Interview with Lieutenant Rusty Rhoads - Army Reserve - Part One
"I am a First Lieutenant (1LT), U.S. Army Reserve. I was in Baghdad, Iraq at Camp Liberty (formerly Camp Victory North) from March 2004 to March 2005 with the 411th Engineer Combat Battalion (Heavy) under the 1st Cavalry Division. The 411th is a Reserve unit from Hawaii that was placed under the 1st CAV for our deployment. I was the Headquarters and Support Company (HSC) Executive Officer (meaning I was second in command for HSC). My job was to lead, manage and oversee missions that were assigned to my company. These missions included construction, security escort for contractors and combat engineer support to maneuver units (i.e. infantry and armor) during combat operations. I am a traditional reservist meaning that I do my one weekend a month and two weeks a year until called up."
Inside Iraq - Since you've been stateside, how does the coverage by the mainstream media of Iraq compare to what you have observed while you were there? Are they doing a good job in your estimation?
Lt. Rhoads - I had the advantage of viewing American mainstream media while I was there. I had a satellite dish and TV connected in my room in Baghdad. I was able to pick up CNN International, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC and Fox News. What I saw then was that the events that were reported were for the most part accurate as far as I could tell. However, there were many events that were not reported. There were also many reporters who reported "just the facts" but you could tell from the tone of their voices and body language that they were anything but impartial and objective. I would have to say CNN's reporters and anchors were the worst in this respect. Most of what I saw reported focused on the negative (i.e. American service members being killed, Iraqi citizens being killed, etc.). The bottom line is they reported the facts, but not all of the facts. There was very little reporting on the good things that were happening.
I was with a construction unit and some of what we did involved cleaning up Baghdad and improving the quality of life for the people there. None of this was ever reported, even though the biggest project of this type that we did was visible from the Sheraton Hotel where most of the reporters hole up in and never come out. Most of the newscasts where you actually see the reporter in the frame are taped from the roof of this hotel with the city as a backdrop. This project was the construction of a park on the east bank of the Tigris River (right next to the Sheraton) near the outskirts of Sadr City. When we were assigned the mission, I thought it was insane. I asked myself "Why would we build a park, when the people need water, sewer and electricity?" However, the completion of that park coincided with a dramatic drop in acts of violence in Sadr City. Our commanding general credited this drop in violence in part to that park among other efforts by Army Engineers. Go figure. He expressed his anger and outrage to us at the fact that he could not get a single major media outlet to report on the dramatic drop in violence in that part of the city and all of the efforts of the American military that lead to it. One day it was in the headlines with attacks and violence and being touted by the media as one of the so-called "no go zones" then the next it fell completely off the radar screen. Now a few months later the average American probably couldn't tell you where Sadr City is.
The park we built was not the first effort on our part to bring peace to Sadr City. The unit we replaced in the spring of 2004 built a lot of schools in that area. These efforts were unsuccessful because as soon as the school was built and turned over to the people, looters would come in and steal everything of value including furniture, windows and air conditioning units. In hindsight, I think the park was an effort on our part to offer something tangible that could not be stolen from the people. Efforts to build schools and infrastructure are still ongoing, however, most of the work is being done through USAid by local contractors.
Another effort that we did was on a humanitarian level with our Operation Caring Hands. Many units have similar programs with different names. Operation Caring hands was a grass roots effort by our soldiers and NCOs to help improve the quality of life for the poorest of Baghdad's residents. Many of us had friends and family mail us clothing and school supplies so that we could take them to the area schools and orphanages to distribute. The story I wrote about Abbas generated a tremendous response from people asking me if there was anything they could do. I always told them about Operation Caring Hands and told them to send stuff and boy did I get a lot of stuff from these people! My battalion would generally distribute about a 20' container load of goods to schools each month. The parents, teachers and children really appreciated it. Considering that a good wage in Iraq for a blue collar worker is about $5 a day and for a college educated professional about $10 a day, the stuff we gave them really meant something. Oddly enough, to my knowledge the media has never picked up on any of this and reported it.
