Robin Moore in Iraq

Robin Moore was the well known author of The Green Berets, The Hunt For Bin Laden, and The French Connection: A True Account of Cops, Narcotics, and International Conspiracy. In the early months of the Iraq War, despite having Parkinson's disease, Robin Moore ventured into Iraq to interview troops on the ground and get a first person view of the war. The 78 year-old WWII veteran shocked the contractors and service members in the war zone as he fearlessly lived among them while writing his book Hunting Down Saddam: The Inside Story of the Search and Capture. Robin Moore later died in Kentucky in 2008, but his book still remains as a testament to the resolve of U.S. forces to fight insurgency, subversion, and terrorism in Iraq.

Despite the title, the book isn't only about Saddam's capture. It covers the war from the invasion to the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is a good resource of information about any part of the war through December 2004. One unique aspect of the book is the many different angles from which the story of the war is told. The fact that the book has the stories of a Lieutenant Colonel of the 4th Infantry Division, a Fox News war corespondent, and others, helps you not only see the war, but feel it in so many different ways.

I liked it mainly because of how personal the experiences were. I'm a big fan of memoirs for this very reason and the book had the feel of a multiple-memoir. Also, the extensive information of the book made it worth every penny. I would recommend this book for anyone who would like to know more about the war.

Fighting Terrorism in Iraq Part Three: Iraq's Legacy

In invading Iraq, the Coalition has actually increased the number of terrorists in the world. Of course at the same time, it has kept most, not all, of the terrorists content with staying in the Middle East to pursue westerners, as opposed to striking us at home. In the end, Iraq's legacy in the War on Terror will always be controversial. Tactically, it is unwise to simply call something a mistake. One who learns from bad decisions can never make a mistake. Besides, invading Iraq has made us more of a threat to would-be-state sponsors of terrorism, and has given us better techniques to deal with terrorism.

Remember the radicalized Nigerian who tried to blow up a plane loaded up with 290 people, back in December of 2009. He was radicalized by whom government officials believed were al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. Soon after this was revealed, a frustrated America turned its eyes to Yemen, but before anything to extreme occurred, Yemen's government decided to hunt down al-Qaeda in Yemen themselves. Within days, stories of terrorist assassinations in the country filled the news. Today still, the Yemenis' government hunts down al-Qaeda in Yemen.

I think this has been the greatest victory in the War on Terror since it began in 2001. Instead of having to invade a country that was known to harbor terrorists, the host nation itself decided to put an end to them. I want to say that this level of unprecedented cooperation only happened because the Yemenis understood by looking at Iraq, that they were dealing with an aggressive and volatile America.

Yemen seems to be taking care of its terrorism, but the other nation that we have to worry about is doing little to stop theirs. Iran has long been a state supporter of terrorism. As a matter of fact, even U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has blatantly accused them of "Exporting terrorism". The Iranian government has also, like Saddam, been accused of forging WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The main difference with Iran though is that we actually have satellite photos of Iran's nuclear bases. What we don't know for sure is whether of not Iran is actually using these laboratories to make weapons or civilian technology.

President Ahmadinejad of Iran is becoming a nuisance to the White House. His regime has remained secretive with their nuclear ambitions, causing suspicion in the west. Israel has constantly threatened to strike Iran if it feels threatened, even if the U.S. decides against it. In the War in Iraq, Iran has continuously supported Shi'ite insurgents fighting against the Western troops, all the while strengthening their military inside Iran. The stage is set, but it doesn't have to be like Iraq. The U.S. has changed its leadership during the war from the aggressive Bush-led White house to the more moderate Obama Administration. America has mellowed out since 9/11. It may be possible to have peace in Iran which is what I personally would prefer.

