolved, everyone
else (who _wanted_ an actual discussion) rolls their eyes and leaves with
their shoulders slouched in defeat/despair/apathy.

~~~
forkLding
I think the author purposefully included politics in there, he probably didnt
care if it was a decent article or not because he was more or less expressing
his views.

Sarcasm intended

------
hardlianotion
The article draws a parallel between WW1 and the present conflict.

Possibly the difference between than and now is the sheer number of people
directly involved in the War. With great respect to those who have been
affected by the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, it is possible for many people
(especially here in Western Europe) to ignore the conflict altogether in ways
that it was not possible back then.

~~~
adventured
The reason the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have gone on as long as they
have, is because even most Americans have been able to personally ignore
what's going on, particularly the last five or so years of it (obviously in
the years immediately after 9/11, the war & terror propaganda was so
overwhelming it was nearly impossible to avoid).

Around 140 US soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan combined in the last
four years. Most Americans will ignore conflict at that scale if they're told
it's beneficial. Although Trump managed to get a lot of traction out of
pointing out the financial cost while directly contrasting that with America's
various domestic financial problems (such as the need to spend vast sums on
infrastructure). A large majority of the US population understands very well
at this point that the US can't afford the perpetual war machine any longer;
we'll see what the war machine does to counter that cultural shift.

------
otakucode
They're probably reviewing the transcripts from J. Robert Oppenheimers
'security review' hearing in 1954.

------
ggm
So.. if the US hadn't supplied the Mujahideen with stingers, and brought down
the soviet backed government in Afghanistan.. none of this last 30 year
nightmare would have happened?

Cool. Think of all the amazing things we could have done with that surplus
capital not going to bechtel...

------
dforrestwilson
Anyone who believes that a military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere
else outside the U.S. to fight a vaguely threatening idea of "terror" is a
good idea should watch the new Ken Burns documentary about Vietnam.

------
guyromm
The author implies that a citizen army would lessen the leadership's appetite
for offensive overseas campaigns.

Interestingly enough, the bulk of Israel's army to this day is composed of
drafted 18 year olds, and despite that, the only time there was a major public
outcry about the necessity of a military campaign was during the first Lebanon
war (1982). that war was perceived by the public as a reckless regime-changing
adventure by a particular general (Ariel Sharon).

I assume that the IDF's decades long policing mission (=occupation) of the
West Bank along with the periodical campaigns in Gaza & Lebanon do not
generate an outcry of similar size, presumably due to the much stronger
indoctrination level of the Israeli public, as opposed to that of the
American. There is a general consensus around the absence of a less violent
path to coexistence in the Middle East.

to this day, I've been a supporter of reforming the IDF into a smaller
professional army with the express purpose of making it more difficult for the
state to apply foreign policy using force, with the added benefit of keeping
unwilling citizens outside of the cycle of violence.

The article, however, implies that the US has achieved the ability to
increasingly "project power" by detaching its military apparatus from the
society as a whole..

------
MrZongle2
I was in Iraq in 1991. My friends and I were astounded when we heard of the
cease-fire; we could easily push towards Baghdad and take care of Saddam
Hussein, who was _clearly_ the Hitler of our time. "We'll be back in a decade"
I thought, as it seemed as if we were leaving with our work unfinished.

I was off by a couple of years, but in 2003 when we went back into Iraq to
finally take care of Hussein, I was pleased. Of course, I had long since left
the Army and now it was some other bunch of soldiers sitting in a tent. When
they pulled Hussein out of his spider hole, I was thrilled. Justice, right?

But Iraq didn't turn into a shining example of emerging democracy; it was a
shit-show of tribal feuds, incompetence, waste, fraud and abuse that continued
to kill decent American kids. The contemporary Iraqi WMDs -- the reason for
our costly endeavor -- never _really_ materialized (though their historical
presence and usage against Kurds and Iranians was often downplayed). It became
increasingly clear that all our involvement contributed to was a power vacuum
in which something nastier could breed.

Afghanistan, a seemingly more focused war due to the Taliban's sheltering and
support of al Qaeda in the wake of 9/11, at this point appears to be no more
productive. Different tribes, different waste, fraud and abuse, different
American kids killed so career politicians can check a box on their list of
accomplishments.

