Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis: Another Alaskan loses his life in Iraq

Thursday, August 04, 2005

Another Alaskan loses his life in Iraq

Lance Corporal Grant B. Fraser from Anchorage, 22 years old, was one of the 14 Marines killed by a roadside bomb on Wednesday.

He graduated from Service High School in 2001 and was a freshman there when my husband was a senior.

According to the New York Times, we can expect to see many more of these high-fatality incidents:
The explosion that killed 14 marines in Haditha yesterday was powerful enough to flip the 25-ton amphibious assault vehicle they were riding in, in keeping with an increasingly deadly trend, American military officers say.

In recent months the roadside bombs favored by insurgents in Iraq have grown significantly in size and sophistication, the officers say, adding to their deadliness and defeating efforts to increase troops' safety by adding armor to vehicles.

The new problems facing the military were displayed more than a week earlier, on July 23, when a huge bomb buried on a road southwest of Baghdad Airport detonated an hour before dark underneath a Humvee carrying four American soldiers.

The explosive device was constructed from a bomb weighing 500 pounds or more that was meant to be dropped from an aircraft, according to military explosives experts, and was probably Russian in origin.

The blast left a crater 6 feet deep and nearly 17 feet wide. All that remained of the armored vehicle afterward was the twisted wreckage of the front end, a photograph taken by American officers at the scene showed. The four soldiers were killed.
The President seems to have decided that it isn't really a "struggle," it really is a "war."
President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.
It's like watching someone playing ping pong blindfolded.

So tell me, Mr. President, exactly when are we getting our folks out?

7 Comments:

Blogger Coldfoot said...

Wrong question.

When are we going to stop fighting a politically correct war?

8/04/2005 11:46 PM  
Blogger CelticDiva said...

Hi...ask your President.

The person holding back on adding more troops is Bush. Senators Clinton and McCain are trying to add 80,000 troops.

8/05/2005 1:47 AM  
Anonymous Sanae said...

He looks so young. :( Hell, he is young. Ohio just lost 18 (I believe) soldiers in 2 days. It's all over the news here about changing deployment tactics to split up local groups. They keep flashing the photos of the young men on TV --- I can't get over how young some of them seem.

8/05/2005 4:57 AM  
Anonymous taughnee said...

This sends shivers up my spine. Truly heart-breaking.

8/05/2005 6:50 AM  
Blogger Coldfoot said...

I don't see how more troops will win the war. More troops is the PC way to fight a war, not an effective means of winning.

I'm talking about winning the war. I'm talking about using an overwhelming artillery barrage on areas known to harbor terrorists, before sending in military patrols. I'm talking about taking out the "safe harbors" of Syria and Iran. Did we learn nothing from Viet Nam? You can't let the enemy have access to, and receive reinforcements from so called neutral countries.

Either you're in it to win or you will lose.

You pansy-ass liberals have hamstrung our troops with your misguided protests, and misguided nonsense about respecting the Muslim religion. (The religion of the person trying to kill you is irrelevant.) Then you have the balls not only to complain that our troops are dying, but that the President is incompetent for fighting the war in the way you want him to.

8/05/2005 7:17 PM  
Blogger CelticDiva said...

"I don't see how more troops will win the war. More troops is the PC way to fight a war, not an effective means of winning."

The biggest problem our troops are facing over there: as soon as they clear an area of insurgents and move on, the insurgents come right back. It's like holding up a dam with our hands and then letting go. We don't have enough troops to leave behind in those areas to keep them clear.

The second reason - and it's a huge reason - is that we don't have enough troops to give the battle-weary ones any kind of relief. The best way to completely destroy the morale in a soldier and his/her family is by suddenly extending their tours, shortening leave, etc...

I'm talking about using an overwhelming artillery barrage on areas known to harbor terrorists, before sending in military patrols.

Little problem with that - it's called a large number of Iraqi civilians. It kinda defeats the President's claim of "liberating the Iraqis" if we kill all of those "liberated Iraqis" off. Our military is in there doing something it's not designed to do - playing police. It's not a big surprise that we suck at it.

"I'm talking about taking out the "safe harbors" of Syria and Iran."

Are you going to include our Saudi Arabian friends in that equation? Most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. They are easily as much of a "terrorist hotbed" as either of the other countries you mentioned. However, we consider them an "ally" so that could get a little messy, couldn't it? Besides, these countries would be able to completely rid themselves of terrorists as unsuccessfully as we have been able to stem the flow of drugs in or out of the U.S.

Second problem: the newly-formed, U.S. backed Iraqi Democratic government has recently signed an alliance with Iran.

A quote: "It's a new chapter in our relations with Iraq. We will start wide defense cooperation," Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said at a news conference with his visiting Iraqi counterpart, Saadoun Dulaimi.

"We're going to form some committees which will be involved in mine clearance, identifying those missing from the war and also ... to help train, rebuild and modernize the Iraqi army."


Yup - that means military cooperation.

When asked if they were concerned whether or not the U.S. approved: "When asked about opposition from the Bush executive, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said, "No one can prevent us from reaching an agreement."

Ooops...

"Did we learn nothing from Viet Nam?"

Yup - my sentiments exactly. Never go into any type of military action without an already pre-approved exit strategy.

"You can't let the enemy have access to, and receive reinforcements from so called neutral countries."

You are forgetting about a little thing I like to call "the rest of the world!"

Do you really think that the other powerful countries would just sit by and let us continue to invade other countries? Pissing off China - a country that would exploit any opportunity to subvert U.S. influence and power - and giving them a way to unite the entire world against us would NOT be very good foreign policy, would it?

8/06/2005 3:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I went to Robert Service High School as well, I graduated in 97.

8/21/2005 3:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home