CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 08, 2009 04:53 PM UTC

Congressional Visit to Iraq, Part I (my return to Iraq, 1.5 years later)

  • 34 Comments
  • by: Jared Polis

(We’re suckers for the “undisclosed location” – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) Middle East CODEL: Iraq, Part I

From an undisclosed location somewhere in the Middle East…

When I first visited Iraq in November of ’07, I flew commercial to Jordan and the Baghdad, crammed into coach the whole way.

This time, on a Congressional CODEL, we flew business class from Dulles to Kuwait, where I sat next to a contractor from KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary accused of various human rights abuses and contracting abuses.

As we settled in, we started to chat and he asked me whether I was going to Kuwait for business or pleasure.  I responded business.  We are not supposed to tell anyone ahead of time about these trips, so when he asked what my business was I murmured “e-commerce” in response.

I doubt that he believed me, as I’m not a very convincing liar, but I don’t think he really cared what I did and I highly doubt he guessed I was anything close to a member of Congress.  People travelling to this area of the world have all sorts of cover stories for what they’re doing and have learned to respect the privacy of others.  To his credit, despite my highly suspicious answer, he didn’t press nor did I have any more reason to talk to him, so I delved into my book, Brothers by Yu Hua.  I didn’t want to take out my briefing materials on Iraq, lest my neighbor learn the true purpose of my trip.

We arrived in Kuwait around 5:00 pm Sunday night, had a buffet dinner and then went to sleep.  Since I tried hard to stay awake during the long plane ride, and only dosed for two hours, I was easily able to fall asleep and stay asleep through the night.

Monday morning, we met in the lobby of the hotel at 5:30 am and after a nice boxed breakfast, boarded a military C-130 for the flight to Baghdad.  The US has been flying these aircraft since the 1960s, and I was informed that the one we were on was built in 1967. (You can tell because of all the old school pressure gages and manual controls.)  The cockpit looked antique.  I divided my time between talking with the crew up-front and the troops in back, including one from my Congressional district in Thornton, CO.  It wasn’t the most comfortable flight, as wearing the heavy flak jacket and helmet really heats you up and wears you down.

By 9 am we were in Baghdad.  Two years ago, we drove from the airport to the green zone on the “highway of death” that, they assured me, had just cleared been cleared of land mines.  That was before I was a Congressman.  This time, we hopped in helicopter and 15 minutes later we landed in the green zone.

The security situation has improved tremendously in Iraq.  When I was here last in November of ’07 mortar attacks were frequent in the green zone, and indeed there was one on Thanksgiving eve a few hundred meters from where I stood.  Now they are a rarity; there hasn’t been one reported in weeks.

The city’s economic life is starting to return: cars on the road, power on (most of the time), and people going about their business.  It is a far cry from the extremely tense world of two years ago, and I am much more relaxed even while wearing flak jackets and a helmet and travelling through unsecured areas.  Last time, picking up on the general ambiance, I was in a constant state of heightened alertness knowing an attack could come at any time.  This time you can feel that an actual attack is quite unlikely to occur.  We still go through all the motions for a war zone, but they are now just precautions against the unexpected.

There is also a definite change in mindset among the military from when I was last here.  I couldn’t count the number of sentences that began with “When we leave in 2011…” a sign of commitment to withdrawal that, thanks to President Obama, is now inserted in the military political culture.  To be sure, questions remain, such as what are we to do with our air bases or the enormous eight billion dollar embassy compound whose guest rooms I enjoyed last night?  Still, the commitment is clear that we need to prepare for our forces to approach zero and to have no ongoing role in maintaining Iraqi security after 2011.

However, the “near zero” levels that are contemplated still represent 35,000-50,000 troops in 2011. The difference is that these troops would be a regional base of operations for us for operations outside Iraq and not to maintain stability in Iraq, and of course our presence would be subject to the permission of the Iraqi government just as our presence in Kuwait is subject to the blessing of the Kuwaiti government.

