Web Letters: The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness

What do Americans think happens in war? The average American still blindly believes our nation's brutal occupations are all about bravery, honor and glory. But then again, they still believe watching CNN everyday keeps them informed.

John Giarratana

Jersey City, NJ

While I haven't always agreed with The Nation, I have long valued its writing, and in fact, was a subscriber while I was serving in Iraq. This makes it all the more disappointing that the lengthy interviews I gave to Laila Al-Arian for your recent article, "The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness" resulted in my quotes being taken way out of context. These mistakes reflect poorly on me personally and lead me to question whether Ms. Al-Arian and co-author Chris Hedges are guilty of poor analysis or of using my quotes to their own ends. I know this comes several weeks after the article was published, however I have been overseas most of this time conducting conflict resolution workshops and so it has been difficult to respond promptly.

One example of my problems with this article are that I am quoted saying, "I mean, you physically could not do an investigation every time a civilian was wounded or killed because it just happens a lot and you'd spend all your time doing that."

Your article's premise that unjustified shootings of civilians were rampant and that these were almost never investigated is not the question I was responding to when I made the above statement. The overwhelming majority of civilians wounded or killed I was referring to were not from shootings, let alone American shootings outside of full-scale fire-fights. They were mostly from IEDs, or shootings by insurgents. Moreover, I was referring to the fact that civilians mistakenly shot by Americans, clearly in the course of legitimate self-defense, was the overwhelming source of civilian casualties at the hands of Americans. I made no judgment at all about whether shootings under any questionable circumstances were investigated or not, because I had such little exposure to such issues. Ms. Al-Arian didn't ask me about such circumstances, yet she portrays my statement as if it directly reflects on such types of events. While your other interviewees appear to support your article's premise with their quotes, mine refers to a substantially different issue and I feel you have utilized my statement disingenuously.

I cannot contradict what others saw, as I was not in their shoes. And I am not na¨ve enough to assert that no troops in Iraq have deliberately done wrong. However, I categorically disagree that any of my statements or experiences would support your assertion that there has been a pervasive and chronic trend among US forces in Iraq to deliberately wound and/or kill innocent civilians.

Next, in a section about checkpoints, you write:

In the moment, what's passing through your head is, Is this person a threat? Do I shoot to stop or do I shoot to kill?" said Lieutenant Morgenstein, who served in Al Anbar.

This implies I was referring to every car passing through a checkpoint. I was not. I was specifically referring to if a car drives through a checkpoint despite warnings to stop. The difference is someone making a blanket assumption about all Iraqis versus making an analytical decision based on reasonable evidence in the moment. By portraying it in the former way, you mislead the reader about my intentions and views.

Next, the authors' analysis directly contradicts what my quote says about the rules of engagement:

Lieutenant Morgenstein said that when he arrived in Iraq in August 2004, the rules of engagement barred the use of warning shots. "We were trained that if someone is not armed, and they are not a threat, you never fire a warning shot because there is no need to shoot at all," he said. "I don't recall at this point if this was an ROE [rule of engagement] explicitly or simply part of our consistent training." But later on, he said, "we were told the ROE was changed" and that warning shots were now explicitly allowed in certain circumstances.

I told The Nation that I specifically did not know if "the rules of engagement barred the use of warning shots." As you can read in the very quote you published, I said I did not recall what the official ROEs were regarding warning shots. I said our training in the Marines barred warning shots, which is a fundamentally different idea.

Lastly, you write:

Fearing a backlash against these shootings of civilians, Lieutenant Morgenstein gave a class in late 2004 at his battalion headquarters in Ramadi to all the battalion's officers and most of its senior noncommissioned officers during which he asked them to put themselves in the Iraqis' place.

"I told them the obvious, which is, everyone we wound or kill that isn't an insurgent, hurts us," he said. "Because I guarantee you, down the road, that means a wounded or killed marine or soldier.... One, it's the right thing to do to not wound or shoot someone who isn't an insurgent. But two, out of self-preservation and self-interest, we don't want that to happen because they're going to come back with a vengeance."

I did not give the class in reaction to a rash of intentional killings of civilians. I did not give this class in reaction to anything US forces had done in particular at all, let alone in reaction to any killing of Iraqis. The class I gave was about Civil Affairs, which I am pretty sure I very clearly told Ms. Al-Arian. During that class I gave them the warnings you cited, but I gave it entirely as a preventative measure. Your categorization of my class indicates that I was trying to stop a massive problem, which was not the case. I was performing the most basic responsibility of military officers--which your magazine should be applauding rather than criticizing--the proper, on-going training of forces to follow the law-of-war.

I commend The Nation for interviewing fifty service members about their experiences in Iraq and for trying to tell stories that other media outlets miss. However, by taking my experiences severely out of context, you have disserved your readers overall as well as me personally.

