The Silence of the Tribes

Andrew Sullivan: Abandoning An American Soldier

While the media is obsessed parsing the ad libs of someone on no ballot this fall, something truly ominous has just happened in Iraq. The commander-in-chief has abandoned an American soldier to the tender mercies of a Shiite militia. Yes, there are nuances here, and the NYT fleshes out the story today. But the essential fact is clear. In a showdown for control of Baghdad, the Iraqi prime minister took orders from Moqtada al-Sadr, and instructed the U.S. military to withdraw from Sadr City. The American forces were trying both to stabilize the city but also to find a missing American serviceman. He is still missing.

I don’t get it. I really don’t. I know that I have one or two “let’s get tough … support our troops” readers left.

Can someone tell me why people aren’t freaking out about this? Is Kerry’s gaffe using up everyone’s emotional bandwidth?

Is this not really, really, really distressing, ugly news? Where are the voices of the pro-military people on this event? Where is Bill Whittle’s tribe?

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. In Search Of Utopia on 02 Nov 2006 at 12:01 am

    Two guys I respect… Hell I even admire them…

    First John Cole, who has always had my respect, and always called bullshit when he saw it. Last word on Kerry…Goes to John Derbyshire (who must have a book to sell!): John Kerry is awful, and anything we can do…

  2. In Search Of Utopia on 02 Nov 2006 at 1:15 pm

    Sign of the Times

    I thank God that there are people like Frank Schaeffer: I’m a Christian, a writer, a military parent and a registered Republican. On all those counts, I was disgusted by an e-mail I just received that’s being circulated by campaign…

Comments

  1. Chief RZ wrote:

    First, the missing person was an interpreter from the area, next, remember, we are there at the request of the Iraqi government. We can leave.
    Compromises are….good and bad.
    At least this is not the thousands someone left in Vietnam, USSR, Japan, Korea, and several other locations.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 9:50 pm

  2. canuckistani wrote:

    I’d say it’s because “No Man Left Behind” is Hollywood bullcrap, rather than a realistic policy. The fact is that people get left behind in war all the time, especially when things are going badly. I’m thinking of Bataan and the Battle of the Bulge in particular, but every time you see “missing” on a casualty report, that’s someone who was left behind.
    But it makes good drama in Chuck Norris movies, doesn’t it?

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 10:08 pm

  3. Bill from INDC wrote:

    Well, there is the possibility that the Army has information that the interpreter really ran off with his new wife. This is total speculation. But I don’t know what I don’t know. Shrug.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 10:31 pm

  4. Bill from INDC wrote:

    I’d say it’s because “No Man Left Behind” is Hollywood bullcrap, rather than a realistic policy.

    You don’t know jack **** about military history.

    American military policy undertakes enormous risk to recover not only missing personnel, but dead bodies, all the time. Like when Task Force Ranger stayed in Mogadishu for hours to recover Cliff Wolcott’s body, which was pinned in the downed Blackhawk. In large actions it’s not always possible, but it’s done - often - to a point where even I question its logic.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 10:35 pm

  5. JimK wrote:

    I read that this guy was working with the US military, not a member of it. Is that true? Is he Iraqi? I don’t think Sully is telling the whole truth on ANYTHING, so I would like to know the whole story before I get mad.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 11:31 pm

  6. JimK wrote:

    I just did some Googling. This story is odd. I can’t find a news story that mentions the missing guy’s name, or branch of service or anything. It’s just “A missing American soldier.” Does that strike anyone else as odd?

    What I did find is that he’s an American of Iraqi descent, married to an Iraqi woman (like, in Iraq). He’s a translator.

    Also, the Iraqi Prime Minister ordered the Coalition out of Sadr City. Aren’t we telling teh world we are in Iraq at the behest of the official, legitimate government?

    Sully mentions the word “nuances” and then ignores any and all facts that don’t support the “Bush is evil and left a man to die” theory. I don’t buy anything Sullivan sells these days without careful inspection.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 11:39 pm

  7. The Sanity Inspector wrote:

    Even if the guy was a Filipino mess orderly, attached to the Army on a civilian service contract, I’d still want us to do everything we can to rescue him. It does feel very wrong and stomach-churning, knowing that we’ve been prevented from searching for him, and that the next view of him we get might be in a video posted on ogrish.com.

    OTOH, the Israelis kicked the everlovin’ dogshit out of their neighbors when their soldiers were kidnapped, and came up with nothing. So, there’s no guarantees. Fortunes of war, we’ll have to chalk it up to.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 11:54 pm

  8. John B wrote:

    al Sadr tells Maliki to get the US to back off of Sadr City. Maliki tells the US and the US obliges.

    Who is in charge here?

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 1:12 am

  9. Gabrielle wrote:

    Well, I’m pissed off, W is in a bind. This is sooo painful, but the Army’s policy is to not fraternize with the natives. Even the wedding pictures were floating around Baghdad. I guess this really pissed off al Sadr. Now we know who is really running things over there. What should we do. I say it is time for one of our fabulous snipers to go to work, as they should have 2 years ago, but W pulled the plug on that one too.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 2:40 am

  10. John the Marine wrote:

    Gabrielle, You’ve hit the nail on the head. Where are our collective “balls”? I’m sick of the U.S.’s inability to get tough with creeps like sadr.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 9:42 am

  11. commissar wrote:

    JimK,

    Per IBC, his name is Ahmed Qusai al-Taei. The DoD reported a soldier missing here.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 10:21 am

  12. canuckistani wrote:

    In large actions it’s not always possible

    That’s all I’m saying, although it’s equally true of small actions; anywhere where a retreat is necessary, there’s a chance of leaving people behind. And I’m sure the army does its best, and tries extra hard when any prisoners will end up having their heads sawn off on the internet, but grown ups realize that in a war, bad **** can happen, and hard choices have to made by the commanders on the spot. How many more men have to die, and how badly can you afford to piss off the Shiite militias* to get back one man who is probably already dead, in Ramadi, or both?

    *not to mention the Iraqi government, but I think that’s probably a lesser consideration.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 10:50 am

  13. rbj wrote:

    Yes this story is bizarre:
    http://story.news.ask.com//article/20061102/D8L5046O0.html

    An Iraqi-American, reserve soldier, married to an Iraqi. Apparently there are discussions going on to get his release. And while we do have to accept Maliki as Iraqi PM, we should have taken out Sadr earlier, when we had the chance.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 11:04 am

  14. JimK wrote:

    Commisar: thanks for finding his name. i don’t know why, but it was important to me.

    I’m starting to think that someone knows more than is being fed to the press. It just doesn’t mesh that we’d leave someone. Something is going on.

    Or I hope so, at least, because the alternative is that the guy in charge of U.S. forces in Iraq just left a man behind.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 5:27 pm

  15. CDR Salamander wrote:

    Everyone would be well advised not to assume they have all the information they need to make a judgement at this point in time. That’s all.

    Posted 02 Nov 2006 at 5:41 pm

« Checkmate on the checkpoints
Hovind renders unto Caesar — big time »