One of the more helpful activities we have done here is meeting with soldiers from our districts and home states.  They are not screened by the military and represent an excellent cross-discipline focus group for us to learn from.  I can’t overestimate how important it is to facilitate this relationship.  

Most members of Congress really know their district and are closely connected with the people, one of the advantages of running every other year; I can learn a lot more from residents of my district in two hours than I can from, say, residents of North Carolina or Texas, and I am confident that it is similar for other members of Congress. We speak the same language, know the same people and share the same culture.  I’ve been to their high schools, know their high school teachers by name and even know friends of their families.  Meeting with these folks and seeing a friendly Colorado face instantly dispenses with pretense, and allows me to gather meaningful information and really connect.  

I had dinner with five troops from Colorado in Baghdad, including an MP Ensign, a Petty Officer, someone from Military Intel, an enlisted mechanic, and two other enlistees.  Our two hour discussion was wide ranging from the challenges they face in their jobs each day to the veteran services they feel are important when they and their peers retire.  We even hit the current political issues of the day such as Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (all of them thought it was a bad policy and that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve since we need quality men and women in our military) and the issues that integrated male-female units face and what they’re doing to ensure that diversity is a source of strength rather than division.  

They were all 19-30 years old, and on their first or second tours in Iraq.  Afterwards, one said that he didn’t know what to expect and debated signing up to meet with me because he thought it might just be a photo-op, but was really pleased that I was really there to listen.

We have left Iraq and are now in a safe country. We were advised not to post about the trip prior or while we were in Iraq, but now that I have landed elsewhere in the Middle East I will begin to share my experiences.

Jared Polis

Member of Congress

Polis.house.gov

Posting soon: Observations regarding the Iraq War and current strategies

Crossposted to Dailykos if you like it please recommend the diary there

Tweet
Share

Comments

34 thoughts on “Congressional Visit to Iraq, Part I (my return to Iraq, 1.5 years later)”

  1. but 2011 seems like a long ways away from the Iraq withdrawal resolution that you helped sponsor while on the campaign trail.

    Your starting to sound like Mark Udall and his “someday soon our troops will come home” crap that he has been peddling since 2004.

    I’m glad you went but am concerned that you’ve already been co-opted by military industrial establishment.

    1. I am not the one writing the Iraq policy. We haven’t had any votes yet during my time in Congress on Iraq. Obama’s plan, and the default is that we will be “out” by 2011 although even “out” means we will have 30,000-50,000 troops. My plan would be different, but as 1 of 435 I don’t get to determine Iraq policy myself but rather am in a position to speak out on it and of course vote on it.

      I do believe it is a sign of a better policy that the “When we leave in 2011…” language has become institutionalized. Better than an assumption of a permanenet presence.

      Jared Polis

      1. it looks like we’re still 300+ billion dollars away from only spending 6 billion a month in Iraq at a time when the deficit is going through the roof.  Whatever happened to the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

        Meanwhile back home, the beetle epidemic rages on unabated and the NFS has NO money to do even minimal fire mitigation in my county.  FYI: the real threat to my homeland isn’t in the Middle East.  The Yankee Hill and Lump Gulch Fuel Reduction projects continue to sit on the drawing boards for lack of funding.

        Bringing back “good news” about a shift in the military mindset isn’t exactly the change I believed in.

      2. .

        I think the SOFA says we can keep combat troops in Iraq, away from the cities, and only engaging in military activities when specifically authorized by the Iraqi government, up until 30 June 2009, 80 days from today.  

        After that, we aren’t allowed to have any combat troops in Iraq.  

        After June 2009, up until 31 December 2011, we are allowed to have medical, legal, and other support troops, but even they have to be gone before 1 January 2012.  

        What may confuse some folks is that the Obama plan calls for rebranding any combat troops in Iraq in late June as “Quick Reaction Forces” and “Training Units.”  

