|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: International Relations |
|
Iraq Attacks Linked To Bush Taunts |
Current rating: 0 |
by Roy Eccleston
(No verified email address) |
04 Jul 2003
|
|
Democrat senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said he had served in the army in World War II and "I never heard any military commander - never mind the commander-in-chief - invite enemies to attack US troops". |
AT least 19 American soldiers were wounded in an attack on a US base in Iraq yesterday, and another US soldier was killed in an assault on his convoy in Baghdad.
News of the twin attacks brought a sombre start to American Independence Day activities for the 150,000 US troops stationed in Iraq.
The blows came as the US offered multi-million-dollar rewards for Saddam Hussein and his sons, and aides to George W. Bush countered claims the President had encouraged attacks on allied troops by his taunt to Hussein loyalists: "Bring 'em on".
The decision to offer rewards – $US25 million ($36 million) for the dictator and $US15 million for his sons Uday and Qusay – is more evidence of an about-face by a US administration that two months ago had dismissed Hussein's whereabouts as unimportant.
"I think it matters not what happened to him," National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in early May. "I really don't put much stake in what did or did not happen to Saddam."
But the US now believes the failure to account for Hussein – twice targeted by missiles in the war – has encouraged his loyalists who are attacking US soldiers and spreading fear among ordinary Iraqis who dread his return.
In the latest attacks, one US soldier was shot and killed in Baghdad on Thursday night, while 19 others were wounded in a mortar attack near the town of Balad, north of Baghdad.
The US believes Hussein is probably still alive, somewhere in Iraq. The price on his head matches that on al-Qa'ida leader Osama bin Laden, who remains at large.
"We believe it's important to do everything we can to determine his whereabouts, whether he is alive or dead, in order to assist in stabilising the situation and letting the people of Baghdad be absolutely sure that he's not coming back," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday.
Mr Bush is facing sharp criticism from Democrats over his taunt to the Hussein loyalists and others who have killed at least 26 US soldiers, and injured many more, since the US declared major combat over on May 1.
In keeping with his penchant for cowboy rhetoric, Mr Bush said on Wednesday that there were some in Iraq who felt the conditions allowed them to attack US troops there.
"My answer is: Bring 'em on. We have the force necessary to deal with the situation."
In fact, many Washington analysts claim the US troops' strength of about 150,000 is too low – and Democrats immediately claimed Mr Bush had egged on Iraqi killers to take more pot-shots at US troops.
Democrat senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said he had served in the army in World War II and "I never heard any military commander – never mind the commander-in-chief – invite enemies to attack US troops".
"The deteriorating situation in Iraq requires less swagger and more thoughtfulness and statesmanship," said senator John Kerry, a Democrat hoping to challenge Mr Bush for the presidency next year.
However Mr Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer denied the President had encouraged attacks, and portrayed them as a mark of confidence in the military.
"I think the men and women of the military are appreciative of the fact that they know they have a President who supports them as strongly as he does, and who has as much faith in their ability to complete the mission, despite some of the second-guessing that this President has," he said.
Copyright 2003 News Limited.
http://www.news.com.au |
Comments
|
Anger Rises For Families Of Troops In Iraq |
by Jeffrey Gettleman
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Jul 2003
|
FORT HOOD, Tex., July 3 — Luisa Leija was in bed the other morning, she recalled, when her 9-year-old daughter bounded in the room, saying, "Mommy, mommy, there's a man in uniform at the door."
Ms. Leija, the wife of a young artillery captain in Iraq, threw on a robe and took a deep breath. She dashed to the door, thinking: "This is not happening to me. This can't be happening to me."
A soldier in full camouflage was on the doorstep. It was a neighbor locked out of his house.
Ms. Leija is still upset. The panic has passed, but not the weariness. Or the anger. Anger that her husband, Capt. Frank Leija, has not come home yet, even though President Bush declared two months ago that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Anger that the end of that stage has not meant the beginning of peace, that the Army has assigned new duties for her husband and his men that have nothing to do with toppling Saddam Hussein.
And anger that the talk in Washington is not of taking troops out of Iraq, but of sending more in.
"I want my husband home," Ms. Leija, a mother of three children, said. "I am so on edge. When they first left, I thought yeah, this will be bad, but war is what they trained for. But they are not fighting a war. They are not doing what they trained for. They have become police in a place they're not welcome."
Military families, so often the ones to put a cheery face on war, are growing vocal. Since major combat for the 150,000 troops in Iraq was declared over on May 1, more than 60 Americans, including 25 killed in hostile encounters, have died in Iraq, about half the number of deaths in the two months of the initial campaign.
Frustrations became so bad recently at Fort Stewart, Ga., that a colonel, meeting with 800 seething spouses, most of them wives, had to be escorted from the session.
"They were crying, cussing, yelling and screaming for their men to come back," said Lucia Braxton, director of community services at Fort Stewart.
The signs of discomfort seem to be growing beyond the military bases. According to a Gallup poll published on Tuesday, the percentage of the public who think the war is going badly has risen to 42 percent, from 13 percent in May. Likewise, the number of respondents who think the war is going well has dropped, from 86 percent in May to 70 percent a month ago to 56 percent.
The latest poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,003 adults. It has a sampling error of three percentage points.
News this week has not helped. Today, eight American soldiers were hurt in hit-and-run attacks, and an enraged crowd of Iraqis stomped a burned Humvee.
