WASHINGTON -- The flatbed gun truck failed in the desert night, leaving Sgt. Nicholas Pulliam and his freight of cut vehicle armor easing to the Iraq roadside.
The Chelmsford resident was near the end of a 25-truck convoy, following a “slacker” full of fuel, whose tail lights didn't work. The green chemical glow sticks taped to the rig as replacements slowly faded before the whole convoy rumbled to a stop.
“I was not in a safe place and I knew it,” Pulliam wrote in an e-mail received by his parents on Saturday.
The convoy, now towing Pulliam's truck, finally reached the restive city of Ramadi, a 35-mile trip that lasted more than three hours. It was received by insurgent gunshots; all seemed to miss, trailing bright tracers.
But Pulliam, a 43-year-old engineer with a law degree, had a bigger breakdown on his mind than an engine mishap: the United States' policy in Iraq.
Yesterday, he called for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops before September 2006, titling his proposal “Rational Disengagement.” He posted it on an Internet blog, an online journal operated by Bedford activist Brian Hart, whose 20-year-old son, Army Pvt. First Class John Hart, was killed nearly two years ago in Iraq during an ambush near Kirkuk.
“I am just an American citizen-soldier who wants to see an end to this hemorrhaging and get back to my life away from Iraq,” writes Pulliam, who resides on Main Street with his wife, Awilda, and their two children, ages 8 and 10.
“Iraq will have some very hard times to follow our disengagement, but I see this as inevitable anyway so why should we (Americans) continue to bleed only to prolong the pain that is coming,” Pulliam writes. “I don't view this as defeatism, I view it as rationalism.”
In an age where soldiers are increasingly using the Internet to relay instant information about their experiences to spouses, family members and the public, some are going too far, says Lt. Col. Steven Bloyan, an Army communications director in Baghdad who tries to track soldiers' commentary on blogs (Web logs) and newspaper editorials.
Soldiers sometimes are admonished for violating operational security, such as discussing troop movements, or when and how convoys are attacked. The enemy can intercept such information and use it against coalition forces, he said.
But Bloyan and an Army spokeswoman in Washington said they'd never encountered an active-duty soldier proposing troop withdrawals. It could violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits soldiers from engaging in political discourse while in uniform.
“Most soldiers at the unit level don't have the information at hand to make decisions on policy,” Bloyan said in a telephone interview. “We implement the policy of elected leadership.”
Maj. Elizabeth Robbins in Washington said: “A blog is not significantly different than writing an editorial.
It's not a private communication with one's family members. Blogs are a form of publishing.”
In July, Spc. Leonard A. Clark of the Arizona National Guard was punished for criticizing the war on his blog. He was demoted one rank to private first class, fined $1,640 and sentenced to 45 days restriction and 45 days extra duty.
Robbins described those steps as administrative and nonjudicial punishments. She added that soldiers could face a court-martial in the most severe cases.
But high-profile disciplinary action of troops could be politically tenuous.
“There's a whole new generation of troops deeply concerned about the administration's policy in Iraq, and their voices must not be ignored,” said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. “Is the White House going to try and silence them?”
Next month, Pulliam will complete his second eight-year commitment in the military, first in the National Guard, then the Army Reserve. He joined in the early 1980s as a way to pay for college, said his parents, Brown and Lois Pulliam of Bedford. He has been serving in Iraq for about a year and his parents expect him to be discharged by early December.
A machinist at Al Taqaddum Air Base near Falluja, Pulliam harbors deep distrust of President Bush and vehemently opposes the war, his father said.
“He thinks it's a crime,” Brown Pulliam said of the war, “and that Bush ought to be impeached.”
His parents are unconcerned about possible disciplinary action, saying such possibilities are friendly compared to the threats of war.
“I don't see how that would be more dangerous,” Lois Pulliam said of military discipline.
She and her husband twice traveled to Washington during the 1960s to protest the Vietnam War.
“We thought we were helping to make sure nothing like that happened again,” Lois Pulliam said of that conflict. “Here it is happening again.”
Three months after the Oct. 15 referendum to approve Iraq's new constitution, the United States should designate Iraq security forces “competent,” Nicholas Pulliam says in his plan.
“American troop withdrawals would begin rapidly and be complete before September, 2006,” he said, noting that civil war is likely to occur.
“This result is nothing to fear or regret,” Pulliam said, pointing to the Vietnam War as an example of a sudden American withdrawal.
He also said the overthrow of Saddam Hussein could hasten democracy in Iraq, “even if anarchy, civil war and national partition is the ultimate cost for their better future.”
