Paul Reickhoff

Chasing Ghosts: Listening to our Soldiers and Veterans

So I was watching my cousin's show, The Henry Rollins Show, on IFC last night as I worked on some data I brought home from lab. His show is ALWAYS worth watching, but last night was particularly kick ass. His guests were two Iraq war veterans who were extremely articulate and effective critics of the Iraq quagmire and of Bush in particular. One of these articulate and intelligent veterans was particularly impressive: 1st Lieutenant Paul Rieckhoff.

Paul is a fellow New Yorker and he spent several weeks contributing to the rescue effort at Ground Zero. He also served for one year between 2003 and 2004 in Iraq with the 3rd Infantry and 1st Armored Divisions. Upon his return he founded the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, an organization I have written about before.

Henry Rollins asked both Veterans when they first realized that something was wrong with the war in Iraq. For Paul it was when he was first going into Bagdhad during the invasion when there was still sporadic fighting. He said he and his soldiers looked around and saw no other US military units in sight. His seargent asked him where everyone else was, and Paul had no idea. They were thrown in with too few boots on the ground (as was predicted) with insufficient supplies and almost no training of how to deal with the occupation. They were thrown in with almost no support from the US government. Paul's condemnation of the war and it's architects, the McCain/Bush/Lieberman escalation included, is harsh and his description of the poor treatment of veterans upon their return from Iraq is a condemnation of the government and our society. Those who are most willing to send our soldiers to war are the least willing to support them when they come home. I have previously particularly criticized John McCain for his failure to support government programs for veterans because he, of all people, should know better.


mole333's picture

| | | | | |
Syndicate content

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Visit our sponsors

Who's online

There are currently 1 user and 811 guests online.

Online users

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Words to live by

How do we know? I mean, what you're saying is fine. But how do we know that that's actually the law? I mean there are a lot of people who absolutely in very good faith would say that isn't competing harm. They would say that the competing right for the life of the fetus is more important than the possibility of the mother having children in the future herself. See, there are people in good faith on both sides of this argument. And so how do we know that ... your competing harms defense is going to do for this particular woman what a health exception would do?


— Justice Stephen Breyer


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify