StarTribune piece

Since there's been some technical difficulties for some people trying to access my recent publishing success, I'm posting them here in their entirety. Included are links to the original StarTribune pages.

StarTribune, March 18
Dave Thul: In Iraq as in football, defense is crucial

As the debate over the war in Iraq rages, it is easy for many to forget what a big stake Minnesota has in the war right now. As we close out the fourth year since the invasion, another milestone is here that hits very close to home.
March is the month that many of the almost 3,000 Minnesota National Guardsmen were scheduled to come home. But after 12 months in Iraq, and a year and a half since we left home, our deployment has been extended by up to another four months. This also puts us right in the middle of the debate of the day, the surge plan to secure Baghdad. As Congress consumes itself with nonbinding resolutions and appropriations bills with just the right mix of carrots and sticks, one of the most important opinions is being overlooked -- that of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines serving here in Iraq.
I won't pretend to speak for everyone in uniform over here, and in fact no one ever could. There are as many opinions in the military as there are in the civilian world. But I can tell you that a majority of U.S. troops want to stay in Iraq and finish the mission. How do I know this? Two ways.
The first is anecdotally, from the men and women I work with and talk to every day. I have yet to meet someone who thinks the long-term good of the United States and the Middle East would be served by an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Many of us are tired and frustrated and miss our families and just want to go home. But we want to go home after transferring our area of responsibility to another unit, whether it is U.S. or Iraqi. We don't want to abandon our posts.
The second way I know that my fellow soldiers want to stay is that they have been saying so in a petition to Congress. At the AppealForCourage.org website, more than 1,500 service members in less than a month have signed an appeal for redress, the officially authorized method for the military to ask Congress to right a wrong, asking Congress to stop calling for retreat and to support our mission.
Day after day we see and hear our elected leaders in Washington telling us that the war is already lost or that it is not winnable. Nothing could be further from the truth. The essence of the military mission here is really quite simple. Train the Iraqi army and police to do the job that we are currently doing, give them the reins, and then take our leave. It is a slow job, but steady progress is being made. Already entire provinces of Iraq are under Iraqi military control. In more than 70 percent of the country, the Iraqi army and police are in the lead.
My dad, a lifelong Vikings fan who raised me the same way, once shared a bit of wisdom about football that I find remarkably pertinent to the situation in Iraq today. He told me that offense sells tickets, but defense wins games.
When we were invading Iraq, the media gave us nonstop coverage of every city that was secured and every Republican Guard unit that was destroyed or that surrendered. Great headlines about the offensive were everywhere. But over the past few years, we have settled into the day-to-day job of building up the Iraqi military -- the slow defensive work of keeping the peace and wearing down the terrorists. Boring to the media, yet crucial to victory.
There can be no compromises in Iraq, no negotiated peace. The enemy here is radical Islam, whether in the sectarian violence in Baghdad that seeks to draw all of the Middle East into open war, or the terrorists of Al-Qaida here in the Anbar province who are looking for a new home base since we kicked them out of Afghanistan. If we pull out before the job is done, we will face not only the same chaos and genocide that we saw after pulling out of Vietnam, but we will leave Iraq in a power vacuum with greedy and ambitious neighbors on all sides.
I've now been deployed 2½ years of the 3½ years since my daughter was born. I would love nothing more than to be at home sharing in her young life and enjoying a Minnesota summer. But I want to come home with honor, knowing that I have helped to make the world she will live in a little safer.

Sgt. Dave Thul is a Chaska resident serving in Al Asad, Iraq.


StarTribune, March 23
'We can finish the mission and come home with honor'
A National Guardsman from Chaska is promoting a petition for soldiers who want to finish the job in Iraq.