One of the things that really irritated me about the media while I was there were all the "talking heads" and so-called "experts" who will say anything no matter how stupid, untrue or damaging it is. All they seem to care about is that somebody is willing to put a microphone in front of their face and give them camera time to spout their nonsense. Most of these people had no idea what they were talking about. One good example that is top of mind is Chris Matthews of the MSNBC show "Hardball." He tries to portray his show as a news show, but he will not allow anyone to present facts if they don't coincide with his opinion. I used to scream at him through the TV screen out of sheer frustration at the uniformed things he would say. Another one is Aaron Brown on CNN. His smug comments filled with innuendo combined with his obvious ignorance is extremely infuriating. There were many others, but these two stood out the most in my mind.
I have been home for almost three months and to be honest, I have not paid much attention to the news coming out of Iraq because I know it is only half the truth. I learned everything I needed to know while I was there. I know that someday it will be over and as long as America does not lose its resolve, we will be better off and the Iraqi people will have a country they can be proud of. In the mean time, I don't need the daily play-by-play.
One thing that really amazed me is that I spent 12 months on the ground in Baghdad and was involved in many events that were on the news, but yet I did not see one single reporter during that entire time.
Inside Iraq - According to some recent polls published, the majority of Iraqis want the US troops out. Does this mesh with your experience there?
Lt. Rhoads - The media answer to this question is a simple "Yes." My answer is with a question; "How would you feel if foreign troops were on American soil en masse?" Of course the Iraqi people want us out, but the follow on question that is never asked in these polls is; "When and under what conditions?" My experience, and I asked as many Iraqi citizens as I could when I was there, is that the Iraqi people want us to leave AFTER peace is restored and they have the tools in place to secure themselves. The people who benefited under Saddam's regime never wanted us to come in the first place. Everyone else, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd are really glad that we came. Now they want their country, but not at any cost. They want to see it done right. Most of the Iraqis I interacted with were very grateful that we ousted Saddam. Just like us, they weren't expecting what happened afterward and I don't think they blame us for it. They recognize that they need our help to get the problems under control before we leave. Part of the problem is that there is not a strong sense of nationalism in Iraq. In the United States, most people consider themselves to be Americans first and foremost before they identify with other groups be it ethnic or regional. In Iraq, the people identify most strongly with their tribal and ethnic roots before they identify themselves as being Iraqi. I think over time this will change as the Iraqis build a country they can be proud of.
Inside Iraq - When we see news stories, the enemy is described as "insurgents" or "terrorists". Can you fill us in on who the enemy actually is and why they are fighting?
Lt. Rhoads - I'm really not qualified to answer this question because I was not in a position where I was dealing with captured enemy. I had no interaction with them. We built detention facilities for them, but that was about it. I was also not involved in intelligence gathering. With that said, all I can offer is my opinion based on what I learned through intelligence that I had access to and general knowledge that I have learned along the way. I know there are other people out there much more qualified than I am to answer this question.
I don't like the term "insurgents." I get irritated every time I hear this term applied to Iraq. An insurgency implies that there is a movement that has the popular support of the people. What is happening in Iraq definitely does not fit this definition because most sources will tell you that less than 5% of the population actively supports their cause. If I recall correctly, it's more like 3%. My experience confirms this. Some of them are terrorists in the traditional sense that they want to oppress through sheer violence, and some of them I would say are part of an insurrection; an organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another. Many of the Iraqi's who have a colorful grasp of English refer to them as "F***ing Terrorists!" I think I like that term the best because it comes from the people most affected by them. The enemy is such a small percentage of the population that I don't know how else to define them.
I see three distinct groups who are fighting us in Iraq and could be defined as the enemy. There is a fourth group who try to harm American soldiers and usually get themselves killed in the process largely because of cultural misunderstanding.