While I still respect men & women who join the military, my disdain for the
"warrior worship" culture that has become the norm has grown. When I returned
from the Gulf in 1991, I was amazed by such goodwill and support for the
military; it was, I believe, a collective reaction to the infamous reception
Vietnam-era soldiers received upon coming home. I would not want to deprive
returning troops of the same feel-good experience, but at the same time I've
grown weary of almost _seventeen years_ of "thank you for our service" and the
obligatory shots of troops abroad watching the sportsball game du jour, the
abuse of the term "hero", and this somehow normalized condition of young men
and women being sent to shithole third-world countries "to keep America safe".

We're in the second _decade_ of this madness, with no clear goals for victory
_or even to declare a statemate_. As much as I love my country, at this point
were there even a hint of a draft I would be the first to drive my teenage
boys to the Canadian border -- a concept that would have astounded and enraged
a younger me.

Amidst the author's pious wailing and gnashing of teeth, the question _" where
are today’s skeptical veterans?"_ is posed.

Well, here's one. And I'm far from alone. Most of us, I suspect, aren't vocal
because of one simple reason: _it will accomplish nothing._

As with other causes, such as the environment, drug legalization, investment
in national infrastructure, additional funding for scientific research, our
political class turns a deaf ear to the populace. We the little people have
our designated role: fly the flag of Team Pepsi or Team Coke, pay our taxes,
and become enraged at each other while the aristocracy does what they will.

We are largely jaded, and having assessed the impossibility of stopping the
tide many of us merely do what we can to stay on higher ground and be
cognizant of storm surges.

~~~
bryananderson
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'm not buying that these things
(peace, environmental action, science investment, etc) aren't happening
because the masses are being stymied by the powers that be.

On the contrary, I don't see the masses caring about these things at all. Do
you?

I don't see the majority of the people demanding action against (or even
acknowledging the existence of) climate change.

Nor do I see them demanding action against endless war or illegal
surveillance.

Nor do I see them begging for more money to be invested in science.

Instead I see the people sometimes arguing about a few hot-button political
issues, but mostly I see the people preoccupied with pop culture and their
daily lives.

We, the People, have made it abundantly clear that we are fine with the status
quo. No one had to coerce us.

Remember, the Iraq War was not started over the outcry of the American people.

It was started to thunderous applause.

~~~
wfo
Well, poll people about universal healthcare. It's, what, 70% support? Poll
people about legalization of marijuana. Poll people about private prisons.
Poll people about police buying military weapons, tanks on streets. Poll
people about asset forfeiture. Poll people about a living wage. Poll people
about gerrymandering. Poll people about money in politics. Poll people about
the revolving door. Poll people about student loans. Poll people about net
neutrality. Poll people about the TPP. Support for the Iraq war was created by
lies and propagandists, explicitly and intentionally -- public opinion was
manufactured through deceit, not genuine. And there were still huge antiwar
protests and massive antiwar sentiment.

You will get massive support on a wide variety of issues completely invisible
to modern political discourse if you ask people. But the people asking the
questions have enormous power. If you rate congresspeople by their collective
votes in congress, if you let mainstream pundits who are paid explicitly to
maintain the status quo ask questions, the answers will not be inspiring and
most will look similar.

I don't blame people for not demanding action, for not demanding things at
all, since they've been taught it doesn't work and it's a waste of time. They
are resigned to being ignored, they do not consent. Most American's don't
vote. The keywords here are apathy and a disconnect with the system, not
agreement.

------
asploder
Well, Chelsea Manning just got out of prison for leaking the collateral murder
tape.

------
cwkoss
This is why Tulsi Gabbard should be the 2020 Democratic Presidential nominee.

~~~
messick
Tulsi "Maybe Assad is Actually Good" Gabbard isn't going to do too well.

~~~
cwkoss
I don't think she ever said he was good, just that we don't have strong enough
evidence that chemical weapons were used by Syria to use military force
against Assad. Chemical weapons could have been used by rebels, or even used
or planted by the CIA.

If you believe we have solid proof that Assad ordered the use chemical
weapons, I have some WMD's in Iraq to sell you...

------
genkimind
Right here. Actually did a whole ten years, E-7. Once I had to be the
mouthpiece I decided it was too in conflict with my core values and got out.

------
perilunar
Is the title meant to be reference to Joe Haldeman's _The Forever War_?

The article doesn't mention it, but it is capitalised suggestively near the
end. Also, Haldeman's novel is widely regarded as a criticism of the Vietnam
war, and the article does discuss the lack of literature critical of recent
wars.

------
squozzer
Two words - swift boat. Or maybe a few more, if you like Tom Cruise - Born On
The Fourth of July.