Iran is more than three times as big as Iraq land wise and has twice as many people. Not to mention that its military is probably better trained than Saddam's in 2003. Add that to the fact that Iranians, who have helped sponsor the insurgency in Iraq, have experience with fighting the Coalition. An Iranian invasion and occupation would be a bloodbath that would eventually become another den of terrorists like Iraq. In my mind, a ground invasion of Iran is completely out of the question unless we have the support of the Iranian people, and they have their own leaders to take over after an invasion. Peace with a Iran is the most logical solution, but if this is for some reason unobtainable, than air strikes would be preferable to ground operations. I think that this is another valuable lesson that Iraq has taught us. We shouldn't get down to the nitty-gritty unless we are ready to pay a nitty-gritty price.

We can't win a war against terrorism by bombing it, or shooting it, or sending drones after it. These things may help when used appropriately, but terrorism is an idea. Guns can deter an idea, as seen with Yemen, but ideas are ultimately beaten by the people who once believed in them. The War on Terror is very much a "hearts and minds" campaign. As painful as it was to watch all of those civilians die on September 11th, we cannot allow ourselves to become vengeful when our enemy is hatred. This will only fuel the fire and in a way, make us terrorists. We must be strong in battle, but hold back when the time is wrong to fight. The War on Terror has and will have physical battles, but let Iraq be a lesson that this was never meant to be a physical war.

Fighting Terrorism in Iraq Part Two: The Insurgency

In March of 2003, the Coalition ground forces began the epic blitzkrieg battle to Baghdad that would last only six weeks. It was an unprecedented invasion in terms of speed. Several units, including the First Marine Division, broke their previous records for the most distance covered in the least days. Bombs craters riddled Baghdad's streets and buildings. Saddam's regime quickly crumbled before the Coalition. By April 2003, President Bush stood atop the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared that major combat operations were over.

It was the scene America was looking for. A cheering crowd of servicemembers in front ot a "Mission Accomplished" sign. This was not the case though. Without the government to keep control, Iraq decended into anarchy. Looting became a common scene in Baghdad, and the Coalition forces who were there to fight the Saddam loyalists, weren't there to police the city. Eventually, this is exactly what they had to do all over Iraq. The situation transformed from "Mission Accomplished" to became mission peding.

After a while, it became obvious that the Coalition would be occupying Iraq for a long time. Insurgents soon began attacking the foriegn troops that they now wanted out of their country. In Robin Moore's book, Hunting Down Saddam, he followed around groups of cotractors and soldiers in Iraq as the war began to heat up again. One of the contractors broke down the four groups of insurgents that they had to fight: former Saddam Loyalists after money, Shi'ite Muslims that were being recruited and funded by Iran, Palastinians who wanted to bring attention to their cause, and perhaps worst of all, terrorists. Al-Qaeda thought it opportune that the Coalition invaded Iraq. Civillians or servicemembers, it didn't matter to them. Americans are Americans, and crossing a few borders to kill us in Iraq is way easier than attacking our own soil. In the words of former Iraeli commando Aaron Cohen, "There are more than enough Americans to shoot in Iraq".

So our worst fears were realized ironically because of our actions. From the beginning of the insurgency to today, al-Qaeda has been coordinating attacks in Iraq. They were invited by the Sunni Muslims who had been disenfranchized by the new Iraqi government and the Coalition. The Sunnis felt they had made a good descision when they saw al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq help command insurgents in the biggest battle of the war. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi led the Sunnis in the Battle of Falluja, that would innevitably lead to the deaths of 151 Americans and the wounding of over 1,000 more. The Sunnis later realized that they had made a deal with the devil when al-Zarqawi, decided that a civil war in Iraq would be the worst possible event for the Coalition. This is when al-Qaeda began to attack Iraqi civilians along with Coalition troops. To this very day, they bomb mosques and other public buildings in the country with hopes that the different ethnic groups in Iraq accuse each other for the attacks and go to war with each other.