Brian Hart created the blog -- www.minstrelboy.-********.com -- as an alternative to the deluge of e-mails he received following the death of his son. He's become a vocal critic of the war and an advocate for increased supply of body and vehicle armor.
He doesn't track the number of people who visit the blog, but hopes an intelligent discussion on an exit strategy will fuel a grassroots uprising. Pulliam is the first soldier he's aware of to call for a withdrawal.
“We're going to start a parade, and then let the politicians jump in front of it,” Hart said in an interview yesterday.
Pulliam, too, hopes his words cause a stir, saying too many soldiers have died.
“We need to start somewhere,” he writes in the blog posting. “We need to save our soldier's futures.”
posted
Soldiers sometimes are admonished for violating operational security, such as discussing troop movements, or when and how convoys are attacked. The enemy can intercept such information and use it against coalition forces, he said.
But Bloyan and an Army spokeswoman in Washington said they'd never encountered an active-duty soldier proposing troop withdrawals. It could violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits soldiers from engaging in political discourse while in uniform.
unless they are in the room with the president?????
troops aren't allowed to express opinions....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
when i was "In" the other BIG NO-NO was to write a letter to your congressman or Senator without sending a copy up the chain of command first...
they don't like surprises, and quite frankly, the "gag" rules are there for a good reason, i'm not complaining about them,
BUT,
i do tend to get annoyed when i read "letters from the troops" that are passed around saying how the media is lying about what is relly going on over there...the troops are doing their jobs, and they should take pride in them, and themselves...the politicians are the ones that are supposed to answer to the voters ....
and i get annoyed when the troops have orders to pose with the CIC.... no doubt there are planty of volunteers to pose with him so i doubt they "have to be ordered", but orders are orders...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you glassman. In most cases the soldiers words are harmless and come out of frustration, but they might say something out of frustration that seems harmless at the time, but ends up causing harm. The military has to have a gag rule for the sake of all the soldiers.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
no doubt he's frustrated at feeling like his efforts/risks are wasted, there's no solution to the problem, he misses his family, and he MAY even BE right.... but his is not to question why...
that IS our job as citizens.....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agree Glassman.... I am sure there are more there that feel the same. I agree with him.. When we pull out, now, next year, five years... Iraq will go back to civil war amoung its different factions.. No way to stop that... Unless you use the same tatics as Sadam.... But.. as I have learned, when the shooting starts.. It is not for the Country, Army, or Marines... You fight to keep you and your buddies alive.. That is all......
Posts: 172 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The correct title of this thread should be soldier, not soldiers.
As a former member of the military, it is easy to find people that are not satisfied with where they are, what they are doing or their leadership. There are on average 100 individuals in a unit, there are bound to be at least five out of those 100 that are not happy in their current situation.
The mistake is in saying those 5 represent the views of the other 95. They usually don't.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
No need there have been hundreds of thousands of soldiers who served in Iraq. 5% of 200,000 is 10,000. Those 10,000 don't represent the other 190,000.
I could just as easily come up with hundreds of quotes that support the Iraq effort from soldiers who have served there. I could also point out that retention rates among soldiers who served in Iraq are higher than among those that have not.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not apply to governments and wars. The Bible is filled with wars. Again, that little context issue.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the correct phrase is "guns don't kill people, people kill people". The NRA doesn't generally take stands on war.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hussein was in violation of 16 UN Resolutions. He was also in violation of the Cease Fire Agreement which TEMPORARILY ended hostilities in 1991.
The Gulf War of 1990-91 never ended, there was never a treaty, nor any sort of peace agreement. Hussein had certain conditions placed upon him at that time which if he failed to meet, he was subject to further attack. He failed to meet those conditions. Clinton opted on several occasions to launch missiles or shoot down Hussein's aircraft as part of enforcing the conditions of the cease fire. Bush took it a very large step further.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
No it isn't the reason we were given for the war. I suspect we were given the WMD reason because the majority of people would not go to war over violations of a cease fire agreement. That's the main reason why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
The violations of the cease fire agreement were sufficient but no war can be won without public support.
I never find "murder" to be just. There have been many murders in Iraq. Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands, the current insurgency has murders thousands. US forces have murdered a few, I can recall at least two instances where murder was determined, they have also been punished.
As a whole, the United States military has not murdered anyone. They have acted within the laws of war and worked to minimize collateral damage.