Jonathan Morgenstein
Captain, United States Marine Corps Reserves

Arlington, VA

I was disappointed but not surprised to read the response from Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA. I was one of the veterans interviewed for the story and I want to say unequivocally that nothing about what I had to say was taken out of context or distorted. I was told exactly what the article was about and the questions were very direct. My interview was recorded as I imagine the others were, so Mr. Rieckhoff should be pointed with his criticisms and give specific examples rather than making vague accusations.

A "fog of war" does not exist. Politicians and generals that are not even remotely close to a battlefield deliberate the bad decisions that are being made, not rank and file troops. The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq violates the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Accords and the Geneva Convention. Subsequently, the politicians and military leaders that allowed and continue to allow the occupation of Iraq are guilty of war crimes. These crimes are further compounded by the assertions of those in the highest reaches of this Administration that medical care be withheld from Iraqi civilians, that the Geneva Conventions don't exist in Iraq, and for not meeting the responsibilities of an occupying power under international law.

As an Infantry Officer Mr. Rieckhoff should know these things. He should also know that you couldn't succeed in a "guerrilla war" without the support of the majority of the indigenous population. If we ever had that support we certainly don't now. Mr. Rieckhoff knows that every Iraqi killed, injured, or degraded makes an impossible mission even harder. He also knows the futility of keeping US troops in a situation where there can be no military solution. This article never alleged that US troops are intentionally gunning down Iraqis, and I don't know anyone with a drop of sanity that has advanced that idea. The Iraqis already know that these things have happened and are still happening and reporting them here in the US isn't going to change that. Americans need to know what is happening in Iraq because it's being done in their name.

I have never heard Mr. Rieckhoff challenge politicians about Iraq. In fact, he has done anything but that. While doing PR work for his book release Rieckhoff was interviewed on NPR. During the interview he was pressed again and again about what needed to change in Iraq. He repeatedly ducked the question and finally responded with, "It needs to be somewhere between the President's 'Stay the course' and Cindy Sheehan's 'bring them home now.' " What does that even mean?

While I commend Rieckhoff for the work that his organization does in pointing out a lack of care, training, and equipment for troops it seems a bit myopic. It's like telling someone that is on fire that they'll have great burn care if they can put themselves out and survive the complications. Our troops should never have been sent to Iraq and they need to leave now so that the Iraqis can have their country back and decide their own future. The only way that anyone will be held accountable for what has happened in Iraq is for the men and women that have served there to continue to come forward.

This country has enough apologists for our continued occupation of Iraq across the political spectrum. What it needs are people that can speak plainly and tell the truth even when it isn't popular or easy to hear. My fellow troops in this story should be commended for speaking out and the military needs more people like them. I'll never understand why some of the most ardent defenders of our actions in Iraq sit in offices typing letters in places like Manhattan when it would seem they should be in Iraq fighting what they believe is the good fight.

Patrick Resta

Philadelphia, PA

I, too, was a contributor to this piece. I respect the position of the other contributors and don't deny that in war bad things do happen. But in an effort to disclose all truths the below should also be known to readers.

I was personally outraged, appalled and horrified while reading this article and not due to the alleged findings...the alleged truths that this article supposedly uncovered. I was in complete disbelief at how inaccurately my statements were portrayed and how conveniently they were selected to support the thesis of the authors. I suspect that I'm not the only veteran of the fifty interviewed who shares these sentiments. I'm sickened and ashamed to be, in any way, associated with this article.

Megan O'Connor

Venice, CA

I am one of the soldiers who contributed to this piece. I have enjoyed reading the varied responses to this article because that's precisely why I agreed to be interviewed: I wanted to spark a conversation; a dialogue, long overdue.

Reading some of the responses from other veterans who found the piece to be a "hatchet job" full of drummed-up, exaggerated stories compelled me to write my own response. To overcome the polarization that plagues our nation we need to have an open, honest conversation.

Since I've been back from the war in Iraq, I have been very forthcoming with the truth about what I saw and experienced there. I have been labeled as an "unpatriotic traitor." I take no issue with being called unpatriotic because blind patriotism is part of the reason we got into this mess. I do, however, take issue with being called a traitor.

I am still very loyal to the men of B. Company, 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division. I am proud to have served with such a fine, disciplined unit. Our leadership was among the best in the military. Our Chain of Command inspired us to display integrity, discipline, and compassion on every mission. Some of my dearest friends are currently deployed to Iraq (again) and I support them with all of my heart...in honor of that cherished brotherhood that only an Infantryman can know. And I continue to stand by my oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and I love my country deeply. However, all of these loyalties are secondary to my loyalty to the truth. And truthfully, in war, bad things happen.