Monday marked the fourth anniversary of the U.S. and Coalition forces' invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.
For 2½ of the four years since, David Thul, a 34-year-old Minnesota National Guard sergeant from Chaska, has been on active duty -- for a year in Kosovo and for the past year in Iraq.
Recently, Thul joined forces with a Navy lieutenant to send a letter to publications all over the United States, spreading the word that U.S. forces want to stay and finish the job in Iraq. They also have organized a petition drive to allow military personnel to make a formal "Appeal for Redress," the Department of Defense's sanctioned method for members of the military to communicate with Congress. In the petition they make this plea:
"As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack."
As of Monday, more than 1,700 men and women had signed onto the document online at appealforcourage.org.
The Star Tribune corresponded with Thul by e-mail about his efforts to influence opinion on the home front. Following are his answers to questions we posed:
Q What is it you hope to accomplish through your letter-writing campaign and petition drive?
A We have two goals. The first is to let the folks at home know that we are winning this war, and that most U.S. troops want to see the mission completed. The second is to raise awareness among currently serving military about the Appeal. The more signatures we can gather, the more likely it is that we can persuade Congress to fully support us.
Q You call the effort an "Appeal for Courage." Does it seem from the vantage point of military personnel in Iraq that the American public -- or American politicians -- are wilting under the pressure of the war?
A It takes courage for the soldiers in Iraq to face the enemy every day. But it also takes courage for the folks at home and our elected leaders to stand against the tide of defeatism. A small group of people at home opposed to the war are shouting loudly enough to drown out all other points of view. I think if Americans hear from the troops serving on the ground in Iraq every day, they will see that this war is not only worth fighting for, but crucial to the long-term interests of the U.S.
Q You mention the media in your petition. How does the media's coverage "embolden the enemy"?
A Iraqi citizens have no experience with differing opinions from the media. Anything they heard on radio or TV was in line with what Saddam wanted them to hear. So when they hear on American TV that we should leave Iraq now, it keeps them from cooperating with us to improve security. When they hear American newspapers talking about alleged war crimes by U.S. troops, they wonder if we can be trusted.
Q Why do you think the media would do that?
A I think the news media is a business like any other. They have to make money to survive, especially in a time of tough competition. No one is arguing for censorship, but the media has to consider the unintended consequences of what they are reporting.
Q You personally have given up 2½ years with your now 3½-year-old daughter to serve there. Why do you want to stay longer? Haven't you already contributed enough?
A I'd like nothing more than to be back in Minnesota right now, getting the boat ready for summer and grilling out in the back yard. But it is because of my children that I serve. Like any parent, I would give my life to keep my kids safe. So a few years of my life isn't really that much to ask. My generation needs to finish the mission in Iraq now, so that our children's generation doesn't have to.
Q What is it in your background that has motivated you to do what you do?
A I was actually looking forward to getting out of the National Guard and having more free time until 9/11. Many people have tried to forget about the attacks and move on with their lives. But I believe that if we forget our history then we will be doomed to repeat it. When I have a long day over here, or things are going bad, I remember the passengers on United 93. With no training and very little hope, they fought back and saved untold lives. I try to live up to the example they set.
Q Is there any message you'd like to send to the people back home, for them to ponder in the days ahead?
A I would urge everyone to set politics aside and look at the war in Iraq dispassionately. The consequences of failure in Iraq would be terrible now, and tragic 20 years from now. With patience and support from home, we can finish the mission and come home with honor.

And in case you missed it, the Appeal for Courage is approaching 1900 signatures.

Staff Sergeant

My recent promotion makes for a great example of the interesting situations that come up with deploying a National Guard unit. First some background.

I am currently a team leader in an infantry squad. Traditionally, a squad is led by an E-6 SSG and has two E-5 SGT's with a total of 8 or 9 soldiers. This can vary from unit to unit; some Recon and Scout platoons for example are set up for E-5 squad leaders with the squads having only 4 or 5 soldiers.

In the Army, as I assume it is in the other branches, you can't get promoted unless there is a position for you to get promoted to. So for a E-5 to get promoted to E-6, there has to be an open squad leader position. In the normal course of Army life, people are promoted, retire, leave the service, or move to different positions often enough that there are usually positions available for a soldier to get promoted to. But a combat deployment throws those normal conditions out the window.

First off, no one leaves the Army during a deployment, except for injury or death. And despite what the media might make out, that is still rare in Iraq compared to the number of soldiers deployed. When a unit deploys, all personnel are put on 'stop loss', an evil phrase to civilians but just a fact of life to the military. Stop loss simply means that, as provided for in the enlistment contract we all signed, you can't leave the Army in the middle of a deployment. If your enlistment is up halfway through a deployment, you will stay in the Army until your deployment is over. A simple concept, and a time honored one. Gen Washington struggled with having his army's enlistments end before the war was over.

So how does a guy get promoted then if there can be no openings? That is the secret of the Guard on deployment. When my unit left, not all the soldiers were deployed from it. This mission was voluntary for most of us. So there is now a deployed Charlie Company, 2/135 and a rear detachment Charlie Company, 2/135. Not all of the positions are duplicated, it is more like a company and a half. But this is where my promotion comes in. I accepted an E-6 squad leader position with the unit currently at home. I am still a team leader here in Iraq, and will continue to be until we get home. So in effect I have been promoted now, even though I will not be able to man my position until we get back from Iraq.

In the Army, this is known as having the best of both worlds. I am now paid as an E-6 and entitled to the privileges and respect of the rank, while still having the duties of an E-5 team leader. There is of course a higher level of responsibility and accountability that comes with the rank. As I explained to my family, I have to be more responsible, but I don't have more responsibilities. All in all, this is one of those few loopholes in Army regulations that you have to take advantage of when you can. In fact, it may soon be ending. The Pentagon's announcement that henceforth Guard units will be deployed as a whole unit instead of on an individual basis may end the loophole. But unlike a regular Army unit, the National Guard is always recruiting soldiers for specific units at home, even when that unit is deployed. So there is still hope.

In any case, at 15 years in the Army and now an E-6, I am still a bit behind the curve for promotions, so I wont complain about an early one.

Moving up in the world

Well, after several years of being impressed with myself for occasionally being eloquent enough for the StarTribune's letter's to the editor section, I may have reached the pinnacle of my writing talents. This Sunday's StarTrib features moi on the front page of the Op-Ed section. Above the fold even.
And while my head has now swelled large enough to need a larger size helmet, the real point of all this is to hopefully influence folks back home to keep supporting us a bit longer. Or at least bring out some intelligent debate. My fingers are crossed.

