"Yes, Marcus. Your Friends Died In Vain"
At Foreign Policy, former military intelligence officer Jim Gourley responds to this comment by former Navy SEAL and Lone Survivor author Marcus Luttrell to Jake Tapper:
"We spend our whole lives training to defend this country, and then we were sent over there by this country, and you're telling me because we were over there doing what we were told by our country that it was senseless and my guys died for nothing?"
Gourley writes:
Yes, Marcus. Your friends died in vain. They went selflessly. They fought bravely. They sacrificed nobly. They lived in the best traditions of duty, honor, and country -- hallowed words which dictate what every American can and ought to be. But they died in vain for the exact reason that they went where their country sent them and did what their country told them to do. America failed you because it failed its obligation to those principles. It gives me no pleasure to write these words, because it applies as much to the friends I lost as it does to yours. But it needs to be said, because the sooner we acknowledge it as a country, the more lives we might save.As I write this, America is two weeks into its 13th and presumably last year of war in Afghanistan. Already, two servicemembers have been reported killed there. The strategic outlook after our withdrawal is not optimistic. Indeed, current events forebode a harsh future for Afghanistan. We are only two years removed from our withdrawal from Iraq and the al Qaeda flag flies over the city of Fallujah, in which more than 120 American servicemembers died. The ultimate failure of American military might to secure Fallujah does nothing to diminish the honorable nature of their service. But likewise, all their gallantry cannot change the fact that they died for an unfulfilled cause. The honor is theirs alone. The disgrace belongs to America.
It's the disgrace of a country that abandoned its civic duty to execute due diligence in weighing the decisions of whether and how to go to war, and then later to hold accountable those that spent precious blood and vast treasure for meager gains. All the while, we convinced ourselves that we were supporting our fighting forces simply by saying that we were. We even made bumper stickers to prove it, never considering what it said about us to wear our hearts next to our exhaust pipes.
The sentiment of upholding the bravery of the fallen to hide the shame of our culpability has been echoed more eloquently but no less cowardice by our national leaders.
The American military did NOT "fail to secure Falluja."
Barack Obama abandoned it, and wasted their sacrifice.
Lamont Cranston at January 21, 2014 6:05 AM
Amen.
Jay at January 21, 2014 6:42 AM
Holding it would have meant nothing but the loss of more blood and treasure. It was a no-win situation; we have no friends over there; there's no one who can run the place who can give us the outcome we were looking for. All the possible alternatives suck.
Much like Vietnam in that regard. Even had we launched a successful all-out ground invasion of North Vietnam, we could not have created a peaceful, friendly democratic government there. Such things do not grow on trees or come in C-rat or MRE boxes.
To paraphrase Bismarck, there's not a damn thing in Iraq or Afghanistan worth the life of a Minnesota lance corporal. Their sacrifice was in vain from the first moment US troops set foot on Iraqi soil.
Grey Ghost at January 21, 2014 6:47 AM
Grey Ghost. . .
IT was not ALLOWED to be anything other than a no-win situation. When you make the decision to go to war, it had better be to WIN that war, win it completely, and win in quickly.
You do not care what the media says: in fact, you do not allow the media in: any found, are captured and shot as spies.
You do not care what "world opinion" is, and you certainly do not care what the Europeans think.
You go in, kill every combatant you meet and destroy everything surrounding and supporting the enemy.
You do NOT take the advice of the State Department, the UN, and especially not the advice of the French.
You make it quite clear: Attack the United States, and face devastation that will have your descendants quaking in fear for generations.
But we don't do that. . . and that is why this happens. . .
Keith Glass at January 21, 2014 7:25 AM
I served in Afghanistan for a year with an Army infantry battalion. Those SEALs quite clearly died for nothing, just as the two men we lost from my unit died for nothing. Even if we could completely defeat the Taliban and temporarily secure the country, it would (and will) simply revert to its default of stone-age Islamic savagery as soon as we leave.
We'd have been better off had we, in 2001, launched a fierce strike (air and limited ground) and leveled most of Afghanistan. After killing a few tens of thousands of these useless people, we could have warned the Taliban that if they continued to harbor the enemies of the US, we'd be back. But of course that great liberal strategist and moral compass Colin Powell would have disapproved.