"The soldiers were supposed to be welcomed by waving crowds. Where did those people go?" said Kim Franklin, whose husband is part of an artillery unit, 3-16 Bravo, also known as the Bulldogs, commanded by Ms. Leija's husband.
In the postwar and pre-peace phase, it is not Green Berets or top-gun fighter pilots who are being killed. The casualties have been mostly low-ranking ground troops who are performing mundane activities like buying a video, going out on patrol or guarding a trash pit.
Those are the types of missions that the Bulldogs are on. With major battles over and little use for field cannon that can shoot 15 miles, the unit has been running checkpoints and searching houses north of Baghdad, rarely firing a shell.
The Bulldogs took up their assignment in April along with 20,000 other soldiers from Fort Hood. Yellow ribbons now droop from the trees where they used to meet at dawn and stretch before exercises. The grass is long and dead. The blacktop that once echoed with roll call and the stomp of a thousand combat boots is hot, quiet and empty.
Army bases can be drab places in the best of times. Fort Hood right now is downright depressing. Even on the Fourth of July.
"I tried every trick in the book to get out of this," said Maj. William Geiger, the commander of the rear detachment for the artillery soldiers who has remained here.
There is not much glory in helping single mothers have their cars repaired or overseeing insurance benefits. But that is the work of the officer left behind, and in the last few weeks, that effort has become harder.
"The anxiety is way up there," Major Geiger said.
Seven soldiers from Fort Hood have been killed. More and more people are dreading that knock on the door. But there are other worries, too. War can find the weakest seam of a military marriage and split it open. After the Persian Gulf war, divorce rates at certain Army bases shot up as much as 50 percent, an Army study showed.
"That's my biggest fear," Valerie Decal, the wife of an artillery sergeant, said. "That my husband will come back different. Even if you're G.I. Joe, if you have to kill someone, that's not something you just forget about."
Ms. Decal is stumped about what to do when the doorbell rings and her 19-month-old son runs to answer, saying, "Dada, dada."
"What do I tell him?" she asked.
Yeshica Padilla, wife of an artillery lieutenant, said her toddler daughter threw a tantrum the other day, saying she wanted to eat pizza on the floor "with Daddy."
And Ms. Padilla keeps having the same dream.
"I can see my husband, but he is hiding from me," she said.
No Bulldogs have been killed, but their wives are constantly bracing for it.
" `Names pending release, names pending release' — I hate that expression," Ms. Decal said of the way the military announces casualties and being told who they are.
The women console themselves by making bracelets for their husbands and sending care packages. Ms. Padilla included a Best Buy circular in a recent box at her husband's request. Winter Travis shipped the latest issue of Parents magazine, not at her husband's request.
Ms. Travis is seven months pregnant and married to an artillery sergeant.
"And whether he likes it or not, he's coming back a daddy," she said.
Great efforts are made to stay upbeat. On a recent day, a group of Bulldog wives chatted in Ms. Leija's living room, popping cheese cubes in their mouths and swigging lemonade.
But things are becoming more intense, they said. The widening chaos in Iraq means that their husbands will stay longer, and the women do not need a poll to tell them that public opinion is shifting.
"When my husband first deployed, the people at work were so sweet, giving me days off, saying take whatever time I need," recalled Ms. Franklin, who answers telephones at a financial institution near the fort. "But it's not like that today. Now they look at me kind of funny and say: `Why do you need a day off now? Isn't the war over?' "
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com |
|
Army Times Editorial: Bush Nothing But Lip Service To Military |
by Army Times
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
04 Jul 2003
|
06/28/03: (Army Times) In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately. For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
Then there’s military tax relief — or the lack thereof. As Bush and Republican leaders in Congress preach the mantra of tax cuts, they can’t seem to find time to make progress on minor tax provisions that would be a boon to military homeowners, reservists who travel long distances for training and parents deployed to combat zones, among others.
Incredibly, one of those tax provisions — easing residency rules for service members to qualify for capital-gains exemptions when selling a home — has been a homeless orphan in the corridors of power for more than five years now.
The chintz even extends to basic pay. While Bush’s proposed 2004 defense budget would continue higher targeted raises for some ranks, he also proposed capping raises for E-1s, E-2s and O-1s at 2 percent, well below the average raise of 4.1 percent.
The Senate version of the defense bill rejects that idea, and would provide minimum 3.7 percent raises for all and higher targeted hikes for some. But the House version of the bill goes along with Bush, making this an issue still to be hashed out in upcoming negotiations.
All of which brings us to the latest indignity — Bush’s $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year’s budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill.
But Bush’s tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board.
The result: Not only has the House Appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush’s proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a stab at restoring $1 billion of the $1.5 billion cut in Bush’s construction budget. He proposed to cover that cost by trimming recent tax cuts for the roughly 200,000 Americans who earn more than $1 million a year. Instead of a tax break of $88,300, they would receive $83,500.
The Republican majority on the construction appropriations panel quickly shot Obey down. And so the outlook for making progress next year in tackling the huge backlog of work that needs to be done on crumbling military housing and other facilities is bleak at best.
Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale — especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, who notes that the House passed a resolution in March pledging “unequivocal support” to service members and their families, puts it this way: “American military men and women don’t deserve to be saluted with our words and insulted by our actions.”
Translation: Money talks — and we all know what walks.
© Copyright 2003 Army Times
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1954515.php |
|