I will not remain silent in order to protect my hero's status nor will I forfeit my conscience to hide the truth under a shroud of patriotism. I believe the world has a right to hear my story. And I believe it is my duty as an American, a veteran and a man, to tell the truth. The fact that I contributed to what history will someday remember as a societal travesty on par with Nazi Germany's Holocaust will torment me for the rest of my life.

I can not rely on the "only following orders" rationale to offset my guilt, take back my deeds, or justify my involvement. So my only choice is to share with others and to be honest. And I hope some of the other guys interviewed in this piece share my motivation. I want our troops to come home now. Instead, we argue amongst ourselves while our elected leaders are allowed to let politics trump moral reason. Meanwhile, the human cost of this war will continue its deadly toll, the hatred of America will grow, and the chances for a lasting peace will fade...and then, what will we do? Hopefully, the world will forgive us.

And that's the truth.

Timothy J. Westphal
Former SSG, US Army

Denver, CO

Thank for compiling this mass of truth. It's great that Iraq War vets are speaking out so clearly and forcefully about their experiences.

Here in Canada, we continue to welcome US military personnel who refuse to take part in the Iraq War. Many of them have served in Iraq, some more than once. They have similar stories to tell, and they have been telling them since 2004, when the first war resister, Jeremy Hinzman, came north.

The War Resisters Support Campaign exists to help the US soldiers, seamen, Marines, and airmen who come to Canada to seek sanctuary. These are people who did not wait until the military was finished with them. They decided on their own to leave the military.

One of them, Joshua Key, has written a book, The Deserter's Tale (with Lawrence Hill), which has been published in ten countries, including the US (Atlantic Monthly Press). In it, Josh describes some incidents and experiences that are similar to what are reported in your article. He also tells of his experience as an AWOL GI hiding out in the US for fourteen months before coming to Canada. I hope Nation readers will take a look at Josh's book, which is, I believe the first by a front-line solider about the Iraq War (we surely have enough accounts by "experts and "analysts").

In writing about Iraq War veterans, please don't ignore those who have decided to come to Canada. They are as much a part of the reality of the war as other veterans, and they have been speaking their truth for a long time. Their message has gone out all over the world via TV radio, and print, in languages including Japanese to Basque and everything in between. The war resisters in Canada have had a big impact in educating the world about the reality of Iraq, and it's great to see The Nation adding to that with this article.

Lee Zaslofsky
War Resisters Support Campaign

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Soldiers again. Between Kerry calling us "uneducated losers" and The Nation making us out to be "victims" and "killers." I for one love serving my America.

The basic problem with all these soldier's stories (some have by the way been debunked already) is that you sought out the most anti-American and leftist "veteran" organizations out there. Why not go to a regular veterans' organanization like the VFW or the American Legion that is respected by most vets. It's because you all want to hear about these stories to confirm your bias. It’s a guarantee that some will be exaggerated and some false. I could give you fifty soldiers' stories that could paint a very different picture.

I have served in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. I am about to go again. I may not be the highest speed infantryman but I have not seen one-millionth of what is said here. Are there bad things that happened and will happen? Yes! It happens in every war and the incidents are very low in this war.

William Starrarr
US Army

Camp Shelby, MS

Since General Petreas took over in Iraq, we cut a deal with the tribal leaders in Anbar province to put them in charge of protecting and securing their territory from Al Qaeda members. We provided them with financial aid and arms, and as a result the number of attacks on our troops dropped from almost 500 to under 100 per month. That's great news. The only problem is that this deal is almost identical to a agreement that General Musharaf struck with the tribal leaders in Waziristan, the uncontrolled region next to the Pakistani-Afghanistan border, which dramatically reduced the number of attacks on the Pakistani troops in Waziristan, but provided a safe haven for attacks on our troops in Afghanistan. Is it necessary to remind anybody that our generals are highly critical of Musharaf’s deal?

Is it necessary to remind anybody that de facto formation of another powerful militia outside the constitutional Iraqi Army and police forces directly undermines everything we did during last four years in Iraq--democratic elections, the Iraqi Constitution--as well as our previous determination not to deal with the insurgents?

Additionally, if the Iraqis themselves were able to stabilize the situation in volatile Anbar province on their own, then the argument of our generals that we should stay several additional years to protect Iraq and its democratically elected government from Al Qaeda is wrong, since it is obvious that the main danger to Iraq comes from the elected government, which is extremely instrumental in inflaming sectarian tensions and violence--which means that the longer we stay in Iraq, the more time those politicians have to play their bloody sectarian game.

There is an old cure for the incompetent politicians: a new election. The fact that the White House isn’t proposing new elections means its judgment is that there is no guarantee that even more intolerant politicians wouldn’t be elected--which means that a prolonged stay in Iraq doesn’t solve any problem. We cannot fix Iraq's problems, only the Iraqis can do it.