Those SEALs were obviously courageous men of honor. They and many more, however, have been victims of two administrations that redoubled their efforts after losing sight of their goals.
MikeInRealLife at January 21, 2014 8:58 AM
Yes, Marcus. Your friends died in vain.
Um, no.
How many Taliban and al qaeda types did they assist in meeting their 72 virgins? I count that as being a very good thing.
Now, given the benefit of hindsight, we should have flattened most of Afghanistan, and left after neutralizing the threat there with this warning do not make us come back. I would want Afghani mothers a thousand years from now telling their children to behave or the Americans will come and get you and the children frightened into compliance.
Of course, Mr. Gourley would wring his hands at that. So, there is no winning.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 21, 2014 9:50 AM
@Keith you for got one step, pull out and not spend a single dime on nation building
@IRA Darth, NO, not given the benefit of hindsight. We got that benefit from every damn war we've been engaged in since WW2, why the fuck do we need to keep getting the same damn hindsight iver and over with every new war?
lujlp at January 21, 2014 10:13 AM
@IRA Darth, NO, not given the benefit of hindsight. We got that benefit from every damn war we've been engaged in since WW2, why the fuck do we need to keep getting the same damn hindsight iver and over with every new war?
Posted by: lujlp at January 21, 2014 10:13 AM
Because we keep fucking up the occupation for short term political vote buying.
Im amazed that Obama hasn't pulled us out of South Korea yet.
Isab at January 21, 2014 11:04 AM
> Even had we launched a successful all-out
> ground invasion of North Vietnam, we could
> not have created a peaceful, friendly
> democratic government there.
That is just so insanely cuntly. There's just nothing to admire about it. It's not worldly, it's not proportionate, it's just smug infantile are terrified. It's certainly not true.
Dude, slit your wrists. Do it now; rise from your desk. Keep your eyes down as you move through the house or workplace, making your way to the kitchen or lunchroom. If someone speaks to you, say nothing, and engage no eye contact. Take the paring knife from the drawer by the sink, and silently slip into the dark closet nearby. Open your veins and wait. Don't whimper. Don't cough, and try not to make too much noise when you hit the floor.
What difference would it make? Could you BE more defeatist? More oblivious to the world around you?
OF COURSE we could have "created a peaceful, friendly democratic government." You've apparently not noticed that one has appeared there anyway, through the relentless encouragement of modernity and free trade.
People, please don't kid yourselves. AMERICA IS GOING TO DO THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN... We're going to do it because we're supposed to do it. Barack Peaceprize Obama was ready to put us into Libya and Syria in a big big way, and to do so AT THE REQUEST OF THE HOWLING VOICES OF CIVILIZATION ACROSS THE GLOBE. In the end, he had to content himself with merely squandering our credibility as an international agent of forceful decency.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE. We are going to be doing 'police actions' and invasions across the next century or so, as the last quarter of the world gets connected... And that last quarter is by definition the one without roads phones or comity. It's going to be expensive and time-consuming and bloody. AND IT IS CERTAINLY GOING TO REQUIRE ESTABLISHING CONNECTEDNESS AND DEMOCRACY IN PLACES THAT DON'T HAVE IT.
That we haven't done it well on previous occasions is essentially irrelevant. We are going to do it.
We aren't being asked.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 21, 2014 12:54 PM
And people have the nerve to say that they're objective. I have to laugh at this. So much teeth-gnashing and all of it directed at the current president.
Which President dragged us into the wars with Iraq and Afghanistan? No, it's not a rhetorical question. I'm really curious as to who you think started this mess.
Patrick at January 21, 2014 2:16 PM
No president dragged us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Taliban, ruling Afghanistan as a medieval fiefdom, harbored Osama bin Laden; the same bin Laden who confessed openly to being the mastermind, organizer, and financier of the 9/11 attacks. You might remember those; they made the national news.
The president at the time, George W. Bush, went before Congress and asked for authority to use the military as needed to punish the Taliban for harboring the mastermind behind an attack that killed 3,000 Americans. Congress readily (even eagerly) granted Bush that authority.
