Site menu:

Home | Bio | Columns | Blog | From the field | Feature-Length Articles | Photos | Health Care | Contact |

 

Welcome to the official website of columnist and combat journalist Jeff Emanuel.

Click the tabs for biographical information, column archives, a regularly-updated blog, embedded reports from Iraq, and information on current projects.

"Vets for Freedom" takes the Hill

July 18, 2007

Thirty representatives of the thousands-strong advocacy group Vets for Freedom, made up of veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, took Capitol Hill (specifically, the Russell Senate Office Building) by storm yesterday, meeting with Senators and their representatives and making their case for continued support of General Petraeus and the American effort in Iraq.

Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) met with separately the group's representatives to start off the day. Both expressed their staunch support for the troops and for the mission, thanking each and every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine there for their service and for their advocacy, and promising to do whatever they could to stave off the opposition who are seeking to declare defeat in Iraq for political gain, and Graham spoke forcefully against al Qaeda and Iran, who he said were "the two biggest killers of American soldiers" in that country, and derided the Democrat leadership for their "all night stunt" which was on the calendar for that evening. "Woooo, they're staying up all night. Very tough," said Graham, hs voice dripping with very welcome sarcasm. "Our soldiers are staying up all night tonight, too -- in firefights with the enemy, with al Qaeda."

Fresh off the successful and friendly meetings with McCain and Graham, the group decided to go after Sen. John Warner (R-VA), one of the Republicans who has recently gone weak-kneed on Iraq and a cosponsor of the Warner-Lugar amendment (which would order President Bush to plan a withdrawal from Iraq). Warner wasn't available, but one of his military advisors -- an active duty Naval officer -- sat down with the group for the better part of an hour, asking the veterans present for their take on the situation on the ground in Iraq, and attempting to explain -- very slowly, as though speaking to people who had no knowledge of politics whatsoever -- that, despite protestations to the contrary, opinion polls really should dictate American foreign policy, and the "separate but equal" doctrine really meant that Congress should dictate the tactics and strategy used in warfare.

"We have to have a contingency plan," said Warner's representative, when asked why, while executing a new strategy -- and in the middle of the largest offensive since 2003 -- Senator Warner's top priority appeared to be preparing for defeat. "If you ask this administration what their plan is for bringing the troops home from Iraq, they look at you blankly and have nothing to say," he explained. "This would make them draw up that plan."

"No, sir," said a sergeant who served in Iraq with the 1st Infantry Division. "You don't engage in a fight, you especially don't change course to a strategy which is working, and then plan for losing. You plan for victory."

The poignant exchange continued with the Warner representative's question of "What do you say if Gen. Petraeus comes back in September and says nothing has changed, that he can't make a difference? You have to have a contingency plan for that."

Said the 1st ID soldier, "What if he says that the plan's working?" -- the response to which was, "Well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it." (Apparently "contingency planning" only applies to hedging for defeat, not victory -- but that is an aside and perhaps another subject).

Other than the above, the most notable statement made by Warner's representative was his claim that the Senate's 81-0 confirmation represented an affirmation of the President's "right to select and appoint people for positions," and was not "an endorsement of the 'Surge'" or any other strategy -- a weak position at best, and one which sidesteps responsibility for approving the current course of action in Iraq at worst.

"Sen. Warner has been one of the most staunch supporters of the President on 95% of things," the representative declared. "We can't keep issuing blank checks."

"With all due respect, sir," came the sergeant's reply, "that doesn't wash. You don't go 95% of the way to victory then declare defeat. When I was in Fallujah, we didn't clear 95% of the city, then say, 'well, that's all we can do -- better go home now!' Sir you stick with the fight all the way to victory, or you bring everybody home right now. There's no in between."

After leaving that meeting, the group broke up into smaller contingents, each of whom spent the better part of two hours seeking out Senators and staffers, both Democrat and Republican, with whom to share their concerns or their gratitude for each's position on the Iraq war.

The day concluded in the Capitol Building, where a joint press conference featuring Vets for Freedom executive director Pete Hegseth and Sens. McCain, Graham, Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was held. Also in attendance behind the podium were Texas Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, and a handful of other officeholders, as well as some members of Vets for Freedom and a severely wounded Army soldier, who was transported over for the event from Walter Reed, where he has been undergoing face and hand surgeries to repair and replace parts of his body severely damaged by an IED in Iraq.

Each of the speakers not only thanked the servicemen there for their sacrifices to their country, but redeclared their commitment to preventing the Congressional opposition from surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq, and to ensuring that no war supplemental with withdrawal dates included would pass the Senate if they had their way.

"We are not 'filibustering' anything," said Sen. McConnell, referring to the press coverage of the "A 'filibuster' is a continuation of debate to prevent a vote.

The Senate has been debating Iraq all year and Republicans welcome further debate. I have offered the Democrat Leadership the opportunity to have a series of votes...they objected. There is no need to further delay votes on these important amendments with what a senior Democrat aide characterized as ‘a political stunt.’ Our soldiers and the American people expect more from us.

Said McCain:

Though politics and popular opinion may be pushing us in one direction, to take the easy course, we as elected leaders have a greater responsibility. A measure of courage is required. Not the great courage exhibited by the brave men and women fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan, but a smaller measure, the courage necessary to put our country’s interests before every personal or political consideration.

Pete Hegseth made his remarks, as well, affirming General Petraeus and his strategy, reiterating his belief that America is not a nation of quitters, and imploring the Senators who were not present to pay less attention to politics and more to the reality in Iraq now, as experienced by the veterans present and as portrayed by Petraeus himself, saying:

Make no mistake, the group you see here, which was assembled in just four days and paid for on their own dime, is not alone. We've got a lot of our guys out there still meeting with senators as we speak. And you should know these guys represent thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are deeply troubled at the defeatist sentiment emanating from Capitol Hill.

