Some of the most interesting experiences I have had during my travels to and from the war in Iraq involved the necessary fuel stops in other nations along the route that would take me to Kuwait, the jumping off point for military forces and equipment rotating into the Iraq Theater of Operations. Both political climate and public sentiment played crucial roles in determining the type of reception that American soldiers received upon landing, and I was struck by the differences among nations that were considered American "allies."
To illustrate, allow me to provide a few examples. In Rome, Italy, we were not allowed to leave the plane during our stop. We remained parked on the tarmac and airport personnel brought out portable stairs so that smokers could descend to the bottom for a cigarette break. I stepped outside just so that I could enjoy a breath of fresh air, having been trapped inside our plane for the past 15 hours. We were told by some airline workers that we were restricted to the plane because of the Italian public's opposition to the war, a notion I found somewhat strange considering the Italians had a respectable number of troops serving in Iraq and then-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was a staunch supporter of President Bush and the war.
Prestwick, Scotland offered a situation that was a little better, but not much. Upon our arrival in Prestwick, we were informed that we could in fact disembark from the airplane, but would be restricted to an outlying hanger area away from the main terminal. So we walked down the steps and across the aircraft parking ramp to a building far removed from the places normal air travelers frequent. To make up for the lack of food and beverage establishments that I and my soldiers would most certainly have patronized, airport officials set up a makeshift snack bar with crackers, cookies, sodas and coffee that we could purchase, with American dollars of course.
Shannon, Ireland provided by far the warmest reception I received outside the United States. Not only were we allowed off the plane and into the terminal, but our soldiers were free to go where they wanted, when they wanted. We ate at the restaurants, shopped in the duty free store, and even enjoyed a few spirits at the airport pub. The people were warm and friendly, and I almost felt like I was at home. The same was true for my stop in Gander, Newfoundland, where ordinary travelers would come up and greet us and wish upon us God's blessings. And my only two stops in the United States, at JFK in New York and in Bangor, Maine, were exactly what you would expect them to be: warm, loving, supportive layovers where complete strangers treated you like their closest family members.
So when the Washington Times ran a story last week about American troops returning from Iraq being barred entry to the airport terminal at Oakland International, I was a bit taken aback. According to the Times, an unnamed Marine reported that the airplane carrying the troops parked some 400 yards away from the terminal, without access to food or bathroom facilities. The Marine wrote in an email to a couple of Republican congressmen that "Every Marine and soldier felt the message loud and clear. ‘You are not welcome in Oakland!'"
I can understand restrictions in places like Rome and Prestwick. Geopolitics is a complicated affair, and relations among nations involve lots of give and take between countries trying to achieve foreign policy objectives while satisfying fickle publics. But if the allegations are true, how does this happen here at home?
The Times article stated that the 200-plus Marines and soldiers aboard North American Airlines Flight 1777 had been through the customs screening process at JFK and had been allowed into the terminal in New York. The Marine who made the allegations said the troops were told they could not enter the terminal in Oakland because they had not been cleared by the TSA. The Port of Oakland issued a response, quoted by the Times, saying "The airport received information that the passengers were not screened by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at their originating airport and that weapons were on-board the aircraft." The TSA then responded that since the troops had been through Customs, no TSA screening was required.
It sounds like it was all a big misunderstanding, but the question remains, how does this happen in the United States? So the airport received information that the passengers had not been screened by the TSA and that there were weapons on board. Did anyone bother to ask what type of passengers might have weapons aboard a commercial flight within the continental United States? Common sense should have dictated that this was probably not your run-of-the-mill charter and that someone at Oakland International should have asked a few more questions before directing the airplane into the airport's sterile area.
Part of the problem is that we are a military at war, but we are not a nation at war. A large segment of the American population has returned to pre-9/11 routines, seemingly unaffected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and by the very real threats posed to our nation by Islamic extremism. Security precautions have become inconveniences that make it much easier to push out-of-the-ordinary situations to a sterile area to be dealt with by someone else, rather than asking a few more questions that could result in our soldiers and Marines being treated like the heroes they are.
Our troops returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, and anywhere else that puts them in harm's way, deserve the very best that we can give them. Something as simple as security screening should never result in quarantine for American soldiers returning home after serving their country overseas. To prevent incidents like the one in Oakland from happening again, Americans must wake up out of their slumber and acknowledge that we are not fighting President Bush's war, or the Republicans' war, or the military's war, but America's war. The sooner we do that as a nation, the sooner we will be able to defeat our enemies and honor those who live their lives as servants of our country.


Comments: 21
I am reminded by your story of how the British Empire was made: The English were the administrators, the Irish fought the wars, and the the Scots made the money.
I totally opposed the war (still do) but feel that our armed forces need the back up of the citizens of the UK - and will continue to give them my support - even if I cannot support my Govt's stance on Iraq.