Progress

If you are looking for verifiable progress in Iraq, here you go.

On the main highway running through Al Anbar, the Iraqi Police are now seen daily.

When I got into country a year ago, this road was very dangerous, and the US military was the law. Now the Iraqi's are starting to police themselves. And you have to give them credit for courage. The military wont let any soldier outside the wire without full body armor and a fully armored vehicle. The IP's travel in commercial grade Chevy's and Ford's. Minimal body armor and little to none on the truck. They get paid less than us and face more risk than us. But they are standing up for their country, and for their own safety and freedom. Marine and Army units are constantly coming into Iraq to replace other units and take up the mission. But these guys are the last replacements. They are the ones we will eventually turn the country over to.

Folks back home love to complain that it is taking too long to train the Iraqis. That they must not be working hard enough. But you have to remember that these guys are facing multiple obstacles. The transition to a new government alone is huge. But they are also converting from a form of socialism under Saddam to democracy and capitalism. All this and trying to fight off AQ at the same time.

Contrast that to how long it takes to train a US soldier. Sure, you can pop out a soldier from basic training or boot camp in 4 or 5 months, depending on their specialty. But it takes another 3 or 4 years to train that soldier how to be a leader, such as a junior NCO. Tack on another 5 years for a senior NCO, or a junior officer. Most anyone can be trained to shoot, move, and communicate. But learning how to lead takes time, almost a decade in my case.

Speaking of which.....

Appeal For Courage

I have been invited on to the organizing committee for the Appeal For Courage. If you have not yet heard of it, the Appeal is the legal method available to service members to petition directly to Congress. Over the course of the war in Iraq the media and increasingly our politicians at home have gone from supporting the war effort to calling for our retreat from Iraq. Public statements calling the war 'lost' or 'unwinnable' are harmful to the morale of the troops serving in Iraq and have helped to steadily erode public support for the war.

The intent of this Appeal is to gather as many signatures from currently serving soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to be presented directly to members of the US Senate and House of Representatives.

This is not a partisan political issue! Calls for retreat from Iraq have come from both of the major political parties.

Nor is this an attempt to stifle debate. Freedom of speech is a cherished right in America. But with rights come responsibility. Just as you cannot yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater without endangering public safety, calls to retreat from Iraq and statements that hurt morale are irresponsible from elected officials.

I urge everyone to pass the word of this Appeal to all military members, whether active duty, National Guard or Reserve, deployed overseas or not.

CIB

Nearly 7 months after I qualified for it, the Army has finally seen fit to award me the Combat Infantryman's Badge. The CIB was started in WWII to recognize the sacrifice of infantry soldiers who generally saw the bulk of the front line fighting. Officially it is awarded for being 'personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an infantry duty'. In my case it was for getting blown up by an IED. The CIB and it's new younger cousin, the CAB, or Combat Action Badge, are the subject of endless debating among soldiers on the ground in Iraq and I imagine Afghanistan as well. The debate centers around what should qualify as hostile fire.

During WWII, Korea and Vietnam, the concept of hostile fire was very simple. The enemy either shot at you with a rifle, grenade, mortar, tank, or something similar. You were on one side of a line and your enemy was on the other, and he conveniently wore a uniform that identified him for you.

Here in Iraq the situation is quite a bit different since the end of major combat operations. Fighting against a terrorist/insurgent threat has caused the Army to adapt in many different ways, but when it comes to awards the Army is still struggling. Take my case for example. I and the other soldiers in my truck qualified for the CIB when our truck was hit by an IED last July. It was a remote controlled device, so someone waited until we were in just the right spot and then pushed the button. Strictly speaking, the enemy set an ambush for us, engaged us, and then retreated. None of us were hurt, and the triggerman wasn't found. This is a nice simple example. But it gets more complicated.

My unit has gotten quite good at finding IED's before they are detonated on us. When we find one, we have electronic jammers that prevent it from being detonated. Clearly, the enemy has set an ambush for us, tried to engage us, but we were able to prevent the attack. Does this qualify as hostile fire for a CIB? The Army says sometimes yes, sometimes no. This has created the ridiculous situation where soldiers are penalized for finding an IED before it goes off. Better to prevent the attack in the first place, in my opinion.

This issue isn't nearly as big a problem at most other bases in Iraq because most other units are facing at least sporadic small arms fire. After nearly a year in Iraq, I can't recall if there have been any incidents in my company of us getting shot at. It's almost all IED's. Nearly every soldier in the company has been involved in an IED, either one that went off or one that we found first. But there are 3 soldiers in my platoon of 20 that don't yet qualify for a CIB.

You might wonder what the fuss is about, since we as soldiers know who did what, and where credit is due. But wearing a CIB is a big deal in an infantry unit. It tells others that you were there, that you 'have seen the elephant', as the old vets at the VFW like to call it.