The first and easiest to deal with are the Shiite extremists. I don't really see them as our enemy, they are just prone to STRONGLY disagree with American interests and many of the fanatics aren't afraid to take up arms to express their difference of opinion. They rose up in the spring and summer of 2004 under Mahdi's (sp?) Militia and we fought them mostly in An Najaf and Sadr City. Their beef with us was basically that they were not confident that the Shiites would have a real say in the formation of the new government. These fanatics are few in number, but they have the ability to get large groups of people stirred up and bought into their cause. I haven't heard much about them since the elections. Most of my dealings with the populace were with Sunnis, so I don't know a lot about how the Shiites feel. We do need to work with these people to achieve our goal of a stable and free government in Iraq.
The second group is the former Baathists. These people fight us because they used to have power under Saddam and they want it back. I have heard that there are strong indications that Saddam actually planned the "insurgency" by planting cells around the country with instructions about what to do when we took control of the country. These people also know that they are in for a world of hurt when peace finally does come because the Iraqi people will hold them accountable for their actions. These people might try to hide behind religion as their reason to fight and they no doubt fill their "grunts" heads with religious fervor, but in reality they are a secular group. Religion is simply a convenient vehicle for them to achieve their desired results.
The third group, and I think the most difficult to deal with, are the Islamic extremists who hide behind the cloak of religion for their actions. These are the biggest enemy in the "Global War on Terror." They have used Iraq as a target of opportunity to kill Americans. As callous as it may sound, I say better there than here. American troops are trained to deal with people like them, the American public is not. This group is what most people think of when they hear the word terrorist and this is where Al Qaida fits in. In reality, they want the same as the other two groups, which is political power. The religion they hide behind is a farce as far as I am concerned and these people are no more than thugs and gangsters. They are no more Muslim than I am (which I'm not). When was the last time you heard of the leaders of one of these groups intentionally becoming a martyr? I never have. If they believe so much in their so-called religious beliefs, why are they not willing to die for them as easily as they send others to die? Comparing the average Muslim to these extremists would be like comparing the average American Catholic to a member of the IRA or worse. I think most of the influence from this group comes from outside of Iraq, although, they convince a small percentage of Iraqi's to follow their cause.
The fourth group is not really a group; rather they are individuals who are victims of circumstance and cultural misunderstanding. One of the horrors of war is that, in spite of our best efforts, innocent people are killed. Iraq is an honor culture. Part of what that means is that if you wrong me, I must exact revenge for what you did. There have been cases where through misunderstanding, collateral damage or pure stupidity on the part of the general public that innocent people have been killed by American troops. Sometimes, when this happens one of the family members (usually a husband or brother) of the person(s) killed in these incidents will decide they are going to get revenge. This usually involves loading a car with explosives and making a suicide run on American troops or going out on the highway with their AK-47 to take pot shots at passing convoys. In their belief, if they die while getting revenge they will go to heaven. I think this belief is rooted in Islam, but has evolved away from it through tribal custom. It's unfortunate that it happens, but I do believe it is getting better as civil government is re-established and the public gains an understanding of how the American military works. Most of the traveling public keeps a respectable distance from American convoys simply because they don't want to be shot. It's difficult as an American soldier because you don't want to harm innocent people, but sometimes it's difficult to discern the bad guys from the idiots. Here's an example of how such a misunderstanding can happen: I was involved in a situation where a man in a car tried to run a road block that we had set up for a construction project. It was in the middle of the night in downtown Baghdad and there was a curfew in place. The man was not supposed to be there in his car. Most of the curfew breakers (there weren't many) would stop when they saw us, slowly turn around and head the other way. This guy did not. The soldier pulling security where the car was approaching did exactly what he was supposed to do. I won't go into detail about what the soldier did because part of the protection of American troops involves keeping our rules of engagement a secret. You'll just have to believe me when I say that the soldier did the right thing. Unfortunately, the man did not understand the warnings he was given and ultimately ended up getting shot in the head. Luckily his injuries were not fatal and we were able to provide first aid and get him to the hospital. As far as we could tell after the incident, the man did not have any ill intentions toward us. He didn't have any weapons or explosives in his car and he wasn't a known bad guy. Why he made a run at us is anyone's guess. Personally, I think he was drunk and got confused or maybe he decided he wanted to commit suicide via American soldier. The soldier who did the shooting was understandably upset and very shaken. He didn't want to shoot anyone, but he did his job to protect the rest of us from harm.
