And many of the killings in Dyala were predictable had the Brigade there taken action they could have saved many lives as well as preserved credibility in Iraqi and US FOrces

I myself am frustrated that Bush is attracting votes by ignoring the facts on the ground in Iraq (which you have outlined above) and using such dislogical arguments as “how can the liberal win the war when he says its the wrong war?”

As much as this was a tragic event, the 3BCT does not control Diyala Province. We encourage any media individuals to come visit and see first hand the difference our Soldiers are making. Colonel Pittard loves to have media here and since I joined the brigade in May, we have had over 32 news agencies and 75 embedded reporters.

I would encourage you to join us.

“U.S. military sources said the incident occurred about 60 miles south of Baqubah in neighboring Wasit province, an area patrolled by Polish and Ukrainian troops.

Iraqi officials said the killings occurred roughly 95 miles northeast of Baghdad, in the turbulent province of Diyala. Police in that area, particularly in the provincial capital of Baqubah, have been targets of assassinations, car bombs and drive-by shootings. Eleven police recruits were recently shot dead there while riding in a minibus.”

Even if a reporter were visiting Col Pittard in Baqubah, the reporter would have to rely on reports from those who actually found the scene of the massacre in order to know where it took place.

Your argument is muddy. You imply that the United States forces in Iraq should declare victory, run home and leave the citizens of Iraq who have no meaningful experience running governments, particularly complex democracies, take over. Puzzling.

Worse, your take on Pittard is absolutely conceived in error. Succinctly, your mistook hubris for confidence. Certainly, it is reasonable to expect someone such as Pittard who has a high aptitude for leadership, a first tier university education, experience working with the most powerful men and women on the planet, and commitment to his profession to be confident.
He has that and, thus far, he, through his organization, are making progress. Certainly, one could argue with the extent to which progess is being made; however, undeniably, progress in his region of Iraq is occuring.

You maintain that my argument is flawed because Iraq would turn into chaos after we left. Yet Iraq isn’t in chaos now? It may be controlled chaos, but it’s chaos nonetheless. Whenever we leave there’s very likely to be chaos, even if we leave at a date of Bush’s choosing. And since when is it the U.S.’ role in a global context to guarantee that nations are stable?? Darfur & Sudan are regions far more in need of our stabilizing influence, yet they don’t fit Bush’s global terror strategy so we essentially ignore the 70,000 innocent civilians who’ve died there & the scores of thousands more who’ll be dying in the coming months. What about Rwanda? What about Bosnia (we went in there but far too late to avoid the worst of the massacres)?

I love getting comments on my blog posts including yours. But I’ve written often about Iraq and this is the first time that not one, but two serving officers in Iraq have written in response to any post. One soldier works directly under Col. Pittard & the other doesn’t know him personally, but rather by reputation. You coyly described something of your affiliations, but left salient information out. I’d like to know if you serve in the U.S. military or have any personal connection to Col. Pittard? The comments you made about his background were just specific enough to tell me (perhaps incorrectly) that you know him better & more personally than I.

Pls. don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing wrong (in fact, just the opposite is the case) with U.S. military personnel or you commenting in my blog. But I strongly believe that we should lay all our cards on the table & not omit information that allows people better to judge the source in context.

Dana is a personal friend of me and my family since, oh, the 80s of the last century. (Oh, my! Is it really that long ago?)
He was then stationed in Germany and we’ve been in contact ever since — throughout his postings all over the US, his time as an advisor to Pres. Clinton, his Harvard time, during his time in Kosovo (that’s not necessarily chronological).

I know him and his family.

He’s exactly like that news article described him. He’s smart, humble, friendly. He’s — oh. He’s a good guy. He’s one of the last people I’d accuse of hubris. I have nothing but highest respect for him and his work.

He was one of the few officers I ever met who made a big effort to learn German while stationed there. He knew German history much better than most Germans. He loved learning about German customs. He’s 100% soldier but he’s a soldier with a brain and he uses it.

I was opposed to the war from the beginning. I am still opposed to the war. Geez, I’m a German Green, how much more opposition do you want?

But if the US has any chance at all, it’s because of people like Dana. You’ll want him there because he’s as good as they come. Trust me on that.

We agree in general terms that current developments in Iraq are less than ideal (in fact far from it). From my perspective, you overstate them whereas I suspect you feel as if I understate them. Europe like America, for the most part, is a democracy and as such there are a variety of opinions regarding Iraq. On the whole most Europeans I interface with, like myself, feel as if the war was a mistake.

The issue, though, that you have raised is not about the correctness of this war. Instead, it revolves around the issue of political, economic, and social stability which you surmise is impossible to achieve. At this juncture, I am not ready to concede this point. It is simply too early in the process of “nation building” to tell. As much as it pains me to admit it, pulling out AT THIS POINT would do more harm than good. Good people can disagree, correct?

Are your comments about Rwanda, Dafur, and Sudan are predicated on morality? State craft and morality are, for the most part, incompatible. A cursory review of Near East politics reveals that.

I did not intend for the description of my relationship with Pittard to be coy. I simply did not think it was pertinent to my position that you wrongly attacked a very decent person because he is implementing policy which you deplore. I did serve in the army from 1986 to 1989 (my parents felt as if a college education would be worth more if I paid for it) and the experience on the whole was not my cup of tea. Next to my wedding day and the birth of my children, getting out of the army was the happiest day of my life. So, in the spirit of laying all of the cards on the table: I never voted for a Republican in my life, did not take a vacation in the army for two years in order to leave the service two months early, and left the United States to live in Europe to be employed by a foreign government.

In the army I was commanded by Pittard and his perspective of the army was, literally, opposite of mine. He enjoyed the army very much, was very skilled, and poured his soul into his profession whereas I could not wait to get out, was skilled enough to stay out of trouble, and did not let the army within a light year of my soul. Yet, given these gaping differences I (even as a typically stupid 20 year old) recognised Pittard to be a fine person who was enormously gifted at his profession. His profession, however, was not my cup of tea.

So, on the issue of Iraq we seemed to have some commonality; that is, our differences are in degree rather than in kind. However, on the issue of Pittard, you are wrong. People such as myself who ran from the army the first chance they got understand Pittard is many things; hubris, though, he is not.