Later, there was evidence (false it turned out) that Saddam Hussein was creating WMDs and toying with the idea of turning them over to affiliated terrorist groups for use in suicide attacks on the West. He was already promising the families of suicide bombers $25,000. He never paid, but the promise was still a motivator for an increasing number of suicide attacks. So, he seemed like a legitimate threat to world peace and stability.
Again, Bush went before Congress, presented his case, and asked for authorization to use military force to compel Saddam's compliance with several UN resolutions requiring him to open his suspected WMD sites to UN inspection. Congress again fell over its own feet in a rush to grant this authority and talk tough.
Bush didn't drag us into any war. We went willingly and cheered as we quickly deposed the Taliban using mostly Special Forces and destroyed Saddam's army (then the fourth largest in the world) in a matter of days.
Unlike the the presidents who bookended him, Bush actually asked Congress for authority before deploying troops and risking American lives; and unlike the current president, actually backed up the Americans he sent into harm's way.
Fault Bush for not waging a Clinton-style hands-off war with cruise missiles, long-distance bombing campaigns (no matter the occasional Chinese consulate that gets bombed), and Hillary dodging bullets at the airport.
Fault Bush for the naive assumptions underlying the war - that ancient animosities would be negated by the lure of freedom and self-government; that introducing democracy into a country and people not yet prepared to fight together to defend it (instead of fighting each other) could be readily done; that the Third World yearns for a First World lifestyle and merely needs to be set free to reach out and grasp it.
Fault the Secretary of State for tying the president's hands with his idealistic "Pottery Barn Rule" requiring the US to spend its own blood and treasure to secure and build the two countries beyond what they were at the beginning of the war.
Fault allied countries that insisted on a post-colonialist occupation to stabilize the newly liberated countries, only to subsequently pull their meager deployments out and leave the US to foot the bill while lecturing the US for any missteps it might make in carrying the full load.
But don't say Bush "dragged" us into two wars.
Conan the Grammarian at January 21, 2014 3:53 PM
"Later, there was evidence (false it turned out) that Saddam Hussein was creating WMDs..."
I'm sorry, but that was NOT false. Iraq is and was an industrial nation. Industrial nations routinely make dangerous chemicals as a matter of course. It is how they maintain industries.
Then, you have apparently – along with most of the American public – forgotten that Iraq had a nuclear program. The Israelis bombed it.
Chlorine gas attacks have even occurred after Hussein was deposed. This is simply ignored, considered impossible.
The idea that that country is one of date palms and peaceful oases is part of one of the best misinformation campaigns ever.
Radwaste at January 21, 2014 7:12 PM
"Barack Obama abandoned it, and wasted their sacrifice."
Maybe we could stay another 13 years to shore up your sense of patriotic pride. Yeah, that's worth another few trillion in war debt and interest.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 21, 2014 8:06 PM
> I'm sorry, but that was NOT false.
☑
> Maybe we could stay another 13 years to
> shore up your sense of patriotic pride.
This is your understanding of these matters in 2014? A 7th-grader's sarcasm and psychology taunts aren't a respectful (let alone convincing) capstone for an American failure of this magnitude.
Look at a map of the world, and look at America's involvement at any point on that map. This is going to happen again and again... Possibly before the end of of Obama's term.
How will you warn people off?
And —just curious— are you the sort of person made nervous by things like this?
(I'm not.)
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 21, 2014 9:52 PM
it had better be to WIN that war, win it completely, and win in quickly
So, Keith, what would your definition of "win" be? Kill the entire population of the country?
Goddamn fools like you get people killed. Lots of people. Crid is old enough to know better, but hasn't figured it out either - "capture the flag" only works on playgrounds.
Neither of you can articulate a military outcome short of genocide that constitutes anything like achieving our stated "war aims." You sound like those idiots in the Weimar Republic with all their "dolchstoss" horsecrap. Oh, we weren't "allowed" to win it. Right. What possible, rational, quantifiable grounds could there be for such a statement as that?
Grey Ghost at January 22, 2014 7:43 AM
Neither of you can articulate a military outcome short of genocide that constitutes anything like achieving our stated "war aims." You sound like those idiots in the Weimar Republic with all their "dolchstoss" horsecrap. Oh, we weren't "allowed" to win it. Right. What possible, rational, quantifiable grounds could there be for such a statement as that?