View the full interview, info and prep HERE.
Contact Rusty at rusty.rhoads@us.army.mil
Inside Iraq - Since you've been stateside, how does the coverage by the mainstream media of Iraq compare to what you have observed while you were there? Are they doing a good job in your estimation?
Lt. Rhoads - I had the advantage of viewing American mainstream media while I was there. I had a satellite dish and TV connected in my room in Baghdad. I was able to pick up CNN International, NBC News, ABC News, CBS News, MSNBC and Fox News. What I saw then was that the events that were reported were for the most part accurate as far as I could tell. However, there were many events that were not reported. There were also many reporters who reported "just the facts" but you could tell from the tone of their voices and body language that they were anything but impartial and objective. I would have to say CNN's reporters and anchors were the worst in this respect. Most of what I saw reported focused on the negative (i.e. American service members being killed, Iraqi citizens being killed, etc.). The bottom line is they reported the facts, but not all of the facts. There was very little reporting on the good things that were happening.
I was with a construction unit and some of what we did involved cleaning up Baghdad and improving the quality of life for the people there. None of this was ever reported, even though the biggest project of this type that we did was visible from the Sheraton Hotel where most of the reporters hole up in and never come out. Most of the newscasts where you actually see the reporter in the frame are taped from the roof of this hotel with the city as a backdrop. This project was the construction of a park on the east bank of the Tigris River (right next to the Sheraton) near the outskirts of Sadr City. When we were assigned the mission, I thought it was insane. I asked myself "Why would we build a park, when the people need water, sewer and electricity?" However, the completion of that park coincided with a dramatic drop in acts of violence in Sadr City. Our commanding general credited this drop in violence in part to that park among other efforts by Army Engineers. Go figure. He expressed his anger and outrage to us at the fact that he could not get a single major media outlet to report on the dramatic drop in violence in that part of the city and all of the efforts of the American military that lead to it. One day it was in the headlines with attacks and violence and being touted by the media as one of the so-called "no go zones" then the next it fell completely off the radar screen. Now a few months later the average American probably couldn't tell you where Sadr City is.
The park we built was not the first effort on our part to bring peace to Sadr City. The unit we replaced in the spring of 2004 built a lot of schools in that area. These efforts were unsuccessful because as soon as the school was built and turned over to the people, looters would come in and steal everything of value including furniture, windows and air conditioning units. In hindsight, I think the park was an effort on our part to offer something tangible that could not be stolen from the people. Efforts to build schools and infrastructure are still ongoing, however, most of the work is being done through USAid by local contractors.
Another effort that we did was on a humanitarian level with our Operation Caring Hands. Many units have similar programs with different names. Operation Caring hands was a grass roots effort by our soldiers and NCOs to help improve the quality of life for the poorest of Baghdad's residents. Many of us had friends and family mail us clothing and school supplies so that we could take them to the area schools and orphanages to distribute. The story I wrote about Abbas generated a tremendous response from people asking me if there was anything they could do. I always told them about Operation Caring Hands and told them to send stuff and boy did I get a lot of stuff from these people! My battalion would generally distribute about a 20' container load of goods to schools each month. The parents, teachers and children really appreciated it. Considering that a good wage in Iraq for a blue collar worker is about $5 a day and for a college educated professional about $10 a day, the stuff we gave them really meant something. Oddly enough, to my knowledge the media has never picked up on any of this and reported it.
One of the things that really irritated me about the media while I was there were all the "talking heads" and so-called "experts" who will say anything no matter how stupid, untrue or damaging it is. All they seem to care about is that somebody is willing to put a microphone in front of their face and give them camera time to spout their nonsense. Most of these people had no idea what they were talking about. One good example that is top of mind is Chris Matthews of the MSNBC show "Hardball." He tries to portray his show as a news show, but he will not allow anyone to present facts if they don't coincide with his opinion. I used to scream at him through the TV screen out of sheer frustration at the uniformed things he would say. Another one is Aaron Brown on CNN. His smug comments filled with innuendo combined with his obvious ignorance is extremely infuriating. There were many others, but these two stood out the most in my mind.