You really seem to have a serious hangup with Jesus. I recommend you see someone about that.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I have got a little lost in the last few posts. The only thing that has to stay the same is a gag oder on the troops. The Percentage of troops that talk to the media about the war should be 0.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands, the current insurgency has murders thousands.
that's another of the propagandists BS that has been accepted as fact... there is no credibility to any reports that Sadam murdered hundreds of thousands
Sadam hasn't even been proven to have gassed his own people if you bother to read the analysts reports? it happened during the Iran Iraq war while we were openly backing Sadam and then there's the question of how much we were helping Iran with spare parts via Oliver North et al....
the current insurgency has no place in justifying our ENTRY in to the war.... last i heared it? Rumsfeld and Bush both said that the insurgency will be Iraqs problem when we leave.....
i think we have a lot more work to do before we can leave..... and then we can sit back and take c redit for creating another Islamic State....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
You're fine with being lied to, apparently. I'm not.
Anyway, the crimes you are accusing Hussein of were committed (allegedly) while he was a US ally.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: 4Art,
No it isn't the reason we were given for the war. I suspect we were given the WMD reason because the majority of people would not go to war over violations of a cease fire agreement. That's the main reason why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
The violations of the cease fire agreement were sufficient but no war can be won without public support.
I never find "murder" to be just. There have been many murders in Iraq. Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands, the current insurgency has murders thousands. US forces have murdered a few, I can recall at least two instances where murder was determined, they have also been punished.
As a whole, the United States military has not murdered anyone. They have acted within the laws of war and worked to minimize collateral damage.
You really seem to have a serious hangup with Jesus. I recommend you see someone about that.
posted
the amazing part is how many people are saying Bush SHOULD have lied to US to circumvent the democratic process because we are a republic....
our elected representatives were lied to also....
that destabilzes the republican system as well.... might as well do away with voting altogether...
when Hillary voted to give the authority to invade Iraq( note: Bush and Bush alone asssumes responsibilty for the final decision to attack) i assumed the intell was authentic....
it has now been proven that the intell was not only wrong, but fabricated almost in its entirety, and that at least some of intell community was aware that it was suspect at the time the president used it in his state of the union address....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Is seems that, to some, as long as Bush isn't getting a BJ from an intern, all is well. Lying to the country to start a war based on another agenda? So what!
(If you ask me, Bush needs a BJ very badly.)
Might as well do away with voting altogether? They might just be working on that, too. Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The deaths caused by Hussein are documented. They've been digging up the mass graves all over Iraq. There are reports that the true numbers are 5 million dead attributed to Hussein, mostly ****es, with some Kurds.
I agree that Iraq will most likely disintegrate into civil war sometime after we leave. I doubt it will result in an Islamic state. It will most likely divide into three parts, Kurdistan in the north and a ****e nation in the south with a radical islamic Sunni state in the center creating havoc for all.
4Art,
I wasn't lied to and neither were you. WMD's were a concern. They existed, were documented by the United Nations and steps were taken to ensure their destruction by the cease fire agreement of 1991 and various UN resolutions. Every intelligence agency in the world and the United Nations said Hussein had WMD's.
This arguement was the one that would get support. Not the best arguement and not an arguement that was needed to justify the war.
Hussein was never an ally of the United States. Allies are nations you enter treatys with to set up agreements for security purposes, etc. What occured was we re-established diplomatic relations with Iraq in 1984 that had been broken in 1967. We sold them 5 airliners and gave them a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq. Not much of an alliance. His country remained closed, we had no way of knowing what he was doing there.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's called diplomatic ties and if you read the articles, we condemn the use of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq war.
As for the second article. It does not say "2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat" That is the TITLE, the actual article outlines:
"He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors"
"And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago."
Headlines are good, if they are accurate, this one clearly is not.
They were pursuing and possessed WMD's.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
RICE: "But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Hardly the threat of a "mushroom cloud" that she conveyed to the public not long thereafter.
Diplomatic ties then, war justified now?
You're in powerful denial.
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
He didn't control either the northern part of the country because the Kurds were well armed and protected by a US no fly zone. He did control the southern portion because the ****es were never able to get weapons or outside support. His controlling faction, the Sunnis did possess the WMD's
I don't believe Rice every spoke of a mushroom cloud scenario. Hussein did not yet possess nuclear weapons. The goal was to prevent him from doing so.
Posts: 559 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
RICE: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
posted
"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time...I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." --President Dwight Eisenhower, 1953, upon being presented with plans to wage preventive war to disarm Stalin's Soviet Union
"Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions." --Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, in his opening statement to the tribunal
Posts: 3243 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
redit for creating another Islamic State....![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
