Soldiers in Revolt: 125 active-duty troops call to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq
Earlier this week, 65 military service members and National Guardsmen sent appeals for redress to members of Congress to urge an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. That total is now up to 346 service men and women, 125 of whom are on active duty.

Liam Madden, a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps stationed at Quantico, continued, "The real grievances are, if democracy is our goal than I believe we are going about it all wrong. The occupation is perpetuating more violence and I think is the biggest destabilizing thing we can do to the Middle East."

One service member, who spoke on the condition of anonymity of her recent year in Iraq, said that she "was hit by IEDs, by mortars... I was hit by snipers in my convoy and I’ve seen friends injured and affected by deaths in my brigade and my unit. I can tell you that many of them are not quite sure what their purpose or focus is now.

"A lot of people don’t want to admit it," she insisted, "but we are stuck in a civil war and it’s hard for the soldiers seeing the ethnic fighting going on around them and feeling like they’re stuck in the cross fire and not really feeling like there’s anything they can do to stop it.

"And it’s very frustrating to go out in convoys and get hit and not really sure why it is and not seeing any tangible results for their actions," she added. "I think it’s very important that Congress members and people understand that we do have a voice, and pay attention to our surroundings and what’s going on--and listen to what we have to say."

As a former serviceman I think this is a cheap way for ant-war establishments to get their point across. I've done many missions with no clear objective and never asked for one. It simply isn't a serviceman's job to know and the disciplined do not to ask.

I know this may sound simple and even evil, but that's what our servicemen are trained to do. If you want to change their course, go after the guys who sent them, don't ask them to turn against their superiors.

I fully hope they get sent home and I fully disagree with this war, but I find Oblermann's sucking up to this kid circumspect and the anti-war groups support of this very cheap in nature.

Enzo, I hear what you're saying. But something is badly broken. Bush lied to the American people and lost their trust. Rumsfeld is incompetent and Bush won't fire him -- it'd be an admission of failure. This is a stubborn inept administration led by chickenhawks.

These guys are going through established procedures.. it's not like they're going AWOL. The system is broken and it's important that everyone speak up and not accept the lies like "stay the course". I'm sure this guy expects his career to be destroyed- at least. Kudos to him for speaking up.

Enzoblue, I have to disagree. I am a former Marine-- I was in during Gulf War I, stationed in Quantico, where this Sergeant is now. The five part order includes an objective. As a Lieutenant, I was required to give an objective, and if the order was well-formed, that objective was clear. Going into a mission without a clear objective is tantamount to suicide. That was the first thing I learned when I learned to give orders at TBS. Having servicemen follow unclear objectives isn't discipline and it isn't patriotism: it is poor leadership.

Granted, I participated in my share of mickey mouse maneuvers where the objective was not clear, but normally that was because the C.O. had not done his homework (sometimes that C.O. was me!), or there was a lack of information. That is understandable. But an order cannot lack a clear objective because of political expedience. This is what these servicemen are objecting to.

Enzo.. it's that way of thinking that makes this world a bad place. "why should I care, I didn't issue the orders".
If you have no objective, and you don't care, I would think you should be worried, because obviously your superiors wouldn't know what they were doing.
Secondly, as a soldier in your nation's army, your primary goal is to defend the interests and lifes of the citizens of said nation. Not the interests of the politics. I know americans have no experience about this, but that's exactly the reason why almost all dictatorships that fell were brought down by soldiers from within the country.
Do you honestly think that blindingly following orders like a sheep, questioning nothing, and not caring if the conflict you're envolved with is not only not fair, but in Iraq case, even not legal, is the best course of action?
You know, at the eyes of the law, the person who fired the weapon to kill someone is as guilty (if not, more) than the person who ordered the kill. think about that.
The problem with this world is apathy and lack of sympathy for other human beings.

I am going to have to jump into this conversation. I would like to thank Turkey for the fact that we cannot allow northern Iraq be its own Kurdish state because Turkey would invade if they were allowed to have their own democratic sovereign country. Also though I have to make a point no one really talks about. To pack up and leave like Vietnam would be devastating to the Unites States ability to ever fight a hostile regime withine the next twenty years. Yes, and Saddam Hussein kept peace and order by killing anyone that thought about opposing him. He killed people by the thousands so were so evil for removing him from power. Huh? Lack of sympathy for human beings, yeah thanks Russia and France for not helping, why because they liked Saddam Hussein in power because they got nice contracts worth millions with his country even under sanctions. Also thanks to Syria for not enforcing those sanctions by building an illegal pipeline for oil out of Iraq. Yeah the world has a real lack of sympathy for other human beings, not the United States. And don't think we are leaving anytime soon and it won't happen with a Democrat as president either.

