The reality is that Iraqis aren't behind our mission (From Mom of GI in Iraq)

[RamboLiberal]

This is in letters to editor of my local paper.

I would like to share with you what my son, who is serving in Iraq, told me last week over the phone.

He and his unit were on patrol with a unit from the Iraqi army. His unit came under small-arms fire and mortar fire. Thank heaven the mortars missed his vehicle or he'd be dead. His unit was under the direction of the Iraqi army unit, so his unit had to wait for the Iraqis to give them the order to fire. The order never came. The Iraqis never fired on their countrymen. They stood by and watched the Americans take fire. Those in my son's unit could not defend themselves, so they withdrew in fear for their lives.

I'm writing this because we need another picture of what's going on in Iraq. We Americans need to know the reality of how the Iraqis -- even those ostensibly our allies -- feel about us and about our mission there. I don't care which faction wins in Iraq. We have to understand that the fight between Sunnis and Shia has been going on for centuries and apparently is far more important to them than attaining democracy.

I feel sorry for those Iraqis caught in the middle. However, I don't want us to sacrifice another American life to fight this battle. Who made the U.S. responsible for the Iraqis? Why do our children have to die to Westernize and democratize them? And who are we to say that our Judeo-Christian ideals are superior to theirs? Let them work out their problems on their own, lest we be trapped there for centuries.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06321/739034-110.stm

[aquart]

1. Of course they aren't behind our "mission." We are INVADERS.

We are a disease that is killing them.

[izzie]

2. If your son and I understand this why does not Bush?

People are passed the ages of a super power ruling them. About 100 years ago this movement started in force and if I can see it I am sure others see it also. It is an easy thing to see people want to rule their own country.

[annabanana]

3. "His unit was under the direction of the Iraqi army unit"?

Something odd with this....There was a hew & cry when an Iraqi commander called off checkpoints when our soldier (the translator) was kidnapped. I think we would have heard if whole units were under Iraqi command...

[rodeodance]

4. they are loyal to their tribals, then to their sects.

[havocmom]

5. Can't hold an occupation without support of the occupied

unless willing to absolutely lay waste to a nation and its people.

The occupation is really a kidnapping scheme. Our troops have been kidnapped and placed in danger. If WE don't keep letting Congress write checks to the private contractors, our troops run out of food, water, and bullets.

Ransom. War Profiteers are holding our military for ransom. They don't care what happens to them. One more letter from the occupation shows the truth.

bush/cheney/rumsfeld set up a huge kidnapping so their buds could make huge profits.

Say a prayer for the safe return of every mother's sons and daughters.

[groovedaddy]

6. Remember the goals of PNAC

As much as msm avoids talking about the neo-cons, remember what their goals were in invading:
1. Territory
2. Oil
3. Establishing a Democracy in the Arab middleeast

Okay - scratch #3.
When Bush says we won't leave until the job is done, he is referring only to #3 and assumes that this will bring peace and stability to Iraq. Clearly, this is not happening.
I don't think the neo-cons care about what this does to any troops, on either side. Nor do they care that their boy Donny is gone from Defense. Dick Cheney is still at the helm and as long as there is a U.S. military presence in Iraq, the PNAC/neo-con agenda is still in play.
Remember: Bush's job isn't to figure out what's really going on or to do the right thing...it's to follow orders from Uncle Dick. Daddy & the New World Order crowd may not like it -or- it may be perfect for some grand plan they have in the works.