I have been home for almost three months and to be honest, I have not paid much attention to the news coming out of Iraq because I know it is only half the truth. I learned everything I needed to know while I was there. I know that someday it will be over and as long as America does not lose its resolve, we will be better off and the Iraqi people will have a country they can be proud of. In the mean time, I don't need the daily play-by-play.
One thing that really amazed me is that I spent 12 months on the ground in Baghdad and was involved in many events that were on the news, but yet I did not see one single reporter during that entire time.
Inside Iraq - According to some recent polls published, the majority of Iraqis want the US troops out. Does this mesh with your experience there?
Lt. Rhoads - The media answer to this question is a simple "Yes." My answer is with a question; "How would you feel if foreign troops were on American soil en masse?" Of course the Iraqi people want us out, but the follow on question that is never asked in these polls is; "When and under what conditions?" My experience, and I asked as many Iraqi citizens as I could when I was there, is that the Iraqi people want us to leave AFTER peace is restored and they have the tools in place to secure themselves. The people who benefited under Saddam's regime never wanted us to come in the first place. Everyone else, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd are really glad that we came. Now they want their country, but not at any cost. They want to see it done right. Most of the Iraqis I interacted with were very grateful that we ousted Saddam. Just like us, they weren't expecting what happened afterward and I don't think they blame us for it. They recognize that they need our help to get the problems under control before we leave. Part of the problem is that there is not a strong sense of nationalism in Iraq. In the United States, most people consider themselves to be Americans first and foremost before they identify with other groups be it ethnic or regional. In Iraq, the people identify most strongly with their tribal and ethnic roots before they identify themselves as being Iraqi. I think over time this will change as the Iraqis build a country they can be proud of.
Inside Iraq - When we see news stories, the enemy is described as "insurgents" or "terrorists". Can you fill us in on who the enemy actually is and why they are fighting?
Lt. Rhoads - I'm really not qualified to answer this question because I was not in a position where I was dealing with captured enemy. I had no interaction with them. We built detention facilities for them, but that was about it. I was also not involved in intelligence gathering. With that said, all I can offer is my opinion based on what I learned through intelligence that I had access to and general knowledge that I have learned along the way. I know there are other people out there much more qualified than I am to answer this question.
I don't like the term "insurgents." I get irritated every time I hear this term applied to Iraq. An insurgency implies that there is a movement that has the popular support of the people. What is happening in Iraq definitely does not fit this definition because most sources will tell you that less than 5% of the population actively supports their cause. If I recall correctly, it's more like 3%. My experience confirms this. Some of them are terrorists in the traditional sense that they want to oppress through sheer violence, and some of them I would say are part of an insurrection; an organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another. Many of the Iraqi's who have a colorful grasp of English refer to them as "F***ing Terrorists!" I think I like that term the best because it comes from the people most affected by them. The enemy is such a small percentage of the population that I don't know how else to define them.
I see three distinct groups who are fighting us in Iraq and could be defined as the enemy. There is a fourth group who try to harm American soldiers and usually get themselves killed in the process largely because of cultural misunderstanding.
The first and easiest to deal with are the Shiite extremists. I don't really see them as our enemy, they are just prone to STRONGLY disagree with American interests and many of the fanatics aren't afraid to take up arms to express their difference of opinion. They rose up in the spring and summer of 2004 under Mahdi's (sp?) Militia and we fought them mostly in An Najaf and Sadr City. Their beef with us was basically that they were not confident that the Shiites would have a real say in the formation of the new government. These fanatics are few in number, but they have the ability to get large groups of people stirred up and bought into their cause. I haven't heard much about them since the elections. Most of my dealings with the populace were with Sunnis, so I don't know a lot about how the Shiites feel. We do need to work with these people to achieve our goal of a stable and free government in Iraq.