The reasons for dealing with US military en route probably had different motives in many cases. The "leaders" are unpopular and and they don't want the people to see US military. In the US, it forbidden to photograph the coffins of military "out of consideration for their kin."
I am familiar with the Scots regiments, but the military that made the Empire was mostly Irish. Then there are a lot of Scots- Irish. (Some Scots-Irish women are bitchy wives, in my personal experience. )
I understood that . I think the polticians, both the adminstration and the Congress and the complict media have played a part. But Iraq is not what most concerns and frightens serious people everywhere;rather, it is, the United States policy toward the world.
The good news, I believe, is that underneath this veneer of normalcy is a country which will respond well to the next attack. The problem is that the next attack will be as bad or worse than 9/11 partly because so many are in that "normalcy" frame of mind.
The central premise of your article makes no sense to me: a TSA/Customs/Port of Oakland snafu at the Oakland airport means Americans are slumbering thru the open-ended occupation of Iraq?
Iraq is the number one political issue of our times. Look at the polling numbers and news stories. Look at approval ratings for Bush and for Congress on Iraq. The continued occupation of Iraq will be the defining issue of the '08 elections, followed by healthcare and the economy.
More accurately, you might want to take the Bush regime to task for intentionally misleading (attempting to confuse) the public regarding Iraq from the get go... WMD, insuffecient troop levels, insurgency in its last throes, end of major combat operations, no civil war, withdrawal of troops already scheduled to be withdrawn, etc., etc., etc.
I dare say the American public is far from slumbering when it comes to Iraq. Like it or not, this is Bush's war. Millions of Americans now believe it was the wrong thing to do, and they want a change... and that goes all the way back to the reasons we went there in the first place. Facts are stubborn things, and you can't tell people to simply forget them and focus only on what you think is the issue.
In terms of traveling, if that's the worst thing that's happened to American troops at a U.S. airport, they should count their blessings. In this past year, I've been stuck on tarmacs for more than six hours at a time-- twice, stranded in cities for two or more days and delayed on virtually every flight I've taken (that would be many).
If anybody is sleeping in the face of reality these days, its the airlines.
The public, on the other hand, is quite aware of what's going on in Iraq. I'm wagering they'll demand a reckoning come November of next year.
And, all indications are that Democrats are starting to move away from the war as the defining issue for '08 and toward pressing domestic issues, with each of the top 3 Dem contenders even conceding that they would not guarantee all troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.
As for the Bush "regime," I don't see the point in rehasing the "Bush lied" routine. We are at opposite ends of the opinion spectrum on this one, and nothing will change that. Not even Tenet on 60 Minutes saying he was convinced Saddam had WMD and that he so advised the President.
The only thing the American public is paying attention to with regard to Iraq is the casualty count, which is historically low for any prolonged American war (yes, this is an American war, not just Bush's war). It's not just young Republicans who voted for Bush serving in Iraq, and it's not just young Republicans who support Bush who believe we should be there and that we should stay there.
The polls and the overall national dialog just don't support your assertions. As for the dems, they're coalescing around a point all mainstream candidates have been making for some time (and one that most Americans understand and agree with): a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq is not possible, but a phased disengagement will happen.
No matter how you slice it: it's most certainly not "Bush was right, stay the course."
As for Iraq as the dominant national issue:
CBS News Poll. Sept. 14-16, 2007. N=706 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?"
War in Iraq - 28%
Economy/Jobs - 16%
Health care - 8%
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 4-7, 2007. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Fieldwork by TNS.
"Thinking ahead to the November 2008 presidential election, what is the single most important issue in your choice for president?"
War in Iraq - 35%
Health care - 13%
Economy/Jobs - 11%
I know you'll gimme the Limbaugh spin on these numbers... no matter, they are what they are.
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
And I would argue that a large segment of the population is ignorant about the geopolitics involved in the Iraq war, strategic power plays by not only the United States and Iran, but by Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Turkey as well. Most Americans also don't understand that the casualty rate is a historic low. All they see on the news is the two or three convoys that were attacked out of the 3,000-plus convoys that were on the roads of Iraq on a particular day.
Democratic rhetoric has changed, with the possible exception of Bill Richardson, because the smart folks like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards know that while they tell the base they want out immediately, they know in reality that it would be catastrophic.
I don't have the Limbaugh spin, mainly because I work all day and don't listen to his program unless I happen to be in the car during a portion of his show. Certainly not enough to provide the Limbaugh spin.
Not sure how we got on this track, but bottom line remains the same. The vast majority of Americans are unaffected by the war and their knowledge is limited to what they see on TV. Keep watching as Iraq gets moved to the back burner the closer we get to the general election. Casualties are down, for both coalition forces and Iraqis, and there isn't nearly as much negative news to report. Doesn't make for top issue material.
I appreciate your opinions. But, the data does not support them.
Even the most casual American observer has an opionion (however ill-informed) regarding Iraq. There's very little "undecided" on the issue.