We think we can win in Iraq. We know we can win in Iraq. We've seen it; we've been there; we understand the stakes. And setting a deadline for defeat is just not an option.

We're on Capitol Hill today, and we'll be back again in September, to tell our representatives and senators to give our nation's warriors, led by General Petraeus and his new counterinsurgency strategy, the time and resources necessary to defeat America's enemies.

His strategy is working. Security is improving. Al Qaida and company are on the run.

But make no mistake about it. We are in a fight in Iraq. We're facing a radical enemy there who's capitalized on three-plus years of failed policy and knows that while they cannot defeat American troops on the battlefield, they can seek to undermine America's political will, through suicide bombers, roadside bombs and snipers.

And that's why we're here today -- to tell Congress and the American people that we cannot allow politicians in Washington, motivated by election cycles, to make decisions about this war. Too much is at stake.

General Petraeus just received the troops he needed in Baghdad. The strategy he has is showing progress.

And while Iraqi political progress is certainly not where it should be, the security improvements American soldiers are purchasing in blood and sweat are a necessary precondition for political progress and a stable Iraq that denies haven to Al Qaida and company.

So we say to Congress, let General Petraeus and the troops do their job. They want to win.

The message presented by Vets for Freedom on the Hill Tuesday was clear: America is better than the political games being played, and deserves better than the orchestrated defeat Senators from both side of the aisle appear to be working toward so cavalierly.

The question about Iraq has never been whether or not there was a ground truth there known by some men and women. The question has been whether or not those men and women -- whichever among them it might be -- would be granted the venue to share that ground truth with the multitudes who have no idea what the current situation in Iraq is.

With the platform provided by the organization Vets for Freedom -- and by some key, patriotic Senators for that organization -- the experienced pro-victory side of the Iraq debate may finally have found its voice.

With General Petraeus's testimony coming up in just a few short weeks, that voice cannot have been found a moment too soon.

Jeff Emanuel, a special operations military veteran who served in Iraq, is a columnist and a director of conservative weblog RedState.com. A veteran embedded reporter, he will be returning to the front lines in Iraq this fall to provide the American people with firsthand information on the situation in Baghdad and elsewhere while Congress debates America’s future there. Click here for more information, including how you can help support this vital effort.

Labels: Senate, War

Permalink | |

A 'Surge' in Ignorance: Do Americans even care to know the facts about the war in Iraq?

The war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security, and to the Global War on Terror. It is a fight which we are not currently losing on the ground, and which we will not lose if we simply put petty partisan politics aside and commit to victory, rather than seeking to take the easy way out (in the short term) and abandoning yet another battlefield to the enemy.

Despite the fact that we live in an age of unparalleled access to information, this message (along with seemingly every other accurate detail about the war in Iraq) is still not being heard by the majority of Americans, many of whom harbor misconceptions borne out of ignorance and, ironically, a lack of information – and its reception by the American people and our leaders is vital both to military success in that country, and to the security of our country in the long term.

Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – among other times – has the dual distinction of being both the highest-profile enemy in the War on Terror, and enemy number one in Iraq. Regardless of Speaker of the House Nancy “The Real War on Terror is in Afghanistan” Pelosi’s apparent belief, along with many of her colleagues, that the latter is untrue, the leaders of that terror network (who, it may be safely supposed, have a bit more knowledge of their own operations than Ms. Pelosi) have said otherwise, and have done so both loudly and repeatedly. Only last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri (via video) spoke of the vital role that Iraq currently plays as “the centerpiece of [al Qaeda’s] anti-American fight.”

Since the war’s beginning, the calls have come, from retired military officers, politicians, and activists, for a change in course in Iraq. This week, Democrats in Congress will be voting on a resolution (HR 2956) which says exactly that, and sets a date for withdrawal of US forces 120 days from now – despite the fact that only six months ago, the Senate, by unanimous (81-0) vote, confirmed a new military leader who was bringing with him a brand-new strategic approach to the fight in that country.

Despite being corrected ad nauseum, the majority of people seem to have the same misconceptions about the relation between this new strategy and the so-called ‘Surge’ now that they did when it was first proposed. The ‘Surge’ – an increase in boots on the ground in Iraq – was never the strategy itself. The increase in troop levels, requested by General Petraeus, was one of many components (or “strategic shifts,” as national security advisor Stephen Hadley called them in a January 29 Washington Post op-ed, in which he even then was attempting to clear up the misconception that the ‘Surge’ was the strategy in its entirety) necessary to implement the sweeping new strategy, which radically altered our country’s course in Iraq and sought to solve the problems and shore up the weaknesses which four years of fighting had created and exposed.

The strategy itself was and is far more intricate and multi-pronged than a simple ‘surge’ in troops. The main focus of the new strategy has been the Baghdad Security Plan – a strategy focused on the capital city of Iraq, which seeks (with increased Iraqi and American forces) to permanently rid neighborhoods of terrorists and extremists and keep them that way, and to secure the population. The new strategy in Baghdad was to be met with new rules of engagement, set to ensure that Iraqi and U.S. forces could pursue lawbreakers and terrorists regardless of their community or sect, and to be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid – including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds – which would combine to offer employment and the prospect of better lives for average citizens. While this operation has been ongoing since Gen. Petraeus’s appointment in January, troop levels in Iraq have just recently reached the amount necessary to fully implement the BSP and to undertake the other aspects of the new strategy.