As far as the article itself has no real merit. He's a nice posterboy making news for the station. My brother has been over there and so has one of my best friends among others. They have no respect for servicement like this guy.

While Saddam was a tyrant, it still gives no excuse for countries to invade nations under the pretense of keeping the peace. The same thing happened with the Soviet Union and Hungary, the USSR said that it was invading to stabilize a destabilized country. The same thing happened with Nicaragua and the US. It's a slippery slope if you argue that point Zeth_Rb, I mean how long is it before nations like India invades Paskitan or Kashmir? Syria is a Baathist state so you can't really blame them for support it's ally Iraq.

It's a very controversially topic.

Aside from having their wills broken in basic training, it's quite easy for soldiers to rationalize reasons for being in pointless combat -- I did it for my country, for my fellow soldiers, for freedom, etc. I imagine after doing/seeing things most of us don't even want to imagine, rationalizing would be a whole lot more appealing than facing the truth.

I do take umbrage with the assumption that I'm against this war because I'm some kind of hippie peacenik or something -- the fact is, I've disagreed *strategically* with this war as well as morally. Anyone with a very basic understanding of recent Middle Eastern history (like me) knew exactly what was going to happen in Afghanistan and Iraq: the same thing that happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 80's.

One hopes that after Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq - America may finally learn not to engage in silly wars of choice.

I like that you bring up the historical aspect, something that am shocked to see many top officials didn't even seem to consider. I feel sorry for the armed forces, they are just being taken through the mud once more like Vietnam, but they I guess it's their prerogative to follow the plans of the politicians and not stand against certain strategically flawed decisions.

I mean before invading Iraq they blanket though that everyone would be happy, in reality Saddam's dominion over the Iraq people has indeed created a lopsided distribution of power between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. His secular tyrannically power kept them all under control.

The great plan to limit the forces that went into Iraq, and then spread them thin all over the country. The dismantlement of the Iraqi government and it's police forces. The failure to have a systematic plan after the capture of Baghdad. Reading Bob Woodward you can just see how the officials in this Ivory Tower of Power simply and sit and dictate actions thousands of miles away in a situation they are not even confronting.

Enzo, please consider your statement from the perspective of a Nazi soldier who's assignment was to round up poor Hungarian civilians to send them to their deaths, or as a Japanese pilot who was ordered to fly to Pearl Harbor to attack .....just imagine if these troops could have had the fortitude to recognize the wrongfullness of these actions and somehow made a positive difference for the sake of humanity.

Zeth, you seem to be forgetting - or leaving out - the crucial facts that it was the good ole US of A that was supplying and supporting Saddam the most. Don't you remember when Reagan sent Rumsfeld over to Iraq loaded down with gifts, munitions and American-made weapons for our buddy Saddam? Where do you think he got the gasses that were used against the Kurds?

C'mon you guys, who better to stand up for what's right and speak out AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE against this illegal and inhumane invasion and occupation than the very people who have arguably the most at stake?

Yeah I do remember and you could say this is the price were paying for supplying Saddam in the first place. What we thought would be an easy war has turned into a nightmare. However, still remember he used the weapons on his own people not us. Russia was supplying Saddam with certain weapons and equipment before we invaded. Remember no one opposed us invading Iraq for purely objective reasons, many countries had a stake in Iraq. Saddam was a study of both Hitler and Stalin, and maintained power very well like Stalin.

India invade Pakistan??? They would try. Try being the key word and would never be successful. You know it would ruin both countries, and if they didn't use their nuclear capabilities in M.A.D. The USSR had control of Hungary before the 56 revolution and immediately after. Syria being a Baathist Party, so what, Saddam was the party, it was just a propaganda machine, he used it to make himself sound more like a legitimate leader on TV in Iraq. You make it sound likes its a legitimate party in Iraq. Ask Lebanon how they feel about Syria and its Baath party.

I do agree with theo though, you have to appreciate the history of this region since Iraq is an artificial country built on map. However, I already stated we cannot allow the developemnt of three seperate states there. The Kurds can't have an indepedent state because Turkey would invade. Forming seperate Sunni and Shiite states would be difficult because of outside forces trying to put their influence into those regions as well.

Theo, Korea a silly war of choice? Ask South Koreans how they feel about the U.S. involvement there. History is a funny subject. Those in Korea who oppose the US forces there come mainly from the younger generations. Compared to the older generations that are more supportive but becoming fewer and fewer who remember the war that took place and how the two countries have diverged.

And I'm sick of talking about this give me some more feedback.

*dead (sorry)

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by Gold Star member eric3579)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.