(I wrote this in reply to a question my cousin asked while I was deployed back in 2004)
Hi Jackie~
Thanks for the note. Yes it is a bit different here than what you see on TV. Though in some respects, it really isn't. As we all know, the news just doesn't show you the good things that are being done, because that isn't sensational news. Death and destruction, now THAT's news!
Unfortunately there really is destruction going on here. The bad guys are really bad, and they are doing their level best to make it as difficult as possible for the US troops here. I am stationed in Kuwait, but every other day I fly up into Iraq with guys either going home or coming in, and I get to talk to them about the way things really are. Basically its not a pleasant life. Most bases get mortared on a regular or semi-regular basis. If you drive anywhere in this country you need to expect to encounter suicide bombers and roadside booby-traps just waiting for you to pass by. It is not a peace keeping operation by any stretch of the imagination. It is a war and two or three guys and gals are dying every day. There are probably 5,000 to 6,000 insurgents running around the countryside trying to create havoc, and they do a pretty good job of it. They have a bunch of plastic explosives, shoulder fired missiles, anti-tank rockets and artillery shells, and they are good at making them do a lot of damage.
One of the big problems, as I see it (remember, you asked my opinion, which doesn't mean a whole lot in the big scheme of life....) is we are trying very hard to do a big war operation on a shoestring budget. There is an old adage that says there should be so many soldiers for every so many civilians you are trying to control, something like 1 or 2 for every thousand. We are trying to hold territory with like 1 guy for every 10,000 civilians. (I don't know the exact percentage, but we could figure it out if we wanted too. Take the population of Iraq and divide it by 130,000 troops). Anyway, think of the town you live in. How many police officers do you have to patrol your town. I live in town of 3500 people, we have about 8 officers to cover all the shifts. That's about 1: 500. Now think of a country that has been beaten and repressed for thirty years. Suddenly all authority is gone. There's no police, there's no army or national guard. People who have nothing are well armed (everyone has a machine gun in Iraq) and can pretty much take what he wants as long as no one shoots him. That's the situation that happened here after we showed up and marched into Baghdad.
When the Generals were asked how many people it would take to beat Saddam, they said 250,000. That's a pretty good sized force and pretty close to what we used in the Gulf War back in 1990. The Secretary of Defense didn't like that number as it was pretty expensive. He searched around and found someone who said it could be done with 50,000 troops or less, and that is probably an accurate assessment. The Iraqi army was so bad and so ill equipped that it really only had numbers, not a viable fighting force. The Generals protested and negotiated enough to get the numbers up to 130,000 troops, which was probably a good thing. Overkill for the initial rush, but way too few to maintain order afterward. The problem came AFTER US forces raced 350 miles into Baghdad and took over. It started when we began trying to supply ourselves and set up bases. The guys in the Iraqi army who still had any anger melted away, picked up weapons and started a sniper war on our troops and convoys, and anyone else they decided they didn't like.
That stuff is still going on. By not being able to maintain order, not only do we have the original baddies angry at us, but now all the folks who have been hurt by looting, robbery and random violence are ticked off too because we came in, disbanded whatever security forces existed and left them without any protection. On top of that, we put about 35,000 to 50,000 police and army folks out on the street and into unemployment. Any reason why we should be well liked after that?
Some questions everyone needs to ask themselves are these:
- How did we get here?
- Did we really need to come here in the first place? (what were the reasons to start this thing, and do they stand up to scrutiny?)
- Now that we're neck deep in this, what outcome do we want out of this?
- What is the plan to achieve it?
- Who, if anyone has a real plan? (Does beating one's chest on TV and saying "I have a plan!" make it so?)
- What comes next?
- Do we have a plan for that? Will we? It's your tax dollars, your homeland security, your brothers and sisters going off to fight the next battle somewhere... (Can we afford NOT to go out there and get the bad guys where they live?)
- Who in government, or which government wannabe, has the best chance to get it right?
Maybe the best thing to do is not look at the candidates, but look at who their advisors are and see if you really trust THEM.
Voting is a hard thing. You only get one chance at it every couple years, then you have to live with what the majority of people believed was right at the time. You can base your vote on your stand on firearms, abortion, gay rights, foreign policy, healthcare, tax cuts, social security, the environment, job creation, the economy, etc. but I think the trick is to try and pick someone who you think gets the most right, because there is no way anyone can be right on every one. The issues are too diverse for 200 million people to agree on. Our school district back home is a classic example. The district is growing so we need new buildings, more teachers. Healthcare cost rise every year no matter what we do. Some people don't want to raise taxes to cover such things. They would prefer that programs get cut and no new teachers hired. The result is kids have nothing like sports or band or clubs to participate in so they find their own things to do... The classes get bigger, the kids learn less, they lose interest, drop out, and find their own things to do... We pay city taxes to increase the police force and build better jails. No one wants more money coming out of their pocket, but for every choice is a consequence. Sometimes you have to vote for the benefit of the group, not just yourself.
Wow, guess I waxed on there pretty good, didn't I? The short answer to your question is that from my perspective, we are going to be here a while. A LOT of US tax dollars are going to be spent here, both to support the troops (who really need it) and to rebuild a country that a dictator completely ruined. There is a lot of work to do. The young soldiers here are doing a great job, and they need all the support they can get, because it is the people back home that validate what they do. The best thing that you can do is get out and vote for the candidates you think will do the best job of taking care of them, and our country. It's not just an office or a job these days. Now, more than at any time in the recent past, these people make decisions that affect people's very lives.
Hope you and yours are doing well. Thanks so much for the update on Uncle Don and his induction celebration. We couldn't be prouder!
Take care,
Bryan
Manferd O. "Manny" Branby, 75, retired fisheries manager for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in Detroit Lakes, died at Dakota Heartland Hospital in Fargo on Tuesday, Sept. 7. The funeral was at 2 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 10, from First Lutheran Church, with the Rev. David Peterson officiating. Juliette Gunderson was the organist and the soloist was Janice Ramsey. Interment was at Oak Grove Cemetery, with the West-Kjos Funeral Home in charge of arrangements.
Branby, was born at Glenwood on June 27, 1924, grew up and attended school there and graduated from Glenwood High School (Class of 1942). He served with the United States Army Air Corps during World War II, was stationed with the 464th Bomb Group in Italy as a navigator and was discharged as a first lieutenant in 1945.