Outside of the Baghdad Security Plan, the new strategy stepped up the fight against al Qaeda – the most brutal and violent foe we have in that country, and the one which has the most to lose from a US and Iraqi victory there. Beginning in Anbar Province – until six months ago, the most-written-off area of Iraq, and a sanctuary for AQI – US forces have systematically driven al Qaeda from their strongholds, rallying tribes, clans, and groups of all sects to the cause of liberty and of a free Iraq. Though one of the major successes of this war, Anbar is hardly mentioned in the news media at all today, and Michael Yon recently reported having spent a month there without hearing a shot fired (an amazing development, as gunfire had been as common a background noise in Iraq as traffic is in America). Further, the US military is currently wrapping up week three of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the largest offensive since 2003 and one aimed directly at rooting out and destroying al Qaeda in Baqubah (in Diyala Province just north of Baghdad), one of their final Iraqi strongholds. Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans – their differences forgotten – and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country.

Other aspects of this new strategy included doubling the number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq. These civilian-led units have been helping the Iraqi government distribute development aid across the country; this year, 10 new civilian PRTs have been be embedded with U.S. combat brigades. The training of Iraqi security forces has been accelerated, with benchmarks set to track progress, and numerical goals decided upon to best bolster the size and effectiveness of those forces. Contrary to popular belief, training and supporting Iraqi troops has been and will remain our military’s essential and primary mission in that country.

Victory in Iraq is not an option, not only for the citizens there, but for America’s national security. The Iraqi people do by and large want us there – not forever, but until they are secure enough to take over themselves. Taking a shattered state – especially one like Iraq, which, being comprised of people who think of themselves as members of a tribe, sect, clan, or mahalla, has no sense whatsoever of itself – and making it whole again is a long and arduous task. It is doubly so when an effective insurgency is being waged against the rebuilding force – and make no mistake about it: this insurgency is effective. However, along with the new strategy in Iraq came the author of America’s brand new field manual on counterinsurgency, General David Petraeus – a situation which should lend itself to great confidence on the part of the American people in our ability to effectively and correctly prosecute this war.

There is no “Plan B” to substitute for success in Iraq. If we fail there, the Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing, all of which will be on a scale which we can hardly comprehend. The chaos, which would spread across the country like wildfire, could very well engulf the region. Even if it did not reach that far, our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself.

The American military can win this fight. What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us. The effort will take time, as all successful counterinsurgencies have. Whether or not our fast-food, instant-gratification culture which is used to instant results at the push of a button and to the world being saved by the end of a two-hour movie remains to be seen; however, without time and patience, failure is all but assured. 150,000 troops, thousands of terrorists, and 25 million citizens do not respond instantly, and war is not a brief affair; however, unless this fact can be grasped by our increasingly ADD population and leadership (which decried the failure of the new strategy while even the most basic groundwork was still being laid), America will stand no chance in this or any future conflicts, as those we fight will constantly have the advantage of far greater dedication and patience than we will allow ourselves to display.

The time that winning the peace in Iraq will take is compounded by the fact that, for the Iraqi people to decide to put their lives on the line and to stand together against their murderous enemies, we must first convince them that we are committed to staying there to support them for as long as it takes.

Their skepticism on the latter is justified. We fled the battlefield in Vietnam, in Beirut, and in Somalia after being hit in the mouth by our adversaries. Furthermore – and more relevantly – we abandoned the Iraqis in 1991, after encouraging them to revolt against Saddam and promising to stand behind them while they did so. It will take far more than three weeks at full strength and a few more months of operations against the insurgency in Iraq to convince the people there that we will stick with them for the long haul; however, without doing so, we cannot succeed.

Giving in and pulling out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda and our other enemies have demanded of us. Despite the brief respite that such a decision would appear able to provide our “war-weary” nation (a sad fact on its own, and reflective of our ADD culture) and military, such a decision would bring nothing but harm, both to Iraq and, in the long run, to America. We were attacked on September 11th by the same enemy we are now facing in Iraq. Surrendering the field to them would be nonsensical and unacceptable, as it would serve to strike a self-inflicted, fatal blow at the war on terror, and to simply invite more attacks against ourselves here at home.

Jeff Emanuel, a special operations military veteran who served in Iraq, is a columnist and a director of conservative weblog RedState.com. A veteran embedded reporter, he will be returning to the front lines in Iraq this fall to provide the American people with firsthand information on the situation in Baghdad and elsewhere while Congress debates America’s future there. Click here for more information, including how you can help support this vital effort.

Labels: War

Permalink | |

The Lost Heroes of the War on Terror

Labels: Heroism, Memorial Day, War

Permalink | |

The true meaning of Heroism, part IV

The true meaning of Heroism, part IV



Editor's note: Click the links for parts I, II, and III.

Jason Dean Cunningham of Carlsbad, New Mexico joined the US Navy at the age of 19, but he didn't stay long. While he always knew that he was destined for something better, the blond-haired, blue-eyed Cunningham did benefit in one major way from his stint in the Navy: while stationed in Naples, Italy, he met a Navy enlisted woman named Theresa de Castro, who would shortly thereafter become Theresa Cunningham.

After nearly four years in the Navy, Cunningham decided to take a chance on his career, and to strive for something better. After taking the Navy SEAL Physical Fitness Test - the first step in the long road to becoming one of the Navy's elite commandos - Cunningham changed direction once again, and set his sights on joining an elite Air Force fraternity known as Pararescuemen. The USAF has barely 300 of these operators whose job is to deploy by any means necessary - sea, air, or land - to rescue downed aircrew members and injured special operators. Pararescuemen, also known as "PJs," are trained skydivers and scuba divers, are survival specialists, and are highly trained emergency medical and rescue technicians. The two-year "pipeline" which Pararescue trainees complete is both grueling and intensive, and has a washout rate of well over 60% (some articles have said 90%).