The question is, if our generals are willing to deal with the tribal leaders today, why they didn’t do it four years ago. That might have dramatically reduced the number of our casualties in Iraq, but it would have been bad for Bush’s re-election efforts and his proclaimed goals. If you still remember, the name of the game in 2003 was de-Baathification of Iraq, which meant kicking out of their jobs members of exactly those Anbar-based tribes for being the hardcore Saddam base. Four years later everybody has forgotten why we went to Iraq, so our generals can change their strategy anyway they want.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

Thank you for this article. I found it to be very informative and even inspiring, but not surprising.

I remember how I felt at learning some of the truth about what occurred in Vietnam, especially regarding the death of so many innocents and the effects on the soldiers. I understood both the short-term effects that influenced their decisions to engage over there, and the long-term that we all saw here at home. (My uncle was never the same, always depressed, and refused to talk about the war.)

I realized then that all wars have these effects, and that they are part of the cost of war. Even though I was a kid during Vietnam, I don't think I was extraordinary in my ability to reach these conclusions about war.

When this Iraq war started, I naïvely thought that everyone understood the effects of war, and that the calculus had been made with this in mind, especially by the leaders of a country as open and benevolent as our United States of America. But not only have the lessons of war not been learned, it seems those chosen to be responsible for making decisions about war didn't even care to learn about its effects. Our leaders do not understand the power of openness and benevolence, and as a result our soldiers are left out in the dark, fighting against an unclearly defined enemy and creating more of them.

I am convinced that whatever we need to do to get to a positive resolution of this conflict will require new leadership. A leadership that is committed to honesty, openness, and is fiercely benevolent.

When are we going to learn?

Michael Schaefer

Columbus, OH

I am the father of one of the former soldiers interviewed in "The Other War," Specialist Philip Chrystal, and I couldn't be prouder of him and all of the other interviewees who have taken a risk by talking outside of the military culture to tell an unknowing public the truth about what they saw in Iraq.

In almost daily contact with Phil when he was overseas, I can tell you that he was deeply affected by the experiences related in the article and by other events. While serving there, he was also fully aware that I was burying young men killed in Iraq (to date I have conducted three funerals for Iraq KIAs and I've worked with the families of two Nevada Army National Guardsmen who were killed in Afghanistan--one of whom was Sgt. Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan, who was denied a memorial plaque bearing the symbol of his faith until his wife, Roberta, sued in Federal District Court and the Veterans Administration settled).

Because of my activities on the "homefront," I echo what is being said by the veterans in the article, and add that this country isn't taking adequate care of many of the families of those who are killed.

Thanks for this marvelous piece. May it help to wake up our sleeping nation!

Major (Chaplain) William G. Chrystal, US Army (Retired)

Reno, NV

Perhaps it's no surprise that a draft dodger led the US into this quagmire of senseless violence. General Sherman could have told him that "war is hell" and this story is a precise illustration of that maxim. War puts people in contexts that lead them, indeed often force them, to commit atrocious deeds. Even the most just war, think WWII, is full of atrocity--even on the side of the good guys. That is what makes war hell. It turns angels into devils. Kurt Vonnegut knew this when he wrote Slaughterhouse 5. Even under the most fortunate conditions, war is an unlikely means of bringing democracy to a country. An attempt to do so by a morally bankrupt Administration too busy continually violating its nation's constitution to properly plan a war, incompetent to the core as a result of rampant cronyism, unable to admit mistakes or listen to its own military advisors, is bound to fail. Unfortunately, as democracies go, the American people in 2004, ignorant, intellectually lazy, willingly submitting to their beloved fear of foreign threats, and thus totally unqualified as a republican citizenry, failed miserably at their job as well. Many Americans, but far more Iraqi civilians are paying a bloody price. That well-known wide-eyed radical Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in The New York Review of Books, was correct when he diagnosed the disaster that is Iraq as the product of national stupidity by an amnesiac America incapable of learning its lesson from Vietnam.

Tom Clark

Frankfurt, Germany

This article exposes the consequences when a war of aggression is launched in deception, violating international law--that is the hardcore reality of this tragic war that no level of positioning will ever alter. It provides a prophetic look into our future as it relates to actions with consequences that will come to bear upon our national soul for years to come.

This article also reveals a situation wrought with historical ignorance and a force of 158,000-plus frightened troops ill prepared and uncertain as to what to do as they fight an elusive enemy--an enemy who knows no borders and that has, by design and with purpose, driven the asymmetric warfare tactic of the twenty-first century into the urban areas. It is critically important to grasp not only the psychology behind this transformation but also the consequences in failing to adapt.

There is little to be gained in belittling the nature of asymmetric tactics as some are inclined to do, referring to the militants as cowards for hiding among the innocent or some other colorful terminology. Doing so is missing the point of their strategies. They know what they are doing and comprehend that they are no match in sheer weaponry and military power for a direct confrontation with US forces.

