If you oppose the war because of the number of people that have died, I highly recommend that you read this essay.
On Oct. 29, 2006, on the night before he deployed to Iraq, Army 2LT Mark Daily sat down at his laptop in his Texas apartment and typed out the following essay on his MySpace Web page.
Why I Joined
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see.
First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here…
If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me). I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions.
Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions. When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment.
My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant.
Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral crusade. And maybe it is.
Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein.
One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere. I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined.
In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages. Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck" Mark Daily
Mark Daily arrived in Iraq on November 19. Through his frequent emails home, he continuously reassured his family that he did not regret his decision. On Jan 15, Daily was killed when a roadside bomb detonated beneath his vehicle in Mosul. Three of his comrades died with him.
Since his death, Mark Daily’s essay has been read by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) on the Senate floor. It has been posted on the websites of syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and Los Angeles radio talk show hosts Larry Elder and Hugh Hewitt. It has traveled overseas to places as far-flung as Bulgaria, where it is being translated for publication in the local newspapers.
2LT Mark Daily’s words have become a testament to one of the Army’s most treasured values — selfless service.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 52
Hand Salute!
May there be many more like him !
Thanks for the article, Army.
Thanks.
Thanks Dale, for directing me to this article.
How, exactly, does doc's comment "sully" 2nd Lt. Daily?
America truly is blessed to have so many brave and dedicated young men and women. By all accounts, they have performed admirably, winning virtually every battle and doing so with skill and precision.
And yet the situation on the ground in Iraq continues to deteriorate. Why is this?
It is because the situation in Iraq is not one that can possibly be solved by means of American military intervention alone.
How many Generals, intelligence analysts, diplomats, and military experts have to come forward with this prognosis before the Rightists in America figure this out?
Our goal needs to be training and preparing the Iraqi security forces to handle their own business. Our Generals have tried to convey this. But President Bush, instead of changing his policy in accordance with the advice of his Generals, changes his Generals to fit his policy.
The troops only follow orders. The Commander-in-Chief is the catalyst of those orders. If one recognizes that the Commander-in-Chief's motives and tactics are insidious and/or dangerous, this is no way "sullies" those loyal American soldiers who are only doing what they are ordered to do from those above them in the chain of command -- which begins at the White House.
I, and many other people in America and abroad, can see that this president does not care about acting in the best interest of America, and the American people.
He cares about acting in the interest of the richest one percent of us, of the corporate elite, and of big oil especially. They are, after all, the one's who invested the most in the Bush presidency. Bush is dedicated to ensuring that they get a healthy return on their investments before he leaves office. The privatization of Iraq's oil infrastructure and massive oil reserves was the goal of the Bush administration since day one -- well before 9/11, in any case. With the new "profit-sharing agreements" in place, he has already accomplished the first big step. All that they need now is for Iraq to be secure enough for the development to begin.
Unfortunately, this all comes at the cost of the lives of many brave, loyal Americans, and hundreds of billions (it will be trillions after it's all said and done) of American taxpayers dollars.
Also not to mention the loss of American credibility and prestige that has resulted from the Administrations all-out blitz of disinformation in the attempt to sell the justifications for war with Iraq. And now, we see the endless rhetoric -- steeped in Orwellian doublespeak and doublethink -- that seeks to paint the events in Iraq as a battle between an al Qaeda/Iranian alliance and America, instead of the Iraqi Sunni-Shia civil war that it is; that seeks to paint dissenting Americans and Congressmen as traitors and terrorist sympathizers; that ultimately seeks to make dissent from the President's policies tantamount to treason.
By demanding that our elected leaders act in the interest of the American people -- as per a democracy -- and that they be held accountable for their decisions and actions, we are excercising the most American of rights that so many died that we may afforded them.
This does not "sully" our warriors. It honors them.
It's a shame that a fallen soldier's essay which is noble at heart but doesn't address the actual issue those who don't agree with the war in Iraq try to bring to the forefront, is being used for the political gain of the same people who are nothing more then over-glorified and over-paid propagandists and because the soldier has died in action, it can be used as a gag to silence anyone who still has questions or doubts.
Disgustingly enough, Cornyn and Malkin are crying crocodile tears and using a family's tragedy and a sacrifice of a human being for the advancement of their careers.
I'll be honest with you--reading this makes me anxious for America's return to a position of credible leadership in the world community, and an end to the squandering of precious blood and treasure in an ill-advised and increasingly cynical campaign in Iraq--and its expansion to Iran.
I am a strong advocate of the war and its continuation to a victory.This was a wonderfully inspiring story and I thank you for posting it!
i respect the author for his service but have to disagree that the war is necessary.