Cunningham began Pararescue training in 1999, and in 2000, while at the Special Forces Combat Diver Qualification Course in Key West, FL, was the subject of an Airman magazine feature on the PJ pipeline. In 2001, after graduating from the seven required schools - the 10-week Pararescue selection course, the aforementioned combat diver course, Army airborne school, the Special Forces Military Freefall parachuting course, Air Force SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training, the six month Special Operations Combat Medic Training Course, and the 20-week Pararescue School - and earning the maroon beret of the Air Force Pararescueman, Cunningham was assigned to the 38th Rescue Squadron at Moody AFB, GA.

Only eight months after completing his training, Cunningham deployed to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The PJs there were based in an air operations building which also housed a forward surgical team - a training opportunity which he almost immediately took advantage of.

"Every time we had a casualty event [Cunningham] was always the first one here offering to help," said Dr. (Maj.) Brian Burlingame, the surgical unit's commander. "His enthusiasm was just genuine to the core, which was what endeared him to us. He was like a little brother."

Besides honing his personal medical skills, Cunningham's involvement with the surgeons down the hall at Bagram directly resulted in a development which would save the lives of American soldiers in the very near future: the allowing of PJs to carry whole blood into combat as a part of their medical loadout. This was a controversial step, Dr. Burlingame told the Air Force Times, because:

"Blood is an FDA-controlled substance. It's very, very regulated." Special training, not to mention lots of paperwork, is required before medics are considered qualified to administer blood in the field. After Cunningham and Burlingame started talking, all the pararescuers here took the classes and filled out the paperwork.


"We then pushed blood forward with [Cunningham's] group," Burlingame said.

Perhaps the most famous battle of Operation Enduring Freedom, the battle of “Roberts Ridge” (a subset of Operation Anaconda which saw a loss of life unprecedented in the special operations community since Mogadishu in 1993), was Cunningham’s first – and last – taste of combat. After Navy SEAL Neil Roberts fell out of an MH-47 Chinook helicopter which took heavy fire while attempting to insert a SEAL team onto a hilltop to overwatch the Anaconda battlefield, and a second helicopter had deposited the remainder of Roberts’s squad and an Air Force combat controller (Tech. Sgt. John Chapman, whose actions during the battle cost him his life but earned him a posthumous Air Force Cross) on the hilltop in an attempt to rescue the fallen sailor, whom Predator UAV footage had shown being captured by Taliban fighters, a quick reaction force (QRF) composed mainly of a squad of Army Rangers was launched to reinforce the outmanned and outgunned Americans who had quickly become pinned down in an exposed position.

As it approached the landing zone, the QRF helicopter came under such significant ground fire that it was forced to make a crash landing in an exposed area of the hilltop, only 100 meters from a fortified enemy position. The soldiers on board immediately took fire, and casualties began to mount instantly.

Cunningham worked feverishly to treat the wounded Rangers and aviators, doing so in the back of the downed Chinook helicopter until it caught fire and became the target of increasingly accurate enemy mortar fire. Making the decision to move his patients, Cunningham crossed the line of fire seven separate times while successfully transporting them to higher ground – then was forced to move them twice more to avoid the enemy fire raining down on their static, vulnerable casualty collection points. Finally, just after midnight, after so much success defying enemy fire to move and treat his patients, Cunningham’s luck ran out, and he was shot in the abdomen just below his protective vest. According to the Air Force Times, “Cunningham must have known he was in serious trouble. But despite his worsening condition, he continued to treat patients and advise others on how to care for the critically wounded. One of the two blood packs he had brought [and which he was directly responsible for PJs being able to carry] saved a badly wounded Ranger. The medics gave the other packet to Cunningham himself, whose life was slowly flowing out in a red stream onto the white snow.”

Nearly twenty hours after suffering serious internal injuries, and only 90 minutes before the area became cold enough for rescue helicopters to arrive and evacuate the wounded fighters, Cunningham succumbed to his wounds. He had treated patients to the end, and was credited afterward with having almost single-handedly made sure that only seven men died on Roberts' Ridge rather than seventeen – though such dedication and seriousness of purpose ended up costing him his own life. Every wounded man he treated survived the encounter, and for his extraordinary heroism and gallant action in living the Pararescue motto (“That Others May Live”), he was posthumously awarded the Air Force Cross, the second-highest award that the USAF offers. According to the citation, “As a result of [Cunningham’s] extraordinary heroism, his team returned 10 seriously wounded personnel to life-saving medical care.”

“He was right in the thick of it, doing it right up to the end,” said a fellow Pararescueman. “Jason was right where every PJ wants to be. He was where guys needed him, and he was saving lives.”

It wasn't his death that made him a hero, said his wife Theresa – it was the way he lived. "There was nothing that anyone will ever say about him that I didn't know,” she said. “He was heroic day to day. I used to say he's my hero and that was his favorite thing.”

Buried in Arlington cemetery among the true heroes who are his brothers in immortality, Cunningham’s memory will not soon be forgotten, by his Air Force comrades, by the men who are alive today thanks to his actions, or by the loving family he left behind.

“The fact is he knew we were happy,” said Theresa. “The last things we said to each other were, 'I love you.' I think the story was complete in a way.”

Godspeed, Jason. You were a great man in life and in death, and are a true example to us all.

It is my duty as a Pararescueman to save life and to aid the injured. I will be prepared at all times to perform my assigned duties quickly and efficiently, placing these duties before personal desires and comforts. These things I do, "That Others May Live."


-Pararescue Creed and Code of the Air Rescueman

Labels: Heroism, War

Permalink |

American soldiers: Winning over Journalists, one Heart, Mind, and Life at a Time

Operation Iraqi Freedom saw the advent of a practice that revolutionized modern war reporting: the embedding of journalists with frontline combat units in war. This practice gave the media, the American public and the world unprecedented access to the soldiers on the front lines, as well as to the war itself, through the filing of stories, photographs and video from the battlefront in real time, by reporters who were right there with the soldiers doing the fighting. "We were offered an irresistible opportunity: free transportation to the front line of the war, dramatic pictures, dramatic sounds, great quotes," said Tom Gjelten of National Public Radio. "Who can pass that up?"

While the military also benefited from having an eager outlet for its stories and successes, the biggest result of the embedding process was the shift it caused in the relationship between the military and the media, which laid the groundwork for a fundamental change in the dynamics of war reporting. As Maj. Gen. Buford Blount of the Army's Third Infantry Division explained, "A level of trust developed between the soldier and the media that offered nearly unlimited access."

Despite the obvious benefits of embedded reportage, though, the practice has met with its share of (expected) criticism from members of the Fourth Estate. Beginning even before Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, media spokesmen and others--such as University of Texas professor Robert Jensen--expressed concern that "embedded reporters would inevitably become too sympathetic to the troops with whom they were traveling." Theories were put forth that this was a "primary motivation on the part of military planners in designing the embedded system in the first place," and that the U.S. government was simply taking the approach of "feed the media beast enough stories that cast U.S. troops in the best possible light and the job of managing the media message is all but taken care of."

The latter is, of course, an absurdly simplistic notion. Rather than simply sitting back and receiving dispatches and releases carefully crafted to "cast U.S. troops in the best possible light," embedded reporters, by the very nature of their task, see the troops with whom they are living, working, and experiencing danger at all times--the good, the bad, the heroic, the angry, the emotional and the rest of the entire human spectrum. The former, though, does ring true to a degree; the debate on that count, then, is whether or not that is actually a bad thing.

While at the Combined Press Information Center (CPIC) here in Baghdad today, a pair of Spanish journalists – a newspaper reporter and a photojournalist – walked in, fresh from their embed with the 1-4 Cavalry of the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq. They had spent two weeks amongst the troops there, living and going on missions with them, including house-to-house searches and seizures, and their impressions of these soldiers were extremely clear.

“Absolutely amazing,” said David Beriain, the reporter (and the only one who spoke English), of the young Cavalry troops. “In Spain, it’s embarrassing – our soldiers are ashamed to be in the army. These young men – and they seem so young! – are so proud of what they do, and do it so well, even though it is dangerous and they could very easily be killed.” Beriain explained that the company he had been embedded with had lost three men in the span of six days while he was there – one to a sniper and two to an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) which had blown an armored Humvee into the air and flipped it onto its roof. Despite this, he said, and despite some of the things which they might have said in the heat of the moment after seeing another comrade die, the soldiers’ resolve and morale was unshaken in the long term, and they remained committed to carrying out their mission to the best of their ability for the duration of their tour here.

It was in the process of performing that mission, of coping with the loss of loved ones, and of just being themselves as American soldiers, that these young men were able to win over the admiration and affection of more than one journalist who had arrived in their midst harboring a less-than-positive opinion of the Iraq war, and of those who were tasked with prosecuting it.

It was in the process of performing that mission, of coping with the loss of loved ones, and of just being themselves as American soldiers, that these young men were able to win over the admiration and affection of more than one journalist who had arrived in their midst harboring a less-than-positive opinion of the Iraq war, and of those who were tasked with prosecuting it.

“I love those guys,” Beriain said, looking wistfully out the window of our cloister here in the Green Zone. “From the first time you go kick a door with them, they accept you – you’re one of them. I’ve even got a “family photo” with them” to remember them by. “I really hated to leave.”

Such a radical transformation – and such a strong bond of affection – forged in so little time. “It’s those common experiences,” Beriain explained, “where you are all in danger, and you go through it together. It builds a relationship instantly.”

It doesn’t matter how skeptical of the war a journalist might be, according to an Army public affairs officer (PAO) who spoke with me about it on condition of anonymity. “So often, they come out of that experience and – even if their opinion of the war hasn’t changed – they’re completely won over by the troops.”

“I was one of those,” admitted Beriain, speaking broken English and blinking away tears. “No matter what you think of the war, or what has happened here, you cannot be around the soldiers and not be completely affected. They are amazing people, and they represent themselves and the Army better than anyone could ever imagine.” A retired Army officer concurred, telling me that “young troops are some of the best good will ambassadors we've ever produced. It would never occur to one to not tell you what he's really thinking, and they are so earnest” that it is almost impossible not to be won over by them if given enough time.

The biggest recent case of a journalist with an anti-war mindset being completely overwhelmed into a change of heart by American soldiers, according to the PAO, was a Greek reporter who had been embedded with a cavalry unit that became entrenched in a 45-minute firefight with insurgents. Taking cover and fearing for his life for the almost hour-long duration of the battle, the journalist had the best view possible of American soldiers in action against an armed and murderous enemy, and credits his having lived to tell the tale directly to those young troops.

“He had tears in his eyes as he talked about it,” said the PAO. “He just kept saying, “they saved my life, they saved my life...these are great men; they are heroes.” He couldn’t get through the story without choking up – and this was a man who had arrived here with all of the disdain for the Iraq mission and for the American soldiers who he saw as the bad guys in this fight.”

While it may be decried by some for causing journalists, who claim the utopian titles of “objective” and “neutral” for their reportage, to lose their cold detachment and actually begin to see the soldiers they live alongside as humans, it is that very fact that makes the practice of embedding reporters with military units so beneficial to both parties. Rather than observing events from a safely detached distance – and thus being able to remove the human element from the equation – embedded reporters are forced to face up to the humanity of their subjects, and to share common experiences – often of the life-and-death variety – with those who they are covering. Human nature being what it is, such close working conditions, and such common experiences, will have an effect on both parties involved – and it is a testament both to the soldiers themselves, and to the journalists who volunteer to live and work alongside them, that that effect has, in so many cases, been so positive.

Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.

