This letter, sent to everybody everywhere, really, though obviously aimed at OIF soldiers, is in direct response to the release of the mental health survey. I have some observations on that I'll put in a different post. I've waited this long to comment on it, mainly because I wanted to do something odd and *read* it, and cogitate a while further. One reason I'm never going to make money at this gig - to do that, you have to be willing to put out an expert opinion at the drop of a hat. Even if you aren't an expert.
Regardless - this is leadership responding, and sending a message to subordinate leaders to Pay Attention. General Petraeus is reminding not just the soldiers, but the world, what sets us apart from our enemies, and exhorting the troops to keep the faith, and reminding them that if not success, surely failure lies under their control. I would remind you - how many nations have conducted surveys of this type amongst their soldiers during a war - and *published* the results? In an unclassified way? During the war? I can't think of any, though I know of some posted-after-the-war Israeli studies. Mind you, not many countries have ever *done* studies like this - which is part of that other post.
Not just the continued mental health of the soldiers is a concern here - a serious (at least in terms of media exposure and reaction, regardless of direct effects) breach of military discipline in the here and now could easily kill the mission. This Congress and the Press have little patience with the war. Congress' leadership will seize on any reason that gives them cover to pull the plug. Anything remotely like Abu Ghraib, much less a My Lai-type incident (no matter how large or small) will be all the catalyst they need.
General Petraeus is speaking to the non-commissioned officer corps, and to a lesser extent, the Lieutenants and Captains here. They are the key leaders who if they keep their heads on straight, will stop it before it happens. The field grades don't have the same impact at the point of the spear. But their job will be to set the tone, and avoid the pump-'em-up-hooah language that is appropriate when fighting "major combat operations," i.e., against uniformed forces acting as armies, and not the skulkers-amongst-the-sheep type of war we're fighting now, where, as the survey indicates, it gets harder and harder for the soldiers to distinguish between the skulkers and the sheep.
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen serving in Multi-National Force-Iraq:Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. Al Qaeda’s indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial proportion of the Iraqi population against it.
In view of this, I was concerned by the results of a recently released survey conducted last fall in Iraq that revealed an apparent unwillingness on the part of some US personnel to report illegal actions taken by fellow members of their units. The study also indicated that a small percentage of those surveyed may have mistreated noncombatants. This survey should spur reflection on our conduct in combat.
I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq. I also know first hand the bonds between members of the ” brotherhood of the close fight. ” Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us—or our comrades in arms—to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone “talk;” however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact, our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.
We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings. Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human. If you feel such stress, do not hesitate to talk to your chain of command, your chaplain, or a medical expert.
We should use the survey results to renew our commitment to the values and standards that make us who we are and to spur re-examination of these issues. Leaders, in particular, need to discuss these issues with their troopers—and, as always, they need to set the right example and strive to ensure proper conduct. We should never underestimate the importance of good leadership and the difference it can make.
Thanks for what you continue to do. It is an honor to serve with each of you.
David H. Petraeus,
General, United States Army
Commanding