By 2007, Iraq had come extremely close to that civil war. Most of the secarianism was centered around Baghdad, where there were and are several factions that surround the capital. The year 2007 was also the blodiest for the coalition as almost 1,000 died in that year alone. It seems al-Zarqawi was right. The more the Iraqis killed each other the worst the situation got. Of coure Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's deeds didn't go unrewarded. The Coalition eventaully dropped a couple of 500-pound bombs on his safehouse, killing him, one of his wives, one of his children, and four others.


Critics of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) often complain that the Coalition's military actions have only increased terrorism worldwide. Lokking at Iraq, I must agree with them. Of course, at the same time, supporters of the GWOT often clain that fighting terrorists in the Middle East is keeping them from attcking us here. This is also partially true, because as previously mentioned, no logical terrorist is going all the way to the United States to kill Americans when there are some in their backyard. Unfortunately, not all terrorists. On Chrismas Day, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a radicalized youth from Nigeria tried to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 which was loaded with 290 passengers. This attempt failed, but according to many Counter-Terrorist experts including Carl Stiner and Aaron Cohen, this is not the last attempt. It takes time to plan these attacks, but with hatred motivating them, another attack by terrorists is inevitable. The wars in Iraq and Afghnistan will do nothing to stop that.

Fighting Terrorism in Iraq Part One: The Invasion

After September 11th, 2001, American foreign policy was a blur. We had just suffered the worst attack on the U.S. ever delivered by a foreign enemy. This would have been the beginning of a normal war in which we, the juggernaut that anyone would be foolish to provoke, would smash over our adversary and be home for Christmas. The problem was, our enemy was not normal. They didn't pledge to a flag, acknowledge the Geneva Conventions, or take orders from a national leader. They were terrorists.

When the smoke cleared in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania, we had almost 3,000 dead and no one to personally blame except the 19 al-Qaeda terrorists--who had killed themselves so that so many others could die-- and their evasive comrades who continued to hide behind legitimate governments. President Bush didn't hesitate and declared a Global War on Terror (GWOT). He made it clear that the U.S. would make no distinction between terrorists and the governments that harbored them. Just one month after 9/11, the U.S. and its new Coalition invaded Afghanistan, the home of al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies. The Coalition easily rolled over them with an endless supply of bombs, tanks, and of course, money. After reducing Taliban opposition to insurgency, Americans felt confident in their military and President, and were ready for the next strike against terrorism. This is where an anonymous writer begins the online essay fittingly titled "September 11, 2001 and Terrorism".

The essay, writes about the eagerness of the country to invade the next logical "terrorist stronghold", Iraq. The writer, who is obviously an American and reflects the emotions of the times writes, " The success of the liberation of Afghanistan and the threat of more attacks on U.S. soil has prompted the U.S. to consider invading Iraq, in an effort to oust terrorists and capture Saddam Hussein"(1). This is the kind of ignorance that made the invasion of Iraq so popular. Saddam didn't have anything to do with terrorists. He hated them like any legitimate leader would, no matter how bad he was. He even allowed the U.N. to search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, but the U.S. decided that the U.N. weapons inspectors were taking too long.

I must admit, even though I was only in forth grade during the invasion of Iraq, I was just as gung ho (and ignorant) as any American. When I was in third grade, they didn't keep us from seeing the news on 9/11. We had all watched the towers fall, and even though I didn't understand it at first, when the older kids explained what had happened, I was as upset as anyone else. A year later when there was talk of an invasion of Iraq, I assumed they were terrorist too. I didn't assume this because of any evidence, but instead because I wanted someone to pay for those slaughtered on 9/11, whether they were involved or not. Almost everyone trusted President Bush after he had struck al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. If he said that Saddam sponsored terrorism and was making WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) to attack U.S. soil, then he had to go.

Of course the White House's reasons for dismantling Saddam were not the same as those perceived. In reality, they had just had enough of the troublesome dictator. It's not like there wasn't any reason to invade Iraq. The country's dictator was strongly anti-American and had ordered the genocide of Iraqi Kurds living beyond the areas he had forced them into. Saddam Hussein wasn't Mother Teresa, but no matter how impatient Washington got with him, they were powerless to stop him as long as he wasn't killing Americans. It is worth acknowledging that Iraq did have a major terrorist group known as Ansar al-Islam, but there is little evidence that supports the rumors of them being supported by Saddam. Peter Ricketts, the foreign office policy director of the time, rightfully accused the government of trying to make it look like Saddam and the terrorists were somehow on the same side. In his words "[The] U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing".

Despite Ricketts's feelings, the scheme wasn't unconvincing to most of the American public. As a matter of fact, to this very day I find many other Americans that I deal with don't know the difference between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. According to George Jonas's controversial non-fiction book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team, Israel just wanted a list of those responsible for the attack on the Munich Olympics so that they could punish those responsible. This is how Americans felt after 9/11. We just wanted a list, so that we could unleash our vengeance. The White House delivered that list, and on it was Saddam Hussein.

The Cost of War

There is no question that the war has cost many lives on all sides. Estimates put the combined deaths somewhere between 94,000 (the lowest estimate of the Iraq Body Count program as of 2009), and the highest estimate, 1,033,000 (according to the Opinion Research Business survey as of 2007). The Coalition has only made up a fraction of these deaths, yet enough have died to fill over 4,700 coffins(ICasualties.com). Many have debated whether or not enough progress, if any, has been made at that cost. In Bing West's book, No True Glory, he finishes with a concise epilogue on the progress of Fallujah after the most devastating battle of the entire war. The name of the chapter sums up the progress of the war in general, "By Inches, Not Yards".

In the Beginning of 2005, the displaced civilians of Fallujah began to return to their destroyed city. American forces heavily guarded the city and few vehicles could move in or out. The males of military age were fingerprinted and given identity cards to make tracking insurgents in Fallujah easier. In West's words, "Fallujah was the safest town in Iraq, albeit the most heavily guarded"(317). Iraqi police officers were still afraid to wear their uniforms off of the job though. The insurgent, though they lost their safe haven and operating base in Fallujah, could still terrorize residents.

Fallujah showed very little progress, but one must consider that just months before the 2005 Fallujah, Marines were struggling to take the city back from insurgents, who had literally taken over. They were not only able to terrorize police, they were the police. Fallujah is the embodiment of Iraq, where many die, and a lot of time is lost for small gains, but we cannot confuse this with no gains. In 2005, 60% of eligible Iraqis voted in elections. That's progress. Is that worth the cost of 4,700 dead Coalition troops? I honestly couldn't tell you, but I can tell you that many more people have given their lives for causes less then freedom.

If you would like to put faces to the number of Coalition fatalities check out this link to CNN.com. If you would like to see the daily updated casualties of both Iraq and Afghanistan, click here.

NatGeo: Inside Iraq

This is a clip from National Geographic's, hour long special on the Iraq War. The special, called "Inside Iraq" went over the war from the 2003 invasion, to 2008. It covered the battle of Falluja extensively, and notably, covered the sectarian violence that has rarely made it to the American public eye. The show was very graphic, but of course this was to be expected.

I think National Geographic did an excellent job on the report. I believe it was the most informative program on Iraq that I've seen on TV. Of course I didn't expect any less from National Geographic. The program was almost as informative as the books that I've read on the war, which is a high compliment for a television report. I would recommend it to anyone who would like to learn more about the war. You can find the programs broadcast information here.

Black Ops and "Black List One"

In Micheal Smith's book, The Killer Elite, he talks about the United States Special Operation's missions. The last chapter, "A Real Killer Elite" is dedicated to Operation Iraqi Freedom's main Special Operations (SpecOps) mission. Hunting down former Iraqi Ba'athists (officials from Saddam's political party) and "Black List One" himself, Saddam Hussein.