Labels: Live from Iraq, Media, War

Permalink | |

The new 'Soldiers of Surrender'

Why the case of the British sailors was so appalling

On March 23, while conducting a routine boarding operation and inspection of a merchant vessel in the waters of the coast of Iraq, fifteen British sailors and Royal Marines were approached by two speedboats full of Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen. The armed British surrendered to the armed Iranians without a fight, and within two hours had been taken to Tehran in the Islamic Republic, where they were held captive for just under two weeks.

The Brits’ capture raised many questions. For example, why wasn’t their ship, the HMS Cornwall, within range of their operation, so as to provide cover for the rubber inflatable boats (RIBs) from which the boarding teams were operating? Why did the British helicopter tasked with loitering over the RIBs during the boarding operation leave its station? And, most of all, why did fourteen armed British fighting men, and one woman, simply give in, and decide, in the words of Marine Captain Chris Air, that “fighting back was simply not an option?”

The idea of simply surrendering to an armed enemy is antithetical to anything which a trained soldier believes and is taught to do. Doing so in this case – for the stated reason that “a gun battle would risk an escalation of tensions with Iran” – made an already bizarre situation even more so. As a combat veteran, I cannot even begin to fathom the thought process of allowing oneself – and the troops under one’s command – to be taken captive in the territorial waters of the nation which they are assigned to defend so that the enemy capturing them won’t be more hostile.

The United States military has a Code of Conduct which is in place to govern its troops’ actions in situations like this. Article II of this code says, in just so many words, “I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.” Nowhere in the American military’s Code of Conduct is allowance made for simply deciding that “fighting back” isn’t “an option” – especially because it might “risk and escalation of tensions” with the nation which is doing the capturing. Granted, these sailors were British, not American; however, given that, here’s a tip for Captain Chris Air: if armed soldiers from a nation’s Revolutionary Guard are abducting you at gunpoint, then they’ve already “escalated” the “tensions” on their own.

Unfortunately, this act of going quietly, and allowing an enemy to come and abduct them without a fight, was only the beginning of an utterly appalling performance on the part of these fifteen British troops – as well as on the part of their government.

Within days of their capture, the British sailors were being paraded in front of television cameras – a violation of the Geneva Convention – and (led by their officers) were confessing left and right, on camera, to having violated the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty, despite the fact that the closest the RIBs ever got to Iran’s territorial waters was 1.7 nautical miles. Further footage was shown of several of the sailors “smoking and joking,” as they say – lounging around, eating, and playing chess, the men in their uniforms, and the woman , Faye Turney, in a hijab and outergarments.

Article III of the US Code of Conduct says, “If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.” This behavior on the part of the British – the prompt, public confessions to supposed wrongdoing, and the taking part in propaganda films put out over the airwaves throughout the region and the world, clearly demonstrated that these sailors and marines had no interest in resisting their captors, or in maintaining their honor throughout the ordeal.

During their period of detention, according to one lieutenant, the British “were stripped of their uniforms, blindfolded and ordered to stand against a wall with [their] hands bound as people were cocking weapons in the background – and experience which was “an extremely nerve-racking occasion.”

“The detention was…not a pleasant experience,” said the lieutenant. “We as a group held out for as long as we thought appropriate. We then complied…with our captors.”

As long as they felt appropriate? Is that what the British military’s standard is now – to hold, when captured, out as long as the detainee deems appropriate, and then to give in? Beyond the absurdity of the sentiment itself, the reality is that these troops were in custody for two weeks – and at least half of that time, they had been complying with every wish of their captors. It would be very interesting indeed to see these British sailors explain that rationale to men like Col. George “Bud” Day, who spent six years in a North Vietnamese prison (and who was the only Vietnam POW to successfully escape from North Vietnam, though he was recaptured), or Senator John McCain, who to this day cannot even comb his own hair because of the tremendous physical toll of real torture he endured during five and a half years of captivity.

Article IV of the US Code says, “Should I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.” The British officers, tasked with being the active military’s leaders, only led the charge to give in to their captors. Seeing the captain and the lieutenant on film, confessing to everything short of a full-scale invasion of Iran, absolutely disgusted me personally, as well as every other military veteran who has fought for honor and who has sworn an oath to keep faith with his or her own country.

I have no doubt that the experience was, as the Lieutenant said it, “nerve-wracking” – especially given the combination of being in unknown territory, being held by an enemy which is an unknown quantity (though Iran is well known to the British and American militaries as being actively engaged in killing allied soldiers within Iraq), and being unsure of whether your government knows where you are, or will lift a finger to secure your release. The treatment they actually received, though, was no worse than that which American soldiers undergo during standard SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) training. If the British actually consider Iraq – and the waters off its coast – to be a combat zone, then its sailors should be – and should have been – prepared for their hazardous assignment accordingly. Whether these fifteen received such training or not, I do not know, but if they did, their actions make it perfectly clear that they did not learn anything from it.

Article V of the Code of Conduct states, “When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.” The British officers led the way to make such statements, but female captive Faye Turney was possibly more high-profile than her military leaders, as she penned and signed statements and letters not only confessing to the false charge of invading Iran’s territorial waters, but also calling on her own country to “end it’s illegal occupation of Iraq.” Such an act was absolutely disgusting – and that is the nicest description which I can think to give it.

While the fifteen sailors and marines were being held captive, the British government was busily crafting strongly worded statements about the situation, with the dire threat that, if Tehran didn’t release the captives soon, or harmed them in any way, more strongly-worded statements would follow. Given that situation, it becomes more difficult to condemn the actions of the sailors out-of-hand, despite their dismal performance under pressure – for, had I been in their situation, I know full well that I would have questioned whether my government was more interested in coming after me, or in preventing an “escalation of tensions” with the nation which had kidnapped me, and was illegally holding me prisoner. This is not a good situation to be in, regardless of the duration of imprisonment.