One lesson that should have been learned from our experiences in Vietnam is the effectiveness of the guerrilla warfare tactics employed against US forces. No degree of carpet-bombing was effective in suppressing it, and as is well known more than 50,000 American soldiers and a disproportionate ratio of innocent Asian civilians lost their lives.

"Guerrilla," "insurgency" or even "terrorism" are various forms of asymmetric tactics. Conventional forces must be able to clearly identify their opponent in order to successfully engage in combat. Obviously part of the strategy in asymmetric warfare is to make this extremely difficult. The militants gain an advantage over their conventional opponent since they on the other hand are extremely easy to identify and attack.

Unfortunately, as is evidenced in this article and observable in Baghdad, Fallujah, Haditha and elsewhere, there exists a tragic cleverness in driving the battle field into urban areas and catching civilians in the crossfire. A conventional response through the collective use of powerful weaponry and bombs coupled with frustrated soldiers fighting an elusive and difficult-to-identify enemy cause a disproportionate ratio of innocent civilian causalities to militant casualities, in conjunction with massive urban destruction. The civilians grow equally as frustrated, since the enemy is just as elusive for them. Now caught in the middle, they are powerless to effect any influence over the situation.

As the carnage and destruction continues, the danger to US forces will increase, since they are the most visible target on the field in the eyes of civilians and militants alike. Civilians with nowhere else to turn may develop a rationale, whether reasonable or not, that if what they perceive as a brutal and destructive US military were to leave, so too, to some degree, will their problems. The ranks of the insurgents will grow exponentially as this rationale and subsequent rage escalates.

Mitch Gurney

Vallejo , CA

So let me get this straight.

Because Laila Al-Arian's father was arrested on (most likely trumped up) terrorism charges, she's not being impartial here?

And what of her co-writer Chris Hedges? He's in on it, too?

Give me a break. Why do we as Americans seem to specialize in burying our heads in the sand, or shooting the messenger, when it comes to getting news that we don't want to hear? I've been a reporter for about fifteen years myself, and if I had a nickel for every time that I had been accused of making it up or doing a hatchet job on someone, I could retire quite comfortably.

(Although I have to admit, doing a background check on a reporter is a new one.)

Because I'm a military brat, I know that we have plenty of soldiers who try their best not to do harm to innocent citizens in time of war. My dad was one of those.

But I also know, because of that same base of knowledge, that the military has some folks in it that should never have passed the psych evaluation. Because military recruting rules have become so lax, folks that should be locked away for their own protection have instead been sicced on Iraquis.

If you don't think that there's been some abuses as a result, you're deluding yourself.

While shooting the messenger (or trying to discredit her) might be the way some of you choose to handle this, it's not going to change the fact that, unfortunately, this crap is indeed going on.

The question is, what do we do about it and how do we make sure that those who have done these things are held accountable?

Denise Clay

Philadelphia, PA

I agree with Stephen Duskin, who uncovered the background of Laila Al-Arian and her family ties with terrorists, that this article is nothing more than a hatchet job. Her co-author, Chris Hedges has his own antiwar agenda that would seem to color his perspective. A bit of reading of his works reveals that there is nothing he seems to think is worth fighting for. He loathes the military and seems to find nothing in it noble. He is either completely ready to believe any tripe fed him or he is actively trying to deceive.

To say that our soldiers are the cause of the human rights abuses and wanton killing in Iraq ignores the craven actions of our enemy; an enemy that uses human shields and bombs crowded marketplaces in order to cause just the revulsion he gets from the media. Only he knows that the revulsion will be misplaced by a media and turned on the ones trying to prevent the mayhem, rather than the perpetrators. An IED that targets the innocent is not a valid reaction to the actions of the Coalition, which wants to be there less than anyone. Nor is the IED in keeping with the tenets of Islamic in its planning or effects.

The Nation can hide behind its veil of free speech to print what is purely propaganda, but that doesn't mean that it does its readers a service by serving up this inaccurate acount.

Just for full disclosure, I am in the military and been deployed to Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, and Kosovo. I've seen fighting firsthand and marveled at the great compassion our soldiers show to innocents during the fighting and to erstwhile enemies when the fighting ends. I've also seen Saddam's rape rooms and read the Al Qaeda torture manual. I know who the bad guys are in this war.

Nate Bacon

Williamsburg, VA

I read about your article in the French newspaper Liberation, so I went on your website to read it. As a French press reader, I believe it's very difficult to publish the dirty stories about a war your country is in. In France, we are in war--in Afghanistan-- and it's hard to get information from French newspaper about what's really happening there with our troops. A few years ago, we were in an armed conflict in "Côte d'Ivoire" (Ivory Coast, Africa), and it was the same.