        A cynic might say he intends to violate the SOFA, but rationalize the violation with semantics.  

        Another thing that may be confusing is that Ray Odierno and Dave Petraeus, both of whom agreed to the terms of the SOFA before Bush signed it, now say we cannot possibly leave before 2012; the Iraqis just aren’t ready.

        As near as I can tell,

        President Obama intends to keep as many troops there as he can, for as long as he possibly can, without forcing the Iraqi government to demand our immediate total and complete withdrawal.  

        The “19-month drawdown” appears to be a plan to leave more combat troops in Iraq than the SOFA permits after June 2009, but to give the appearance that we are doing our best to comply.  

        The SOFA make no provision for the US to keep troops on a regional base of operations inside Iraq, for conducting operations outside Iraq and not to maintain stability in Iraq, after 2011.  None whatsoever.  

        …..

        SOFA: all combat forces out by 30 June 2009.

        Obama 19-month drawdown: all combat forces out by August 2010.  

        That appears to violate the SOFA.

        SOFA: all forces out by 31 December 2011.

        Obama, after 19-month drawdown: all forces out by 31 December 2011.  

        That appears to satisfy the SOFA.

        SOFA: all forces out by 31 December 2011.

        Odierno: it will be many years (? 2020 ?) before we can withdraw completely.  

        That appears to violate the SOFA.

        Article 24

        Withdrawal of American Forces from Iraq

        Admitting to the performance of Iraqi forces, their increased capabilities and assuming full responsibility for security and based upon the strong relationship between the two parties the two parties agreed to the following:

        All U.S. forces are to withdraw from all Iraqi territory, water and airspace no later than the 31st of December of 2011.

        All U.S. combat forces are to withdraw from Iraqi cities, villages, and towns not later than the date that Iraqi forces assume complete responsibility of security in any Iraqi province. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the above-mentioned places is on a date no later than the 30 June 2009. The withdrawing U.S. forces mentioned in item (2) above are to gather in the installations and areas agreed upon that are located outside of cities, villages and towns that will be determined by the Joint Military Operation Coordinating Committee (JMOCC) before the date determined in item (2) above.

        The United States admits to the sovereign right of the Iraqi government to demand the departure of the U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime. The Iraqi government admits to the sovereign right of the United States to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq at anytime.

        The two parties agree to put a mechanism and preparations for reducing the number of U.S. forces during the appointed period. And they are to agree on the locations where the forces are to settle.

        but I’ve been wrong before.

  2. Good and vague. Good thinking. 🙂

    And on a more serious note, thanks for this update. Greatly appreciate hearing about your recent visit.  

  3. in violence that seems to be targeting Shiites? There have been multiple incidents in the last week with over 30 people killed. When we are preparing to draw down, why the sudden rise in violence? Any thoughts?

    And how much faith do you have in the current Iraqi leadership? al-Maliki often seems like more of a figurehead than a man leading a country.  

    1. It might just be an aberation. We need to see if this is a pattern over the next few weeks or just a random fluctuation. It will become apparent soon whether there is a new trend of violence.

      Maliki seems to be rising to the task better than expected, but that could be because expectations were low. Taking on the Shia militias and positioning his party well for the upcoming elections show his abilities. He’s certainly more than a figurehead but it’s anyones guess what parties win the December elections.

      Jared Polis

    2. It might just be an aberation. We need to see if this is a pattern over the next few weeks or just a random fluctuation. It will become apparent soon whether there is a new trend of violence.

      Maliki seems to be rising to the task better than expected, but that could be because expectations were low. Taking on the Shia militias and positioning his party well for the upcoming elections show his abilities. He’s certainly more than a figurehead but it’s anyones guess what parties win the December elections.

      Jared Polis

  4. Ronald Reagan once said “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”, so I can see the young soldiers trepidation at an invite with a government official. I would like to applaud you in staying in touch with THE PEOPLE, or at least letting them know your thoughts.