Article VII of the Code concludes, “I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.” If these Britons trusted in their nation – or in their God – then they did an absolutely pathetic job of showing it. In their race to capitulate to an enemy, they dishonored themselves, the entirety of the British military, and the United Kingdom itself. What they were focused on during their captivity was not upholding their oath to their country, or maintaining their honor. What they were focused on (as has been admitted by the sailors themselves) was going home, and they were willing to play along with whatever Iran wanted in order to achieve that. That mindset, combined with the drive upon their release (after shaking the hand and kissing the cheek – again on international television – of their captor-in-chief, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) to sell their story to the highest bidder (a privilege usually only awarded to men who receive such high honors as the Victoria Cross; how far greatness has fallen!) exemplifies the current, “me-first” generation which will be responsible for carrying on the West’s tradition of greatness into the future.

I sincerely fear for our future if this group is an example of the best and brightest we have to offer. Given that all fifteen were not present in the propaganda videos, and some had to be cut out of the media’s pictures of the sailors’ release, it is entirely possible that there were a few out of the whole who did not break, who did not give in, and who did not so easily shed their personal honor. Unfortunately, these good men – whichever they may be – have been eclipsed by their comrades, from the officers down, who did not think their country worth the effort. It is a shame, but it is a reality.

We are all glad that the British sailors have safely returned home. The next step should be an inquiry – and the immediate removal from duty of these officers, of Ms. Turney, of the remaining British sailors who aided and abetted their captors, and the leadership of the HMS Cornwall, who, due to their laxness and negligence, were complicit in their own sailors’ capture in the first place.

And that should only be the beginning. Figurative heads must roll, and those who remain must open their eyes and seriously consider their future actions, lest the sun finally set on the fabled British Empire, once and for all.

Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.

Labels: Britain, Iran, War

Permalink | |

Why we're going to Iraq

In our writings at RedState, Human Events, Townhall, and elsewhere, the two of us have spent a great deal of time, ink, and energy discussing the Iraq war and attempting to convey stories about the mission that can’t be found in the mainstream media. We've criticized the quality of the media’s own reportage on events in the Middle East. We've pointed out episodes of anti-war bias, ignorance, and outright fabrications ad nauseam, all the while seeking to “correct the record” with a better reflection of events and developments as they actually are, rather than as they appear through the mainstream media’s anti-war, anti-Bush prism.

Why have we spent so much time and energy on this pursuit? Because the evidence we see suggests a very different picture of the situation on the ground in Iraq than the one which the media presents day in and day out.

The two of us share the view of this conflict as an historic enterprise with profound ramifications for Americans, for Iraqis, and for our world. However, while we see hard-won progress and noble sacrifice that can and should lead to victory, we also, unfortunately, see that progress being threatened by an inexplicable willingness among our political leaders, and citizens of this country, to despair and to capitulate – a willingness which is both fed and reflected by our media, which has embraced the promotion of a vicious and escalating cycle of defeatism.

Against the combined mainstream media and Congressional Democrat juggernaut, our voices can, at times, seem very small. Our writings are strictly about – and based on – the facts which are available to us, and we have no more shied away from calling out what we see as mistakes by the administration, the Congress, and the nation, than we have from praising those things which are being done right. The last thing we want to do is to “spin” events to meet our perceptions, hopes, or expectations; what we want is, like many others, to know and to convey the truth as it really is – not as we want it to be. Given the obvious limits on our access to up-to-the-minute, accurate, objective information, we cannot help but wonder every now and again if we are actually seeing the situation clearly – and what we can do to improve our grasp on these events, and on the situation on the ground in the Middle East.

So to that end, we decided to address such doubts by heading over to Iraq ourselves and getting the real story, straight from the source.

After months of emails, telephone calls, offers, and negotiations, the two of us have reached an agreement with the Department of Defense to take part in a trip to Kuwait and to Iraq in late April. This extraordinary opportunity, which stems from the DoD’s renewed emphasis on “new media” outreach, will enable us, and a few of our fellow web-based writers, to get some of the first-hand perspective generally reserved for the larger and more heavily financed “old media.”

The Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Public Affairs apparatus (OSD-PA) has been incredibly accommodating to us, and has shown itself willing to work with any who demonstrate a seriousness of purpose, a track record of thoughtful writing on the war, and a willingness to endure the rather lengthy process of preparing to embed with the military in a war zone. The DoD has no political litmus test; in fact, despite conspiracy theories from the online left that we are being included simply as a propaganda tool of the administration, the impression which we received during this process was that OSD-PA is actually disappointed that they get so few requests from left-leaning writers and websites, either to embed or to participate in the frequent blogger conference calls which the department sets up with commanders and high-level officers in the field. They believe that firsthand contact with the military, via telephone or, even better, face-to-face interaction is in the best interest of the DoD, which, rather than having something to “hide” from the public, is eager to tell its story.

We are looking forward with great anticipation to taking advantage of this opportunity to get a firsthand look at the actual situation in Iraq. Unlike the mainstream media representatives who have been reporting on the war, we make no claim of impartiality. We consider ourselves to be patriotic Americans – and, as such, we have a vested interest in our country’s success. However, “success” as we define it is not looking at a bad situation with rose-colored glasses; on the contrary, attempting to spin a bad situation into a good PR effort, in our opinion, serves more as a detriment to real success than as a benefit. Success, to us, is success; and, to this end, the overarching goal of our reportage from Iraq will be to accurately convey the real situation – what is going right, and what may be going wrong.

We will be financed entirely by our readers, and our live updates (audio, video, and written) will be featured at our weblog, RedState, and they will be published as often as we can post them. Needless to say, we are both looking forward to this opportunity to bring to our readers the real story of what is actually happening in Iraq, right now, straight from the source – and we hope that you will join us for the journey.

Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a Director of conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.

Dr. Coates is an art historian and conservative weblogger. She writes for RedState.com and Elephants in Academia.

Labels: Media, War

Permalink | |

Iran takes British sailors hostage

Leverage or aggression?

Iran’s latest move against the West is a case of them doing exactly what they said they would.

On Friday, March 23, around 10:30 am Baghdad Time, while conducting a routine merchant ship inspection in the Persian Gulf, fifteen British sailors and Royal Marines – including women – were abducted at gunpoint by Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen, and taken to Tehran, where they are currently being held hostage.

This unfortunate act is simply the latest escalation in Iran’s undeclared war on allied forces currently fighting to stabilize Iraq. Previous (and ongoing) actions against the Multinational Forces in Iraq have included the training, funding, and arming of insurgent fighters – and direct participation in the fighting – by has the Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

This development, reminiscent of a similar capture of British sailors by Iran in 2004 (though those hostages were quickly released), should not surprise any who have been paying attention to the rhetoric emanating from the Islamic Republic in recent months. Only a week ago, according to an Iranian military official, “a plan to capture American or British coalition troops was formulated by the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Security Council in response to the arrest of Iranian officers by US forces in Iraq.”

Only days before that, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly newspaper had threatened the abduction of Americans in Iraq and elsewhere, saying, “We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed, blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

Iran’s rationale for this act – and for threatening further hostage-takings – appears to be twofold. First, as mentioned above, they are extremely unhappy about the capture of over Iranian intelligence and paramilitary operatives in Iraq, and are desirous of a bargaining chip with which to negotiate their return. As RedState.com contributor “Streiff” has pointed out, wounded pride may also have been a factor in the decision to exact retribution-in-kind against the West. The Revolutionary Guard, he says, has “suffered a series of painful and public reverses which have to have damaged its credibility with the various centers of power in Tehran as well as holding it up to some degree of ridicule to its proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.

“The have lost a general to the West through defection,” he continues, “and have lost track of several other senior Quds Brigade operatives in Iraq. …One has to suspect that they will demand the release of the nearly 400 Iranian agents now in custody as a price for the 15 British men and women now in captivity.”

The second possible factor in the decision to commit this act is Iran’s increasingly precarious international position vis-à-vis their illicit nuclear program. According to the London Times, a “source close to the [Revolutionary] Guard” acknowledged that such tactics as the abduction of allied servicemen “had been approved by Ayatollah Khameni, Iran’s supreme leader, who warned last week that Tehran would take illegal actions if necessary to maintain its right to develop a nuclear program.” This seizure of the fifteen British sailors could very well be an attempt by the Islamic Republic to secure greater leverage in the nuclear situation – particularly in light of the fact that the resolution containing the latest round of sanctions against Iran, voted on (and unanimously passed) the day after the sailors’ capture, was co-authored by Britain.

Regardless of the rationale behind the move, this latest situation has once again presented the West with a decision to make about how best to deal with the rogue state of Iran. The inflammatory rhetoric coming from Tehran has not improved matters. The Iranian government claimed over the weekend to have a full confession from the hostages stating that they had illegally entered Iranian territorial waters and, according to the Sunday Times, a “website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” reported that the sailors (to whom it referred as “insurgents”) will “be charged with espionage – an offense punishable in Iran by death.”

There is little doubt that, despite its threatening and inflammatory statements, the Iranian government will prevent any real harm from coming to these captives. Likewise, there is little reason to believe that they will not be released, like those captured in 2004, before much more time has passed. The country’s hard-line stance had already softened by Monday, when it said that the captives were being questioned “to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was intentional or unintentional” before deciding how to proceed with them – a development which AP writer Nasser Karimi called “the first sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff.”

However, even if Iran relents in the near future and releases these Prisoners of War, a message must still be sent that such acts cannot be taken lightly – lest the Iranian government, and its Revolutionary Guardsmen, be even more emboldened by the lack of a stern, forceful response to such provocations. Their actions in Iraq – illegal acts of war which went virtually unpunished for nearly four years – have finally, with the modification of ROE which accompanied the President’s new war strategy, begun to result in negative consequences in the form of growing numbers of captured operatives.

Iran’s illegal interference in the turbulent domestic affairs of its neighbor, and its actions against the coalition working to achieve order there, is bad enough on its own. However, the fact that the rogue state apparently believes that the capture of its own soldiers and operatives in the act of those illegal foreign operations warrants, as retribution, the also illegal apprehension of foreign sailors in international waters – or thinks that such an act will influence the international community to give it what it wants – both reveals the presence of a dangerous mindset in the leadership of that nation, and the message which we in the West have sent about our resolve and willingness to respond to acts of war against us and our allies.

This abduction of British sailors was a case of the government of Iran doing exactly what it said it would – a fact which should give America pause, and should cause us to reconsider our current unwillingness to act against the Islamic Republic in the face of future, more serious acts against us and our interests. After all, this is a nation whose President has repeatedly spoken of the impending “death of America,” and has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” – and it is a nation which is currently pursuing nuclear weapons.
Had we been taking Iran’s words and threats seriously in the recent past, then this abduction of British sailors might have been avoided altogether.

However, given that we did not, and therefore suffered an act about which Iran practically warned us before carrying it out, we should take this opportunity to ensure that we do not repeat the mistake. At the very least, let us take this incident as an object lesson that words and threats are not simply annoyances to be ignored, but that such statements – especially from the mouths of our self-proclaimed enemies – actually mean something, and that continuing to turn a blind eye to the increasing belligerence of an adversary will not result in defusing tensions, but in emboldening it to commit greater and greater acts of violence against us.

Mr. Emanuel, a special operations military veteran, is a leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative weblog RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.

Labels: Iran, War

Permalink | |