Special Forces Officer on "Bring 'em on"

Yep, Bush's shameless "Bring 'em on" challenge is going to stick in my craw. But I'm not so presumptuous to think that I know the real extent of the effect it will have on the soldiers themselves.

 

Stan Goff, however, can tell you all about it in a way I can barely envision:

 

In 1970, when I arrived at my unit, Company A, 4th Battalion/503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, in what was then the Republic of Vietnam, I was charged up for a fight. I believed that if we didn't stop the communists in Vietnam, we'd eventually be fighting this global conspiracy in the streets of Hot Springs, Arkansas. I'd been toughened by Basic Training, Infantry Training and Parachute Training, taught how to use my weapons and equipment, and I was confident in my ability to vanquish the skinny unter-menschen. So I was dismayed when one of my new colleagues -- a veteran who'd been there ten months -- told me, "We are losing this war."

 

Not only that, he said, if I wanted to survive for my one year there, I had to understand one very basic thing. All Vietnamese were the enemy, and for us, the grunts on the ground, this was a race war. Within one month, it was apparent that everything he told me was true, and that every reason that was being given to the American public for the war was not true.

 

We had a battalion commander whom I never saw. He would fly over in a Loach helicopter and give cavalier instructions to do things like "take your unit 13 kilometers to the north." In the Central Highlands, 13 kilometers is something we had to hack out with machetes, in 98-degree heat, carrying sometimes 90 pounds over our body weights, over steep, slippery terrain. The battalion commander never picked up a machete as far as we knew, and after these directives he'd fly back to an air-conditioned headquarters in LZ English near Bong-son. We often fantasized together about shooting his helicopter down as a way of relieving our deep resentment against this faceless, starched and spit-shined despot.

 

Yesterday, when I read that US Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush, in a moment of blustering arm-chair machismo, sent a message to the 'non-existent' Iraqi guerrillas to "bring 'em on," the first image in my mind was a 20-year-old soldier in an ever-more-fragile marriage, who'd been away from home for 8 months. He participated in the initial invasion, and was told he'd be home for the 4th of July. He has a newfound familiarity with corpses, and everything he thought he knew last year is now under revision. He is sent out into the streets of Fallujah (or some other city), where he has already been shot at once or twice with automatic weapons or an RPG, and his nerves are raw. He is wearing Kevlar and ceramic body armor, a Kevlar helmet, a load carrying harness with ammunition, grenades, flex-cuffs, first-aid gear, water, and assorted other paraphernalia. His weapon weighs seven pounds, ten with a double magazine. His boots are bloused, and his long-sleeve shirt is buttoned at the wrist. It is between 100-110 degrees Fahrenheit at midday. He's been eating MRE's three times a day, when he has an appetite in this heat, and even his urine is beginning to smell like preservatives. Mosquitoes and sand flies plague him in the evenings, and he probably pulls a guard shift every night, never sleeping straight through. He and his comrades are beginning to get on each others' nerves. The rumors of 'going-home, not-going-home' are keeping him on an emotional roller coaster. Directives from on high are contradictory, confusing, and often stupid. The whole population seems hostile to him and he is developing a deep animosity for Iraq and all its people -- as well as for official narratives.

 

This is the lad who will hear from someone that George W. Bush, dressed in a suit with a belly full of rich food, just hurled a manly taunt from a 72-degree studio at the 'non-existent' Iraqi resistance.

 

This de facto president is finally seeing his poll numbers fall. Even chauvinist paranoia has a half-life, it seems. His legitimacy is being eroded as even the mainstream press has discovered now that the pretext for the war was a lie. It may have been control over the oil, after all. Anti-war forces are regrouping as an anti-occupation movement. Now, exercising his one true talent -- blundering -- George W. Bush has begun the improbable process of alienating the very troops upon whom he depends to carry out the neo-con ambition of restructuring the world by arms.

 

Somewhere in Balad, or Fallujah, or Baghdad, there is a soldier telling a new replacement, "We are losing this war."

 

Stan Goff

"Bring 'Em On?" A Former Special Forces Soldier Responds

to Bush's Invitation for Iraqis to Attack US Troops

CounterPunch

July 3, 2003

 

Posted 4:30:20 PM   Send comment

---

Bush Incites & Invites Iraqis to Kill U.S. Troops

Unbelievable. Absolutely un-freaking-believable.

 

I am referring to what may very well be the stupidest, most arrogant, reckless, irresponsible, dangerous thing George W. Bush has ever said.

 

It beats his "axis of evil" speech.

 

Which beat Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" remark.

 

And that, my friends, is saying a lot.

 

Judge for yourself:

 

Bush spoke in the face of increasing American concern about the rising casualty toll. At least 23 U.S. troops have been killed by hostile fire since Bush declared major combat operations over on May 1.

 

"There are some who feel like that conditions are such that they can attack us there," Bush told reporters at the White House. "My answer is: Bring them on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."

 

Bush to Iraqi militants: "Bring them on"

Reuters

July 2, 2003

 

I am stunned. No, really, I am. I honestly didn't believe that even Bush could be this foolhardy. This careless. This goddamned stupid!