I read the letter of the veterans' association. I believe it's better for them to say publicly "we've been betrayed," so they'll have fewer problems on their own--and continue to work with journalists, secretly. Not very gutsy, but human.

Jean Noctiluque

Paris, France

Allow me to congratulate The Nation for publishing this article that, hopefully, will serve as wake-up call to the US government.

This is a disturbing article because the same thing is happening in Afghanistan as well, and in other parts of the world where American interventionism is working under the so-called war on terrorism.

The actions of the American forces against Iraqi civilians shows that they are no better than those dynamite-strapped terrorists. They should have the moral ascendancy against the terrorists and should always hold the moral high ground. The activities on the ground only reflect the immoral policies of the Bush Administration.

Yes, there are the few bad eggs who did those heinous crimes, but the lack of accountability on the part of the military officialdom is to accept it as the usual norm.

But what can we expect? The invasion of Iraq has no moral basis to begin with. It was patently built on lies and to this day is still being propped up with more lies despite the ugly truth.

But what can we expect? The American people have a President who appears on television lying in his teeth and in high definition asking for more time despite the clear failure of "the surge."

But what can we expect? The surge can never achieve its goals except to bring more hardships to those hapless civilians.

In the end, we can only expect more deaths, more sufferings unless the US stops this mayhem that it created, and the only way to do this is to get out.

The Bush Administration should accept that it cannot sustain the war. It can never sustain all the lies that it continuously tries to peddle.

Jonash Santos

Manila, Philippines

The Nation and its editors have done its readers a grave disservice in hiding the background and goals of one of the authors of this hatchet job.

Ms Al-Arian has a not-so-secret agenda that should have been disclosed, but her bio is conspicuously silent on the the most salient fact: She is the daughter of a virulently anti-Israeli fanatic, Sami Al-Arian, and that fact colors her every action.

Her recnt Huffington blog:

My father, a Palestinian professor named Sami Al-Arian, was arrested over four years ago on trumped up terrorism charges and submitted to a prosecution over the course of six months that bordered on the farcical. Though he was ultimately acquitted by a jury of the most serious charges against him, the Bush administration has prolonged his imprisonment indefinitely. My father now languishes in a Virginia jail, another victim of the demagogic politics of the so-called war on terror."

Read her father's writings. They are despicable in their tone and aims. It seems the apple has not fallen far from that diseased tree.

If The Nation is truly considering publishing a book by this ideologue, please be sure that it is properly classified as a work of fiction.

I actually visited your website today to make a donation; atfer what I have discovered, I may end my interest in your enterprise entirely.

Moreover, like the veteran's group, I am extremely disturbed and disappointed in the tone and content of the article. (Disclaimer: I am a veteran and a close relative of veterans of all recent wars.) It reads like a sensationalist piece of New York Post trash, written from the extreme other end of the political spectrum. The writers' response to the accurate criticism further erodes my confidence in the desire of The Nation's editors to print the truth. Those two never should have been assigned this story to begin with, and I am fairly confident that they volunteered the piece to you with little or no vetting of their purpose.

Have you turned The Nation into the Occidental version of Al Jazeera? Please distinguish between opinion pieces and actual journalism in the future. The "article" in question was not journalism. The term "hatchet job" is a more accurate description--actually, it's the only description that fits.

Publishing trash like this does great harm to the cause of critical thinking and the progressive movement. Apologies are in order.

Stephen J. Duskin

Audubon, PA

This is by far the best piece of journalism on this murky underside of the Iraqi conflict I've seen so far. One day, it might end up as required reading in some colleges. Hoping beyond hope the White House dunce reads it to get a reality check.

Anatoly Panov

Moscow, Russia

First of all, I would like to commend both of the writers for having taken the time to research this topic and for writing such an extensive and intelligent piece. I would also The Nation for picking up where all the major media outlets seemed to have dropped the ball. This article should be everywhere, because it is something that everyone needs to know.

A lot of people know that the war in Iraq was started under false pretenses, and many more know that what is going on in Iraq is wrong--even though few know exactly what is happening on the ground in Iraq. This article does an excellent job of telling us what's happening, and should spur us all to take action. Many people, simpler liberals, like to label Bush a horrible person and an idiot and leave it at that. But as opposed to what we see in our mainstream media, the war clearly has many, many more layers than that, and through articles like this, they are slowly being peeled open. The war is clearly much more complex than many people think, and we are causing much more damage to Iraq than we are "bringing democracy." I was stunned to see that the most sympathetic action taken by a soldier in this whole article was towards a dog.

It is absurd that troops in Iraq can do raids in the middle of the night, take away the head of the household for no or little reason, humiliate and abuse them, and then the mainstream media and the Administration sits, scratching their heads wondering why the insurgency isn't waning and why those Iraqis hate us so much. It must be because they hate our freedom, or our way of life, they say. Or something like that.