    1. At least George W. was in on the scam, so despite his lack of “book smarts” he had plenty of “street smarts.”

      Reagan was just a fucking idiot.

      1. Reagan was a reasonably smart guy with a thoughful political outlook. Yes he was blind on some issues, they all face that. And yes his approach on many issues not what we liberals think was called for.

        But that doesn’t mean he was stupid. And I think unlike G.W. Reagan did have the same goals most of us had, he just believed the way to get there was via less government.

        1. not finding any.

          I know as a matter of civility we have to pretend Reagan was not a fucking moron, that he had some clue about the things he was saying, but honest to God once in a while evidence matters.

          Reagan thought he was a World War II veteran because he was in a movie about a World War II soldier. There’s different philosophies, and then there’s not having any fucking idea what you’re talking about.

          Reagan was in the latter category.

            1. which is rather different from evidence he understood anything.

              His popularity is mainly based on the fact that his Democratic opposition in Congress was rather spectacularly ineffective, even with a scandal which was objectively worse than anything done in Watergate. So he accomplished some things he wanted, and got credit for a historical accident that happened years after his dementia set in. Good for him.

              Fucking moron President, though.

              Interesting to see this is what you do research on, rather than actually answering a question I asked you twice. When budget reconciliation comes up again, I look forward to you once again complaining that any effort to get around a Republican parliamentary maneuver is tyranny. Boy that’ll be fun.

              1. Yes Iran-Contra was bad, but how do you support your claim, particularly considering Nixon was involved in the cover-up, and Reagan was (probably) blissfully unaware.  Of course, you could claim he was aware, but I’d need evidence to support that claim.

                1. I think the worst thing about Nixon wasn’t the hotel bugging but the secret bombing of Cambodia, although the latter only became public because of the former.

                  I think selling weapons to the same government who kidnapped hundreds of your citizens, in order to get funding for death squads in another country, is about the worst thing I can imagine.

                  The cover-up is irrelevant to me, though of course politically it seems to be a big deal.

          2. .

            toward he beginning, the Alzheimers stuff was an act.  

            Could a moron have conducted secret, treasonous negotiations with the Iranians to get them to refuse to deal with Carter, or release the hostages, until he took office ?  

            Some say GHW Bush handled all the illegal stuff, like Salvadoran death squads and Iran-Contra arms deals.  Baloney.

            Also, Reagan was an actual active duty Army officer.  He was in charge of pulling together war propaganda films.  

            He didn’t serve in combat, but neither did I.  

            He was as “military” as any Air Force person, pilots and Security Forces excluded.  

            .

            1. and also read dozens of his letters to friends and family and totally disagree he was a moron.  He writings show a creative, optimistic and intelligent person – his speeches show an excellent communicator ( I know thats passe to say) .  I’m just calling it the way I see it.  

              I submit that in order to not dilute the title we should leave the moron nomenclature for the true morons.  Two recent examples that are absolutely deserving of the prize:

              W = MORON

              Sarah Palin = MORON

               

  6. One of the more helpful activities we have done here is meeting with soldiers from our districts and home states.  They are not screened by the military and represent an excellent cross-discipline focus group for us to learn from.  I can’t overestimate how important it is to facilitate this relationship.

    This is the best way to get a real picture of what is going on there. You’re right that outside of that the military has the whole thing scripted.

    BTW – for a good book on male/female units read “Love My Rifle More Than You” – excellent.

  7. Congressman. We appreciate you sharing your experience and the update. Be safe. I saw Gina yesterday in Thornton. You have a great, thoughtful staff and I am looking forward to your Adams office Grand Opening. April 16th?

  9. .

    of course they don’t care about serving next to a homosexual; they go home at night.  

    The people that would really be affected – most adversely – are the infantrymen that are out in a combat outpost or in a foxhole for 60 days straight.  

    No privacy.

    Very close quarters.

    If you had asked ahead of time, the Army could have got some of those from your District back to the rear to meet with you.  