The second group is the former Baathists. These people fight us because they used to have power under Saddam and they want it back. I have heard that there are strong indications that Saddam actually planned the "insurgency" by planting cells around the country with instructions about what to do when we took control of the country. These people also know that they are in for a world of hurt when peace finally does come because the Iraqi people will hold them accountable for their actions. These people might try to hide behind religion as their reason to fight and they no doubt fill their "grunts" heads with religious fervor, but in reality they are a secular group. Religion is simply a convenient vehicle for them to achieve their desired results.
The third group, and I think the most difficult to deal with, are the Islamic extremists who hide behind the cloak of religion for their actions. These are the biggest enemy in the "Global War on Terror." They have used Iraq as a target of opportunity to kill Americans. As callous as it may sound, I say better there than here. American troops are trained to deal with people like them, the American public is not. This group is what most people think of when they hear the word terrorist and this is where Al Qaida fits in. In reality, they want the same as the other two groups, which is political power. The religion they hide behind is a farce as far as I am concerned and these people are no more than thugs and gangsters. They are no more Muslim than I am (which I'm not). When was the last time you heard of the leaders of one of these groups intentionally becoming a martyr? I never have. If they believe so much in their so-called religious beliefs, why are they not willing to die for them as easily as they send others to die? Comparing the average Muslim to these extremists would be like comparing the average American Catholic to a member of the IRA or worse. I think most of the influence from this group comes from outside of Iraq, although, they convince a small percentage of Iraqi's to follow their cause.
The fourth group is not really a group; rather they are individuals who are victims of circumstance and cultural misunderstanding. One of the horrors of war is that, in spite of our best efforts, innocent people are killed. Iraq is an honor culture. Part of what that means is that if you wrong me, I must exact revenge for what you did. There have been cases where through misunderstanding, collateral damage or pure stupidity on the part of the general public that innocent people have been killed by American troops. Sometimes, when this happens one of the family members (usually a husband or brother) of the person(s) killed in these incidents will decide they are going to get revenge. This usually involves loading a car with explosives and making a suicide run on American troops or going out on the highway with their AK-47 to take pot shots at passing convoys. In their belief, if they die while getting revenge they will go to heaven. I think this belief is rooted in Islam, but has evolved away from it through tribal custom. It's unfortunate that it happens, but I do believe it is getting better as civil government is re-established and the public gains an understanding of how the American military works. Most of the traveling public keeps a respectable distance from American convoys simply because they don't want to be shot. It's difficult as an American soldier because you don't want to harm innocent people, but sometimes it's difficult to discern the bad guys from the idiots. Here's an example of how such a misunderstanding can happen: I was involved in a situation where a man in a car tried to run a road block that we had set up for a construction project. It was in the middle of the night in downtown Baghdad and there was a curfew in place. The man was not supposed to be there in his car. Most of the curfew breakers (there weren't many) would stop when they saw us, slowly turn around and head the other way. This guy did not. The soldier pulling security where the car was approaching did exactly what he was supposed to do. I won't go into detail about what the soldier did because part of the protection of American troops involves keeping our rules of engagement a secret. You'll just have to believe me when I say that the soldier did the right thing. Unfortunately, the man did not understand the warnings he was given and ultimately ended up getting shot in the head. Luckily his injuries were not fatal and we were able to provide first aid and get him to the hospital. As far as we could tell after the incident, the man did not have any ill intentions toward us. He didn't have any weapons or explosives in his car and he wasn't a known bad guy. Why he made a run at us is anyone's guess. Personally, I think he was drunk and got confused or maybe he decided he wanted to commit suicide via American soldier. The soldier who did the shooting was understandably upset and very shaken. He didn't want to shoot anyone, but he did his job to protect the rest of us from harm.
View the full interview, info and prep HERE.
Contact Rusty at rusty.rhoads@us.army.mil
posted by Underdog @ Thursday, June 23, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home