I passed the address to this article on to many on my email lists. And since I know better than to try to convince someone who's mind is already made up, about this war, right or wrong... I won't even acknowledge the above posts, trying to educate us ignorant savages.
He who opens his eyes can be educated. But he has to want to be educated properly, in the first place. Going into education of any kind, with a set mind, is kind of like leading a non-thirsty horse to water and offering it a drink. A waste of time and irritating to the horse, too.
As a Vietnam veteran I am offended by draft-dodgers starting wars for others to fight. That this young soldier believed in his mission is only to be expected -especially considering the noble-sounding but false rhetoric used to justify it- but to think of the betrayal of so many of our best and brightest by an administration that has thrown their lives away in the pursuit of power, hubris, and personal ambition is a tragedy too offensive to bear.
In the end there are no words to express such a loss. None but these.
"Golden lads and girls all must,
Like chimney-sweepers, come to dust." -Wm. Shakespeare
Doc and Steve - for LT Daily it was duty, honor, country whether you agree or not.
I hear that phrase a lot, but I've never actually heard a formal definition of victory. What does victory in Iraq entail? If victory is expelling al-Queda and creating a stable and peaceful government, this war could go on for well over 60 years without abatement. Israel is in the exact same position with Palestine and the rest of the Middle East. It has found out the hard way that hatred and extremism can't be snuffed out because they're being constantly ignited by someone with an agenda. This is why they've been at war since 1945.
So if a victory in Iraq is an absolute and total restructuring of the nation, its culture and the end to its millennial conflicts, that's fine. If it's just having a government that won't implode a picosecond after the US leaves, that's a definition too. I'd just like to hear what this victory every war advocate talks about entails.
I think one of the biggest failures of our politicians is that they have not given the American public a concrete definition of what we hope to accomplish in Iraq. Iraq is very complex issue, but politicians need to give the public something easily understandable describing what our objectives are there. Unfortunately, John Q Public is very simple minded and used to instant gratification. As Americans, we hate to "lose". So our politicians need to show us what they would consider a "win" and I think the public would rally behind it. Pulling out is "losing" but we prefer that over the unknown.
Total stability is not an option or a possibility (though you cannot compare Iraq's problems with Israel's issues at all!) I know we want the Iraqi to enjoy a democratic form of government, and we want the Iraqi military capable of defending that government. The current mission of the military is to make sure that the Iraqi military and police forces are fully capable of defending itself against terrorists.
I think 2Lt Daily well understood that action needed to take place and he was an active participant in ridding some evil from this world. It is our job to continue his work in whichever way we think best.
Then tell me:
Which war did FDR serve in?
Which war did Woodrow Wilson serve in?
Whose Presidential campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war."?
Just to make SURE you can't dodge and claim ignorance, I'm going to mail this to you.
I EAGERLY await your answers!
Woddow Wilson never served in uniform to my knowledge, but if you've ever read "The Zimmerman Telegram" you'd know why we went into WWI. Once knowledge of German plotting with Mexico to attack the American southwest was made known we had little choice but to support those powers that more closely held to our own in democratic principles.
FDR was an under secretary for the Navy in 1918 and actually did visit the trenches in France, though he had to pull some strings to do it. However, I don't believe you can blame him for our involvement in a war that was already engulfing the world. He simply knew that we could not stay neutral in such a situation. Only the isolationists thought that the seas would protect us indefinetly.
Let's go further. Truman was a captain in the trenches and, of course, we all know about Eisenhower's service as well as Kennedy's. Nixon, Ford and Carter all served in the navy, I believe, and only Reagan seemed to get his war movies and actual service mixed up. Bush I served honorably as a fighter pilot in the south pacific. (Just for the record, I have the same medals as he.)
Clinton avoided service but tried his best to avoid military confrontations while in office, probably to the detriment of the Yugoslav breakup. Gore, who spent time in Vietnam, was the hawk in that adminstration and had to nag Clinton into doing something to stop the slaughter.
Of course, we all know how bush junior magically jumped ahead of hundreds of other applicants for the Texas National Guard (also known as the Rich White Boys Club) and found safety in a phony uniform while working for republican campaigns and scaring the hell out of his flight instructors. After dropping out of the guard he went off to Harvard and bragged about how he got out of the war, much to the offense of his instructors and fellow students.
And then there's Cheney with his five deferments and his "other priorities" which is a euphemism for being too busy feathering his political nest to bother serving his country. Much the same can be said for Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, and all the other war loving, silk suits who thought that manipulating men and intelligence was their god-given right as superior beings.