    Something to look into for your next CODEL.  

    I’ve been out of the Infantry for 20 years.  Soldiers may have changed.  They didn’t change from the time of the Peloponnesian Wars up to 1989, but maybe they’ve changed since then.  

    But as long as there are folks that will murder a guy for being gay in Laramie, there are gonna be folks like that in the Army, and they gravitate to the combat arms.  

    I should be concerned about the safety of gay soldiers, and their rights to serve their country, and I am, but in reality I’m far more concerned about unit discipline, morale and esprit d’corps in the units that have to face the enemy.    

    You know the ditty about, “for want of a nail, …”  

    Well, in a combat unit, in a foxhole or on a presence patrol, the discord that having a gay soldier next to a soldier who believes “beating up queers” is good clean fun can cause, it can get people killed.

    Gays in the Air Force ?  Gays in the rear echelons ?  Not a big deal.  

    Gays in a front line combat unit ?  I think you need to listen to the commanders on the ground (and I don’t mean Generals who never served in combat.)

    .

      1. .

        people can fall off, and sometimes there’s nobody to notice.  

        Do you think that the incident with the 12-year-old girl getting raped, and her entire family murdered and the house burned to cover it up, do you think the one time that happened it came to light ?  

        The guy convicted last week of murdering POW’s under his control, was that the only time it happened ?

        Ooh, baby, its a wild world.  There’s no rules, and the punk you used to take lunch money from in High School now has the power of life and death over hundreds of funny, smelly people who can’t even speak English.  

        Combat is extra-civilizational.  I know a little about the evil that man is capable of.  There’s even a diary about it over to the right.  

        I know I’m not convincing anyone with this.  Sorry.

        As an officer, I could see that I wasn’t really needed for my unit to do its job.  The NCO’s are the ones who really ran the unit, and got things done, making better use of my authority than I could.  

        But I was there as a sort of hall monitor.  I don’t mean that I was the conscience of the unit, the soldiers were.  But I was a formal institution that channeled that conscience.  NCO’s were more in the mode of, “git ‘r done.”  

        Well, out on presence patrols, its sometimes a 23-year-old sergeant that has the responsibility to make sure the people in the unit don’t commit war crimes, don’t steal cash or jewelry, etc.  It’s an awful lot of responsibility.  Most handle it well, some don’t.  

        .  

  10. .

    I know that you were listening a lot more than you were talking when you met with soldiers.  

    But most of your peers in Congress are pompous stuffed shirts, and they meet with troops so they can lecture a captive audience.  Soldiers know that, and so they often pass on such opportunities.  

    You’re wrong on a lot of issues, but you’re an excellent representative.

    .

  11. Hi Jared,

    It was good to meet you at the AIPAC Conference.

    In the Vietnam War, Nixon’s Vietnam  Policy practiced lead to greater aggression which he held at bay by a bombing campaign.

    I think that the Shiites and Sunnis conflicts will become more pronounced unless they have formed effective partitions of the country. The Iranian influence will probably increase.

    As the war moves to Afghanistan and Pakistan, another question arises in that what is stop the Russians or the Chinese from sponsoring covert operations against the USA troops as the CIA did in the Russian/Afghan I think that the Shiites and Sunnis conflicts will become more pronounced unless they have formed effective partitions of the country. The Iranian influence will probably increase.

    As the war moves to Afghanistan and Pakistan, another question arises in that what is stop the Russians or the Chinese from sponsoring covert operations against the USA troops as the CIA did in the Russian/Afghan war?    

    1. .

      Before the US government formed and nurtured al-Qaeda in the 1980’s in Afghanistan,

      there was little effective resistance to the Soviet Occupation.  

      The Russians and Chinese look at Afghanistan today, see the USA shooting itself in the torso, and decide that we’re doing a pretty good job of destroying ourselves all on our own.  They don’t want to step in and possibly distract us from self-immolation.

      .  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

288 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!