Posted by: Grey Ghost at January 22, 2014 7:43 AM
It is quite possible to achieve only some of our stated war aims, and still "win" the occupation. We had the ability and the right to execute most of the Japanese government and military officers after World War Ii but chose not to, in order to facilitate reconstruction.
A few politicians learned something from the botched resolution to World War I. Yes, that is the World War I where we did not insist on unconditional surrender, and did not occupy Germany after the War in order to "remake" their culture.
Wilson ( a bonafide nitwit) and others thought punishing war reparations, and the League of Nations would be enough to prevent World War II.
They were wrong.
Isab at January 22, 2014 8:24 AM
The Brits, the Russians, and now us.
Never get involved in a land war in Afghanistan.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 22, 2014 9:41 PM
How Gigi could reduce my position to flag games is a mystery with no clues.
> Neither of you can articulate a military
> outcome short of genocide that constitutes
> anything like achieving our stated "war aims."
Nor would I feel compelled to try.
Nor could I imagine you'd think anyone, ideological friend or foe, could regard "genocide" as achievement of our aims. (Which corner of our genome would you make extinct in pursuit of American values? Saddam, Usay and Qusay were as specific as we could ever get, but no one on the surface of our brisk little globe could argue that the problem was alleles. Those motherfuckers were evil, and for that they deserved death.)
The aims of the war were certainly just... But Bush, a mumbling MBA, didn't bother to articulate them for the people who were paying for it. Americans spent the decade watching Keefer Sutherland in torture scenarios on their new flatscreen TVs, the ones purchased with the Bush tax rebates, rather than reaching out from their own suburbs into the troubled villages of Iraq.
Our goals for Iraq weren't, invasion concluded, particularly military in nature. We wanted them (re-)modernized and integrated into the global economy. THAT would have been the follow-through that the invasion deserved. If Fallujah has a sister city in Illinois, I haven't heard about it. Have you heard of even ONE student exchange program in the last ten years? Care to guess how many such ventures we presently operate with nations no less repellent than Iraq?
But it never happened, so it'll have to be done later by someone else (the Chinese, maybe), and the place will fester in Saddam's wretched legacy in the meantime.
So, anyway, Graybot, I think the things you say are weird and silly and (in the case of January 21, 2014 6:47 AM) reprehensibly trite and destructive.
But you can say them if you want! No one will stop you! The only request is my favorite two-word sentence: No tears. America, no matter how troubled her books, is going to do this again, and probably very soon. Don't come cryin'.
When that happens, please suppress your impulse to share hackneyed phrases about "friends" and "sacrifice" and inevitable failure. You are not that bright, and you are not convincingly cynical.
> Never get involved in a land war
> in Afghanistan.
You too.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at January 23, 2014 2:47 AM
If you look at Afghanistan in the 70's there is a world of difference before the Soviets invaded and what we walked into post 9/11 with no real central government.
Part of the issue is that we supported the Taliban against the Soviets. And when the Soviets finally gave up and left we did too. That left a tribal government in a decimated country with essentially nothing but opium as the only export. So Al-Qaeda becomes the link to the rest of the world. Along with the Sharia laws
Then we also went into Iraq who was Shia minority under Hussein ruling over the Sunni majority along with the other factions such as the Kurds, Coptic Christians and the rest.
Essentially the U.S. stuck it's dick into multiple bees nests.
So now the best idea is to get the fuck out of almost everywhere and let them figure out if they want to come back to the real world themselves.
The fact is that As a separate oil-producing nation, Texas would be the 10th largest oil-producer in the world.
So don't go isolationist, but get back to our own resources and let the rest of the world approach us with an attitude of "We can do this for you."
As for the question: Did Marcus Luttrell's team mates die in vain?
The simple answer is: No. They died showing courage, honor and valor that few can muster, and even fewer have the ability to show. They did the job that was expected of them.
The real question is: Are our politicians wasting our treasure, blood, and sacred honor on unworthy causes.
To that I say Yes.
Jim P. at January 23, 2014 7:17 PM
Leave a comment