Burning Bridges. The US is losing in Iraq. A soldier's story.

[Tom Joad]

"Baghdad - US-led forces have bombed eight bridges on the Euphrates River in western Iraq to stop insurgents using them, US military spokesperson Major General Rick Lynch said Thursday.

<snip>
From ksuwildkat's diary:
Why is this a big deal? Because we are actually destroying infrastructure in a country we occupy. We are saying that the military value of the bridges to the insurgency is greater than the value to us in either a military or economic/social way. This can be compared to the use of chemicals to destroy the jungle in Vietnam. Not because it caused cancer but because it was the long term destruction of some portion of the country.

As a solider I have been involved in this war in one way or another since 1990. I was in Baghdad early on when we actually thought we could rebuild the country. It was a tough decision then to cut down the trees on the airport road then but when you are getting shot at, you have to do something. Now we are blowing up bridges. For the first time I believe we have lost. For the first time as a military professional I think we have no way of winning this.

<snip>

There is no way to sugar coat this. This is a MAJOR development. That we have made it public is also a big deal because every other military professional in the world knows we are done. This war may go on for a long time but the conclusion is decided as far as I can see. I never imagined I would see this day.

Full post here
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/6/231049/886

My comment:
It is imperative that we demand an immediate withdrawal of US troops. Not one more sacrifice for a lie, not one more wounded for a lost war. We will not tolerate any politician, of any party, say that we must continue this illegal, insane, immoral war.

Support the real military heroes, those that refuse: http://tomjoad.org/WarHeroes.htm

[Mr_Spock]

1. Things don't seem to be going so great.

When I read about Binka's son being in a 2 hour and 45 minute pitched battle with insurgents, I was taken aback. Seems like quite o bit of resistance from an enemy "in it's last throes" x(

[oblivious]

2. Is this considered a war crime? Or something less?

Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population."

Or is this just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill evil deed. How to classify the degrees of evil that have been done to that country.

[Gyre]

3. It is pretty huge.

Means the Iraqi patriots (I mean insurgents) are running the country.

Gyre

[LynnTheDem]

4. America LOST the day bush INVADED a nation

that hadn't been doing one damn thing to anyone.

The SUPREME CRIME.
-Nuremburg Tribunal

Hell yeah we've lost. It's over but for the dying.

[awoke_in_2003]

5. It's over but for the dying

and, unfortunately, there will be alot of that to come.

[OneBlueSky]

6. isn't destroying infrastructure against international law? . . . n/t

.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Yes, when you are the occupying force it is

Especially when you have to send in fighter jets to do the job, instead of blowing them up in a control fashion from the ground, or even better posting guards on the troublesome bridges so that they are secured and the general population can still function with some level of normalcy. But no we couldn't do that, it's much easier just to drop bombs on them and be done with it, end of problem (not).

[malaise]

9. Yes but

invading Iraq was also violated international law and torture of prisoners is also a violation of international law. Put simply the US and England are lawless nations. Why should any law matter when the Supreme Court put these goons in power.

[tom_paine]

7. kick

:kick:

[enough]

10. nominating