Sarah Kamshoshy

Fremont, CA

The piece misses the larger picture. A couple of months ago the NY Times''s Edward Wong reported from Baghdad as a Sunni mother called in to report that she and her family had been given an ultimatum by some Shiites to leave soon or die. The US (and perhaps a few other Allied troops) did their job. Showed up and talked to the woman and then handcuffed two Shiite men (who apparently were leaving as the troops arrived). Called in the report and drove off with the two Shiite men. Of course, the next day the woman is gunned down on the way to the market. If our troops are going be effective in Iraq they have to adopt to an extremely violent culture. For example, these troops could have greatly increased the security of the woman by handing the two Shiite men a cellphone with a simple message to pass on: "Hey, this is so-and-so and so-and-so and we are being detained by the Americans. If anything happens to the Sunni mother or any member of her family, we will be shot." The US has many reasons for getting out of Iraq, but a PC-denied big one is that Iraq is an extremely violent and different place.

Shortly after this experience, Wong summarized his three-and-a-half years of covering the war in the article "Iraq's Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory." This piece opens with, "Perhaps nothing is more revealing about Iraq's history than this: The Iraqis have a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the street. The word is 'sahel'." Read this piece. This point was also made in a 2002 article in which a reporter asked neighboring Arabs what they thought about the US's plans to invade Iraq. Consensus: You would have to be crazy to go in there, with the potential for violence.

Comparisons to Vietnam are absurd. Look at the respective uses of suicide. Where would you rather go to live as an outsider? How frequent are honor killings in Vietnam? (A month ago the NYT had a piece on the problem of honor killings by Arabs in Israel.) I saw a recent piece in which a GI related how some Iraqi recruits found out that their (Iraqi) trainer was Catholic. The recruits stoned him to death. How much smaller could the Arab world's response to Darfur be? Is it possible to be honestly critical about other groups and cultures?

The situation in Iraq mirrors much of the Arab world. Enormous problems with civility need to be worked on and they had better find a way to support themselves and slow their population growth. As of ten years ago Iraq was 30 percent self-sufficient in food. Where is the imported food increasingly coming from? Where does their basic medicine come from? How did infant mortality get ramped down by a factor of three in the last fifty years? They can't extract their own oil and we shouldn't be using it. The overwhelming import of a country like the US--for better and worse--is that we have facilitated (humans) staying alive.

Finally, for a relevant honest piece see page 40 in May 2007's Scientific American. The article is on Brazil's Syndey Possuelo, who has spent his career trying to help the indigenous people of the Amazon. His conclusion: Don't even contact them. First, the tribal men are extremely dangerous towards outsiders; and second, these tribes invariably flounder miserably in our world when they try to assimilate. The title is aptly "Prime directive for the last Americans." This I think is a good intro to what should be a new policy towards the Arab world. Quickly get out (but continue some basic life support). The norms of the Arab world are profoundly more violent and less civil than our own (you can see Rory Stewart's series of NYT op-ed pieces for more on this). And secondarily, much of the violent thrust coming out of the Arab world is because they feel like complete losers in our world. Respect these differences (and be honest about them), and leave the region.

Ted Christopher

Rochester, NY

Just recently I wrote a letter "attacking" the wonderful, mighty and pure American military and I was bombarbed by six articles in this same unbiased newspaper with titles like; "Go home," "America, love it or leave it."

Thank God I'm not alone in exposing the crimes. From a nation based on equailty, I was told to love what our troops do and better them dead than ours and of course I find that evil. I will continue to hang my pro-peace and antiwar posters in the front yard, circulate antiwar pamplets, and scream my outrage at the violence and the people who support murder and my disgust at the war ho's and all those who deny, deceive and manipulate the truth.

Michael Hall

Peru, IL

Isn't it time Amerikka left these poor people alone?

Everyone and his mother (outside the US) knows you're trying to steal their oil.

Patrick Lim

Changi, Singapore

Having first seen this article in the Independent (UK Newspaper) I came to The Nation's website to see these accounts in full. But having read what has been said by some of the soldiers, I can't believe no one else has even given this story a second look. By "no one" else I mean the media--this story isn't even on the BBC, no other paper seems to want to talk about it and not one American online news service has even mentioned the article. And what perhaps is worse, there are people willing to write in here and claim this is just a side effect of "war is hell."

To me this is one of the biggest problems with this whole affair: The US and her allies went into Iraq with the intention of getting rid of WMDs, and now we all know that was not true, so they said we are there to give Iraq democracy, but now we hear that the US has been killing just as many civilians as the people they are meant to be getting rid off, if not more. What kind of democracy is that? where the language you speak, or the way you dress, or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time means you die, and no one does anything about it?