Good enough for you Jay? Should such men be allowed to start wars for others to fight, to lie about the ways and the means, to destroy an entire country for personal reasons, to drain our human and material resource to a dangerous level, to destroy our reputation in the world and make us despised and untrusted by former allies, and then to waltz away unbloodied, and free of all stain for their crimes?
I eagerly await your answer.
This tragic story only illustrates how wrong this war is. The lies that led to the invasion and the censorship of what is going on now, only betray this good man's willingness to risk all for our nation.
Mark Daily's belief that our reason for being in Iraq is for the people of Iraq, does not justify our present unwillingness to finish this mess or get out.
If the military was allowed to do what needs done our troop would have been home by now. They were sent in with a plan designed to maximize the profits of Blackwater, Halliburton and the Carlisle Group (daddy bush's group). The Joint Chiefs of Staff were kept out of the planning for the war.
I volunteered once because it was the right thing to do and found that every man that died did so for nothing. The military was not allowed to win and the politicians and corporations got rich while boys died.
Our sons and daughters deserve better decisions from us before we send them to kill or die. How many lies will supporters of the war make excuses for, like "there is no civil war in Iraq" or "they have a working constitution" or "mission accomplished"?
The generals were begging for more troops from day one but it was surpressed. Take the gloves off and give them the 200,000 troops needed to salvage this mess or get them the hell out now!
But, tell me. How many times had Iraq openly and obviously attacked us? How many Iraqi bombs rained down on U.S. territory on a daily basis? And how good was bush's case against Saddam if he had to have the Feith office in the Pentagon manufacture the necessary evidence? If Iraq had to be attacked, by us, then why lie about it? Why not simply state the truth? Unless, of course, the truth didn't support your his aim?
This is what I mean by such "men." With no military experience to give them pause these manipulators could only think of their own ambitions and desires. Neither the lives of Americans in uniform, nor innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire, meant anything to them. This disastrous war was neither necessary nor even essential in the war on terrorism, as the recent build up by Al Quaida in Pakistan shows. Chasing bush's boogeymen in Iraq has cost us dearly because the men entrusted with the decisions were unfit for the role, and real soldiers who cautioned them against their rashness were fired or threatened into silence.
And now Afghanistan threatens to go the way of Iraq, due to the negligence of the great "decider."
Clearly, more good men like Lt. Daly will die for the sins of those who should have the best interests of our fighting men and women at heart, but instead, have only their egos and ambitions guiding them.
Just a pity that the leadership is so lacking in morals.
i read today that Bush appointed an inexperienced evangelical to run Iraqs medical services, he instigated a no smoking campaigh and banned abortions...this is in a warzone... money for emergency room and surgery was not forthcoming, currently, surgeons are operating without painkillers...with 300+ a day coming in in Bagdad...
this is criminal,
it is unfortunate that these noble sentiments have come to naught,
they cannot suceed when they are administered so badly, thats not mentioning the $12 billion thats dissapeared...some culture the USA exports...sure is a beacon of hope...such a missed opportunity...
Feith's office deliberately manufactured the evidence that bush and Cheney wanted to give them the war that they wanted. They exploited 9/11 for their own agenda's and used fear mongering to frighten the American people into acquiescence.
There were no WMD's in Iraq. There was no Al Quaida connection. There was no nuclear program, no missiles that could reach Britain in 45 minutes, no vast amounts of Anthrax or other biological agents to launch against the west. It was all crap, and your steaming pile of lawyer's obfuscation doesn't change any of that.
You are the worst kind of apologist, the aider and abettor of the worst of men who stand for nothing. And that's what this article is all about, the best of men tossed into the meat grinder of war by the worst of men, with the complicity of men like you, who stands for nothing, or anything, or whatever the worst of men desire.
"Greg F and Army Man, you continue with the same ridiculous assertion that we have not defined victory. Its been defined a thousand times from a thousand places. Victory is when an Iraqi democratic govt can govern itself and protect its citizens."
Ok, but the citizens of Iraq are killing each other. That's the main problem. So from who should the government protect the people of Iraq? The foreign nations that are just doing business with sectarian cutthroats? They're not at war with Iraq. In fact, Iraq is at war with itself. Actually, Iraq is already a democratic government because it's been chosen by an election, but the country has no infrastructure and its citizens are fighting and killing each other.
Maybe you want to add something about stability in there too?
Oh and what about the fact that a Shi'a government will want to ally with Iranian Shi'a clerics and politicians? What kind of victory is making an ally for a potential enemy? The 2003 definition of victory is simply no longer applicable because it was made by people who didn't know or understand the sectarian tensions in Iraq.
"Isreal does it. There are attrocities there, but overall, they support, govern and protect themselves."
Israel doesn't have sectarian violence. Israelis aren't killing each other. They're at war with another state, not themselves like Iraq.
"The same with the U.S."
We have sectarian violence in the US? Protestants are killing Catholics like they did in Ireland? I should watch the news more often if I miss sectarian bloodshed in the United States.
The "Office of Special Plans" was an "alternative" intelligence agency set up by neocons in the Bush administration, made up of like-minded ideologues, formed with the express intention of "producing" whatever intelligence was necessary to promote war with Iraq.
The goal was not to create a policy based on the intelligence, it was to create intelligence to support a pre-determined policy.
If the information coming out of the real, established intelligence agencies wasn't sufficient to support the rationale for war, they could turn to Douglas Feith and the "Office of Special Plans" to twist, fabricate, or cherry-pick their way to an already foregone conclusion; such as "Iraq poses a nuclear threat," or "Saddam has extensive ties to al Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups."
Here's some links: The Guardian -- "The Spies Who Pushed for War" .....Mother Jones -- "The Lie Factory" ......... The Raw Story
Bush's infamous "sixteen words" in his 2003 State of the Union address have been well-documented, but alot of people aren't aware that the same reference to African "yellowcake" uranium had been stricken from one of Bush's speeches just a week prior. He and all of his senior officials were already aware of the dubious nature of the claim, and that the documents purporting to support the claim had been forged. Yet the president still saw fit to mention it in his address to the nation.
Likewise for the aluminum tubes that were purported to be for use in a uranium-enrichment centrifuge. The CIA had mentioned in it's report to the President and senior Administration officials that the tubes were not the proper width, length, or thickness necessary to be used in a centrifuge. Also, they featured a special wax-like coating, which made them unsuitable for use in a centrifuge. It's important to note that these tubes were ordered to specification; the special coating, for instance, was specifically requested -- it would have been cheaper to order them without the coating. The CIA reported that these aluminum tubes, being unsuitable for use in a centrifuge, were most likely intended to be used to make conventional rockets (which in and of themselves are completely legal).
Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld -- all having read the CIA assessment -- all proceeded to use the discovery of these aluminum tubes as evidence of Saddam's nuclear ambitions.
Some more of my favorite Bush lies include: Saying that he would promptly fire anyone in his administration who was involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity and CIA status to the Press; Telling us that Donald Rumsfeld would remain on as Defense Secretary until the end of his term -- even as he was actively seeking his replacement; Telling us that there was no warrantless wiretapping taking place -- that all wiretapping is done with the approval and oversight of the FISA court -- only to later admit that he personally had authorized and re-authorized several times the secret, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens without the knowledge, approval, or insight of Congress, the public, or the FISA court (a development which the Supreme Court later would find unconstitutional); telling us that Congress had been provided the "very same intelligence information" as the Administration prior to the Iraq war authorization vote in 2002; and of course, my personal favorite, "Americans can know that we did everything we possibly could to avoid going to war with Iraq."
Rich K., are you desperate enough to resort to insulting my intelligence when you can't even string a coherent, non-paradoxical argument together?
"It should protect itself from whoever is opposing the Iraqi/US forces. It doesnt matter if they are Iraqi, IRanian, or any other background."
But most of the country hates the US forces and the Iraqi forces are fighting among each other. So they're going to protect themselves and the US forces while they're fighting each other and the US?
Your move... genius.
"Here, in the US, the govt should protect us from those same dangers - whether it is Americans or foreigners."
Yes, but in America we're not killing each other in a mass campaign to ethnic cleanse the nation. There are some anti-government/Christian Identity extremists, but they are a small minority that rears its head once in a great while, not the preeminent power seeking revenge for 70 years of oppression and brutality.
The closest thing to that in America would be if the Native Americans took up arms and started a nation-wide war against anyone of Caucasian or African descent for "invading and ravaging their land." Since that's not happening and not going to happen in the foreseeable future, your argument has nothing to do with reality.
"Violence must be stopped whether it is sectarian or otherwise is your IQ really that low?"
So you talk about how stupid everybody is and yet you're unable to come up with a statement that has any ground in reality. The general rule I go by is that the more someone accuses me of being stupid, the less they know about a situation but the more they feel like they have to say something, no matter what. It's generally true for the vast majority of cases.
Humans have been trying to stop violence for something like 6,000 years. So far, they haven't succeeded because for every person who wants to stop violence, there are two who want to start it up again.
I wasn't asking you whether violence needs to be stopped or not. That's was an argument you made up for ease of refutation. I was asking how you're going to stop it and when will you consider it manageable enough. I still have no answer. Just a string of insults and ancient talking points.