This was in this week's Sheridan County Journal Star, July 18, 2007, and was written by a man serving in our military.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This morning, I read something in the news that has me extremely concerned. There is a measure going before the Senate, co-sponsored by Senator Ben Nelson (Democrat) of Nebraska, that would limit the role U.S. Forces can operate in. This measure prohibits U.S. Forces in Iraq from conducting so called "combat operations."
Frankly, this proposal is dangerous and needs to be immediately denounced by the American Public. To most people, I'm sure this sounds like a great idea as combat means danger and casualties. However, it is actually opposite. Yes, combat operations are dangerous, but they are 100% mandatory to reducing the overall number and severity of casualties.
While in Baqubah, we conducted a lot of combat operations--raids, cordon and searches, patrols, etc. In all of those, we only had one Soldier killed in my battalion. On the other hand, we did a lot of "non-combat" operations--medical clinics, supply runs, training Iraqi Forces, and route clearance missions. During those missions, my battalion lost seven Soldiers killed.
Iraq is a war that creates conditions where non-combat operations become the most dangerous missions. Furthermore, failure to conduct combat operations will create situations that the enemy can and will take advantage of.
When my unit did not conduct enough combat operations in an area, insurgents gained freedom of maneuver and emplaced exponentially more IEDS (Improvised Explosive Devices) and increased the complexity and lethality of those IEDs. The IEDs will be on U.S. supply routes and will target U.S. convoys. U.S. soldiers will be killed and wounded, regardless of what missions other U.S. units are conducting. I know this because it happened to my battalion. Ending "combat operations" will not end or reduce U.S. casualties. Let us not forget that I was wounded while conducting a mission that Congress would consider "non-combat" and one that is necessary regardless of U.S. activities.
As one of the Soldiers who goes in harm's way for the nation. I only ask that we be allowed to exercise our professional skills and expertise without insane and ignorant measures placed upon us. It is morally irresponsible to place Soldiers at war in even more danger by severely restricting their ability to ensure their own security. If we are going to lose this war and withdraw from Iraq, then let's be smart about it and do so in a manner that isn't going to kill more Soldiers, sons and daughters of America, all because it sounds more palatable to the American voter.
Respectfully,
GALEN D PETERSON
1LT, AR
Platoon Leader
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This morning, I read something in the news that has me extremely concerned. There is a measure going before the Senate, co-sponsored by Senator Ben Nelson (Democrat) of Nebraska, that would limit the role U.S. Forces can operate in. This measure prohibits U.S. Forces in Iraq from conducting so called "combat operations."
Frankly, this proposal is dangerous and needs to be immediately denounced by the American Public. To most people, I'm sure this sounds like a great idea as combat means danger and casualties. However, it is actually opposite. Yes, combat operations are dangerous, but they are 100% mandatory to reducing the overall number and severity of casualties.
While in Baqubah, we conducted a lot of combat operations--raids, cordon and searches, patrols, etc. In all of those, we only had one Soldier killed in my battalion. On the other hand, we did a lot of "non-combat" operations--medical clinics, supply runs, training Iraqi Forces, and route clearance missions. During those missions, my battalion lost seven Soldiers killed.
Iraq is a war that creates conditions where non-combat operations become the most dangerous missions. Furthermore, failure to conduct combat operations will create situations that the enemy can and will take advantage of.
When my unit did not conduct enough combat operations in an area, insurgents gained freedom of maneuver and emplaced exponentially more IEDS (Improvised Explosive Devices) and increased the complexity and lethality of those IEDs. The IEDs will be on U.S. supply routes and will target U.S. convoys. U.S. soldiers will be killed and wounded, regardless of what missions other U.S. units are conducting. I know this because it happened to my battalion. Ending "combat operations" will not end or reduce U.S. casualties. Let us not forget that I was wounded while conducting a mission that Congress would consider "non-combat" and one that is necessary regardless of U.S. activities.
As one of the Soldiers who goes in harm's way for the nation. I only ask that we be allowed to exercise our professional skills and expertise without insane and ignorant measures placed upon us. It is morally irresponsible to place Soldiers at war in even more danger by severely restricting their ability to ensure their own security. If we are going to lose this war and withdraw from Iraq, then let's be smart about it and do so in a manner that isn't going to kill more Soldiers, sons and daughters of America, all because it sounds more palatable to the American voter.
Respectfully,
GALEN D PETERSON
1LT, AR
Platoon Leader