To think I was thinking something was being done with the recent prosecutions of some US soldiers, but now I see that is just the tip of the iceberg. I am horrified to even think just how deep this goes. How many mass murders? How many kids have been killed on their way to school? How many have died because they lived in a house that just happened to be next to a US convoy or roadblock or something? It makes me think back to a few years ago now when the US said its soldiers would not be subject to international tribunals; now I think I know why. The US army cannot or does not want to control its forces to be lawful and fair and just, something they want to preach to the world, it seems. But they need to practice it themselves first I believe before they have any right to even talk to other nations of such matters.

I mean don't these human beings have the right to live? Do they not have the right to be seen as equals? Why are they seen as a lesser class of humans? What makes a US life more worth it than a Iraq life? Doesn't this way of thinking sound like Nazi Germany to anyone else? The US wants to give Iraq democracy but I think they need to show that they are not ones to fear first. They have to show they don't kill civilians, and just calling them insurgents isn't enough, as we can see that doesn't work.

I'm still feeling very hurt (one for a better word) by the accounts on this article. In this day and age, "professional" Western soldiers (the so called savours of the cold-war age) are carrying out totally unlawful and completely criminal war crimes. This is or should be totally unacceptable and yet has anything being done about maybe even 5 percent of these incidents? But I know the US won't let anyone else actually investigate these accounts; like the UN or the International Tribunal, it is up to the American people to do something about it. If you want to lead by example (and it has become more than obvious that the US wants to lead the world), you need to show that what some of your soldiers are doing in Iraq is wrong, and that they and/or their commanding officers will be punished, and not just let off with a pat on the back or some joke sentence like two months for murder of a family. Let's face it, if a Iraq came to the US today and kill a whole family in their homes the guy would be on death row if not shot on sight.

Frankly, I don't think the US has a leg to stand on in the international theater any more.

Ismail Melemez

Mersin, London, UK

After the Second World War ended in 1945, Nuremberg Germany was the focus of a War Crimes Trial. The end result of that trial, was that any war of aggression would be considered a “war crime” and a “crime against humanity”. The USA committed a war crime when it invaded Iraq in 2003. Justice can no longer be sided with who shouts loudest, but by just laws created for all of mankind. America is not above this law, nor is the USA excused for invading Iraq. Chief Justice Robert Jackson, the American Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, fathered the laws, which make aggressive war a crime. I feel sorry for the soldiers that have been put in harms way by war criminals in the White House. Soldiers do the job that they are asked, they are not allowed to question authority, I am just glad that these brave men did and spoke out.

Stewart Brennan
World United blogspot

Montreal, Quebec, Canada

I am saddened by the responses to this truly groundbreaking article because, yet again, the reflexive concern is for the troops, the people perpetrating the physical and emotional atrocities, instead of the victims, the people of Iraq.

They have been killed, tortured and detained to a degree that is almost inconceivable, hundreds of thousands dead, 60,000 seized and detained, and they still find themselves trapped in a country where such atrocities persist as they are subjected to the indignities of abusive behaviour on a daily basis, and yet, our empathy should be focused upon...the troops.

Yes, in a way, they have been victimized, but such victimization is minor compared to the horrors that they have inflicted upon the populace of Iraq. I doubt that this war will ever be brought to an end until we confront this savagery, and free ourselves from the moral myopia that renders the experiences of the people of Iraq in their own country nearly invisible by comparison to the occupation force.

Richard Estes

Sacramento, CA

Reading the article just affirmed my belief that it is a mistake for us to be there. It saddens me to read about this hellish situation. It's just a lose-lose scenario. No true victor comes from war. Nonviolence is the only way to have a victorious situation.

This war has devastated our military. Morally, emotionally, in every way imaginable. I can't imagine what it must be like to be over there in the military and feel that random shooting is the only way you are going to return home. We don't honor those of us who decide to join the military when we put them in impossible situations. We don't honor the spirit of our Constitution when we allow people to be treated as non-entities who can be terrorized, brutalized and killed because they don't speak our language and we don't speak theirs.

We must leave.

Angela Alvarez

Baltimore, MD

This article, while exposing likely crimes by American soldiers, reiterates to me that war is hell. I'm reminded of the crimes committed by Americans following WWII. Our troops supposedly used derogatory terms for Iraqi citizens. Probably not much different than what we called the German and Japanese populations. We shot and killed unarmed civilians for not following rules there, as well. This was largely ignored because we were the victor, and probably to a large amount because we didn't have the press coverage that the current Middle Eastern situation has. I also think it was a different time in a different world.

I hate hearing stories like those told by our returning troops, but I'm also hesitant to fault them (the whole "war is hell" thing). I really don't think we can have a logical discussion about innocent Iraqi deaths when so many of our troops are being killed by invisble insurgents who hide amongst the innocents.

War is truly hell. Just ask someone who's seen it.

William Reed

Austin, TX