The main problem with capturing the elusive "Black List One" was the fact that he avoided the use of electronic communication that the U.S. is so good at tracking. This left the Special Operations Troops or Operators with only Human Intelligence (HumInt) to guide them. In other words, the only way that they could get to Saddam was through the interrogation of people close to him. The Operators got their first taste of how HumInt can be used to track a target when they cornered Saddam's two sons, Uday and Qusay in a villa in Mosul, Iraq. As smith puts it, " With a $15-million reward on each of their heads, it had only been a matter of time before someone decided to sell them out" (235). Due to the high premium for American lives, the commanding officer there decided that the best way to avoid losing any troops while "neutralizing" Uday and Qusay was to fire 18 anti-tank missiles into the building. This is how the Coalition would learn to avoid casualties through out the war. Minutes later, the mission was declared a success when operators stormed the building to find Uday and Qusay "neutralized".

Operators on the ground received praise for the mission and more importantly, more attention which can lead to more funding. The Operators had already made a good name for themselves in Afghanistan and were beginning to convince the White house that they were essential to the "War on Terror". In order to cement this image they had only to capture Osama bin Laden and in Iraq, "Black List One". They hustled for more HumInt that would lead them to Saddam. They raided his hometown of Tikrit and questioned detainees there, as well as capturing detainees linked to the dictator politically. Saddam carried a $25-million price tag on his head and was as doomed as his sons before him. Finally, the Operators got reliable intelligence (intel) on Saddam hiding out on a farm ten miles south of Tikrit, Iraq. There they found a frail old man hiding in a hole with his hand up in surrender saying "I am Saddam Hussein, I am the president of Iraq and I'm willing to negotiate." Upon hearing this, one of the Operators replied " President Bush sends his regards."

Needless to say, the capture of "Black List One" was a huge boost to the image of Special Operations. Then Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld made sure that Special Operations Command (SOCOM) was given more autonomy from the armed forces in seeing what they were capable of. This also meant more funding. More importantly though, it made SOCOM the centerpiece of America's "War on Terror".

I personally agree with Rumsfeld in that Operators should lead the charge in current security operations against Terrorist and other "High Value Targets". They even have their own counter-terrorism units, such as Delta Force, and the Navy Seal's DevGru. The only reason that SOCOM's battlefield ability has been questioned is due to their failure to capture Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. In Iraq though, their talent is unquestionable. After the capture of Saddam, their next number one target in Iraq was an al-Qaeda commander named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man responsible for trying to start an Iraqi civil war through sectarian violence. With HumInt, this man was stopped. A properly funded SOCOM seems incapable of failure. The only thing that can stand in their way is the number of zeroes on their check, which is no problem for the richest country in the world, but may become one in the future.

Antiwar Music

If the video doesn't load click here.

That is the band System of a Down with their Grammy winning song B.Y.O.B.( Bring Your Own Bombs). The song is about the Iraq War, although you may not be able to tell your first time hearing it. To make it easy on you, I decided to load the lyrics too on this link. The "party" that they keep referring to is the war.The song talks about how the government seems to endlessly spend tax payer money and American lives on a war that the group blames on former President Bush. System of a Down even goes far enough to hint at the government being fascist and in many ways similar to the Nazis. On the other hand they pity the usually low income volunteers who have fought in the war.

It was a strange song to me the first time I heard it. I played it on the musical video game Guitar Hero and had no idea that it had anything to do with Iraq. When I began telling a friend of mine about this song I came to find out about its meaning and was surprised. I still hated the song for a while until I took time to understand the lyrics and get used to the music. This song is deep to say the least, and the idea of modern America being fascist I still doubt. I think it's a bit extreme, as not all the soldiers are dirt poor like the song insinuates. Also, as much as Bush was the catalyst for the war it's not like he is the only one to blame for it. I dislike the way the song makes it seem as if the White house was hurling poor, brainwashed, innocent Americans into a bottomless pit along with our money for no reason whatsoever. As controversial as the war has been, it has served the purpose of eliminating a brutal regime and giving a nation a chance at democracy.