 

You want to "support the troops," people? Get this man OUT of office! He's not just killing your sons and brothers -- he's inviting Iraqis to continue ambushing U.S. troops.

 

No, that's not an overreaction. Does no one in the White House read the papers? Has no one taken notice of the growing Iraqi concensus that American soldiers "deserve to die"? That Iraqis are willing and even happy to wreak vengeance on the "invaders"?

 

And why shouldn't they be? God knows, the last thing I want to see is one more soldier in need of so much as a Band-Aid, let alone a casket. But as I've been repeating, endlessly, since day one: If your country were invaded, if your family were blown up in their beds, if your child's arms were shot off, if your home were gone and life as you knew it were over, what would you do at the sight of the invaders roaming the streets of downtown Dayton, or Omaha, or Springfield, MO, holding children at gunpoint?

 

And if not you, what do you think your (remaining) friends and neighbors would do?

 

Is it any surprise that these people are going to fight back? Has no one in the White House ever studied history? What happens when you devastate an entire society and leave the survivors with nothing? They fight back! And why not? They've got absolutely nothing to lose. And they will attack with whatever means are available. Call it whatever you want -- "guerilla warfare" is perfectly, and deadly, accurate. Look at Vietnam.

 

Yeah, just look at Vietnam. What do you think the reaction would have been if LBJ had invited the Viet Cong to continue knocking off our soldiers? For all his faults, Johnson was never so goddamned stupid.

 

Incidentally, I'm not the only one who sees it this way:

 

"I am shaking my head in disbelief. When I served in the army in Europe during World War II, I never heard any military commander -- let alone the commander in chief -- invite enemies to attack U.S. troops," said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

 

Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, a Democratic presidential candidate, said: "I have a message for the president: 'Enough of the phony, macho rhetoric. We should be focused on a long-term security plan that reduces the danger to our military personnel.'"

 

If Iraq were not a secular society, Bush's double-dog-dare would be taken as an incitement to jihad (and the U.S. would be the one engaging in hirabah).

 

But guess what, boys and girls? Secular society or not, there are plenty of Iraqis who do indeed see this whole fiasco as a jihad: "We will fight a holy war until the last drop of blood. Even boys who are 10 years old will fight until their last drop of blood..." (How do you like this headline, George: FALLUJA BAYS FOR US BLOOD. Chilling enough for you? No?)

 

How are you going to explain your way out of this latest demonstration of recklessness, George? What are you going to say to the families of the next 65 soldiers blown to bits in Baghdad or Fallujah?

 

And that's exactly what's eating you the day after, isn't it, Georgie? Oh, no, no, no, I don't mean that you give a rat's ass about the effect of your pouring gasoline on the fires of Iraqi anger, or about your incredible insensitivity toward the loved ones of U.S. soldiers. I mean you (and your handlers, scrambling to run damage control) are worried about the political fallout.

 

Here's some advice, George: If you're going to throw down the gauntlet, you'd better be prepared to run the gauntlet.

 

Figuratively speaking, of course.

 

Get Karl Rove to explain it to you.

 

 

Related articles:

 

W to Iraq terrorists: Bring 'em on! They'll feel U.S. fist. Contains what is probably a more accurate quote than that in the linked Reuters article above: "There are some who feel like that, you know, the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." [New York Daily News, July 2, 2003]

 

Bush on Iraqi militants: 'Bring them on'. With the growing list of casualties, U.S. President George Bush responded Wednesday by defiantly challenging Iraqi militants to take their best shot. [CTV, July 2, 2003]

 

'Bring them on' Bush says as Iraqi attackers prolong war. The gesture of presidential bravado came amid declining public enthusiasm for military involvement in Iraq as American casualties continue to mount long after Mr Bush declared the war over. The US has lost 196 soldiers in combat or accidents since going to war, a third of them since the president's victory speech on board the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier on May 1. The troops have recently come under near daily attack from groups loyal to Saddam or simply opposed to the occupation. [The Guardian, July 3, 2003]

 

Bush Issues Taunt on Iraqi Attacks: 'Bring 'Em On'. With retired generals and military analysts calling for more soldiers in Iraq and leading members of Congress saying the Pentagon must sustain forces there for as long as five years, Rumsfeld has begun wrestling with a serious shortage of troops in the $3-billion-a-month occupation of Iraq. [Washington Post, July 3, 2003]

 

Rumsfeld's Surrealism and Bush's Honesty. Although his lack of respect for life in general is amply acknowledged by most people in the world, it is heartening to see the President's honesty about his disregard for American life too. [Muslim WakeUp!, July 3, 2003]

 

White House defends Bush remark on Iraqi attacks. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts [called Bush's comment] "unwise (and) unworthy of the office. The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more thoughtfulness and statesmanship," Kerry said in a written statement. ... "I don't believe personally that kind of cocky rhetoric is helpful either to our troops or to attracting other countries to join us," said Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. [CNN, July 3, 2003]

 

Posted 3:46:32 PM   Send comment

---