As for Iraq moving from the top of current issues to the "back burner" in the coming election year, I don't see how anyone could make such an argument. It remains a central theme in all the debates, leads news casts, and polls at the top of all major issues.
Wait till the next multi-billion dollar funding bill comes up for a vote. You're already seeing spending in Iraq being tied to domestic programs that have to do without... a la schip.
Far from going to the backburner, you will see the issue of the cost of maintaining an occupation of Iraq continue to heat up and dominate all types of political discourse, e.g. timeline for disengagement, the effect the occupation is having on domestic spending priorities (including healthcare), etc.
Unless you can show me some data to back up your assertion, I have to conclude its not much more than wishful thinking on your part.
Far from being wishful thinking, I believe that the grown-ups (read Clinton, not Kucinich) know that there is no "vast" majority that wants to leave Iraq in chaos, phased withrawal or immediate. That kind of rhetoric will not win the general election with a voting population that remains evenly split along party lines. Dems are worried about Clinton winning the nomination because of her lack of electability in a general election. Even Republicans and many independents opposed to the war will vote for the guy with the (R) after his name before voting for Clinton.
The Iraq issue will not be abandoned, but it will fade in prominence. The Politico ran a piece Tuesday by Martin Kady that says Dems, in response to the inability to get anything done on Iraq, are turning to an agenda built on health care, housing, tax reform and other domestic issues.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm not suggesting the funds won't be approved. What I'm saying is that far from putting Iraq on the back burner, the question of continued funding of an open-ended occupation will serve to broaden the discussion to include domestic issues being neglected and underfunded as a result, taxes, etc., etc.
To think Iraq won't be the central issue rather silly, to me. Virtually all current political topics are framed within the discussion of Iraq, domestic issues (healthcare, housing, tax reform), international policy, etc. Are all deeply influenced by our involvement in Iraq. It's the 800 pound gorilla in the room, and somethings gotta give at some point.
We'll find out soon enough just how far the Republican nominee will be willing to take a "stay the course" stance in Iraq. Not a winning strategy in my opinion. But, we'll see.
If the GOP can articulate strategic consequences associated with leaving Iraq, whether it's immediate or phased, without securing a buffer against Iranian expansion and without leaving a government that can defend itself, then the election is a toss-up. Everyone is focused on getting out, but no one is really talking about the very real and very likely consequences. No American president, Democrat or Republican, is going to abandon the Middle East to Iran, and no American president is going to pull out forces, even over a one to two-year timeframe, if they believe it will lead to genocide or possible expansion into a regional war. The notion that the UN or regional neighbors of Iraq will step in to help with stability is fantasy. Any intervention by other Middle East powers will be a power grab, much like the power struggle going on in Baghdad right now.
But, as you said, we'll find out soon enough. But don't just focus on the Republican nominee. Watch the rhetoric of the Dem nominee as well.
As for the general election, in a strange way, I think we're both saying the same thing: positions will move toward the center from both candidates. Stay the course is not a winning option nor is pull up stakes and leave tomorrow.
Everyone knows we cannot sustain a prolonged occupation in the form it now takes. We simply do not have a limitless supply of money and military resources. The question will be how to disengage in a responsible manner while maintaining some semblance of stability. Outside influences in Iraq (be they Saudi, Turkish or Iranian) will certainly determine the course of action we take... but not necessarily within the borders of Iraq or via military action.
In any event, I continue to maintain Iraq will be the centerpiece of the '08 election (how it effects us domestically, internationally, militarily and so on). The candidate that gets it right on this issue (read: not too far toward either extreme), in my opinion, will win the election.
I personally think it's slightly more difficult for the Republicans to move off the Bush position than it is for the Democrats to move to the middle (hence the rhetoric on both sides). As a nation of centrists, I think that's where the election will be won... for controll of Congress as well as the White House. I believe there is a high level of fatigue a vast majority of Americans have with the rigidness of the Bush/Cheney position, and it will play out in the elections.
I don't care for any of the candidates really. I think Gov. Bill Richardson is the the only serious candidate of either party who has not played rhetorical games on the issue of Iraq to "make nice," misinforming the people in general.
"Winning" in Iraq by "staying the course", "supporting the troops," and the phony "War on Terror" ( with the horrible illusion of Islam being "the enemy ," and the lies about Iran being "evil" and a "threat" to us or their neighbors - as if justifying preemptive military adventures ) are not seen through as distortions by the majority of ill-informed Americans .
The "surge " has made things worse, the opposite of what it has been portrayed as. But it is uniting main groups of Shia and Sunni against us being there instead of fighting each other.
At least Richardson has presented a clear, reasonable strategy for dealing with Iraq that will serve our best interest in the Middle East and the world. He hasn't resorted to the political games being played by the Administration and both parties. And the majority of the wiser people in government and the military I expect agree with him as to his foreign policy.