Schizophrenic War

It's the hidden war, the one that went on the whole time everyone was focused on the big booms and body counts. It's the war that, in the end, was the "atom bomb" of Iraq. These are unsung heroes who are unlikely to get bronze stars or other medals besides purple hearts. Reading Schultheis, you get the idea that these folks were miracle workers and they were. Teams like these kept the electric grid going, the water pumps pumping, roads paved, sewers being worked on, parks built, education centers, local governance and a whole host of things that this one post cannot contain. All while a shooting war was around the corner, on the next street or right on their FOB.

He spoke of the CA team in Afghanistan that was "underfunded", "overworked" and outperforming every NGO and other organizations in the AO. There were eight men in the unit. In Iraq, eight men and women. He wrote of these people:

Like all too many Americans, I thought heroes were a thing of the past; or, if they existed, the realities of the modern world made their deeds meaningless. After all, what could one man or woman, or even a handful, do that would make a positive impact, when matched up against the problems of billions of people, weapons of mass destruction, mega-famines and plagues, and wars that never seemed to end? The age of courage and right action seemed to be gone, if it had ever existed at all.

Meeting Colonel Walker and his men (Afghanistan), seeing what they accomplished, was a true revelation, like a lightening flash out of nowhwere in the darkness. They were risking their lives every day in order to build a future for a forgotten people betrayed by the rest of the world. They were everyday Americans, regular Joes, our next-door neighbors and mine, but thorugh true grit and sheer nerve they had become heroes, the stuff of myths and legends.

I would like to read more books like this, the "other war". Compare that to this section of House to House quoted by Michael Totten. Or, in "My War" by Colby Buzzel when he quotes the new Battalion Commander prior to their deployment to Iraq who is holding up a tomahawk, thier battalion symbol, while speaking:

Men, this is not a peacekeeping mission. We will not be handing out bread. We will be handing out lead.

Later, in Kuwait, an army Captain, most likely a JAG, was trying to explain the ROEs by asking the group what they should do if they are being pelted with rocks by women and children from an over pass. Should they shoot? The soldiers in the audience yell out opposing answers (Shoot the SOBs!; Don't shoot!) and debate among themselves. Before she can go on, the Bat. Com. takes the mic and asks how many in the audience had been in combat or who have been shot at before. He went on:

Then you understand that it doesn't matter if it's a woman or a child, if they have a weapon, they have a weapon. And if you feel threatened, you feel threatened."

He told them, if they felt threatened, pull the trigger. "It's better to be safe than sorry."

Were either of these ideas the "wrong" or "right" way to fight the war? I have often seen it debated about whether our ROEs were too stringent or not stringent enough. The Haditha event v. the devestating suicide attack on a CA team that killed 25 children. Or the day that CAT 13 was pelted with rocks by a bunch of kids ranging in age from about eight to eighteen and simply drove away (Irened), joking that, if it got to rough, the gunner could grab all the left over toys and start throwing them at the crowd.

This is the schizophrenic nature of "small wars" or, in marine speak, "the three block war". For all the heart pumping nature and off the cuff gruff of "House to House" and "My War", I recommend reading "Waging Peace" to get a really good idea of what the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are really like.