On the Ground in Afghanistan and Iraq

This book appears to be a timely reminder that the best of us go to fight senseless wars, sent by the worst of us. Of our last four presidents, only one was in the military, and he hid out in what was called a "champagne" unit. Currently we have Commander Bone Spurs, who wants a big parade. I could spit.

As a medical provider who saw action during this period in some of the same places featured, and who served with aftercare in the active duty system, civilian system, and VA system, I was most devastated in this intense book by the difference in care that the brave corpsman with the facial wound got from the high tech guys who volunteered care from the private sector. The book is a stunning riveting achievement, and if it weren't so sadly true, would rank up there with "Battle Cry". It's also so sadly true that the genre is enduring.

My son fought as a non-com in Iraq and Afghanistan for many deployments from 2001 on, and he died in combat in 2013 in Afghanistan. I will certainly read this book.

To quote Tupac, "We tradin' war stories."

Is there really anything unique in these wars about the seeming absence of strategy to the grunts on the ground? Were the Marines in Vietnam, or the various sad military remnants of tattered empires in the first world war more impressed with a grand vision? All drawn out wars become literally and nothing more than a daily battle for survival. I am thinking in particular of Peter Englund's spectacular non-fiction work, The Beauty and the Sorrow regarding World War I. Every character is human, every mission useless, every death uncinematic in its banality and its finality. It seems that most wars are either fast or pointless; World War II is perhaps the single major exception.

"Chivers is interested in the chemistry between platoons and companies, not that between battalions and brigades: In other words, this is a book about the lower ranks who experience the thing itself, the gut-wrenching violence and confusion of war — history from the ground up, not from the top down, precisely what Washington elites miss." Was this entire paragraph stolen straight from the novel's prospectus? Not for nothing Robert D. Kaplan, I have a hard time deciding which sin I hate worse: In-content advertising or plagiarism. You may have crossed the line on both. The book sounds interesting without your help. You should have just screen-shotted the jacket sleeve and let it alone. I didn't think book critics still got paid by the word.

I don't think I can read this. I can't. Sgt. of Marines RVN 3/65 - 3/66

I’m exhausted just reading this article. I will certainly look into reading this. I’m reminded of the incredible yet grim writings that came out if the Great War. All war is pointless. Impotent cowards dispatch brave heroes to a painful death or worse, body mutilation for all eternity. The impotent coward enjoys a rich & easy life both financially & decadent. We should dispatch them as in Frankie Goes to Hollywood’s Two Tribes.

It is typical of military historians, journalists and groupies to admire the low-ranking troops they encounter. Often, the "fighters" do show courage, intelligence and tenacity. They may show empathy for their enemies as well as for their comrades. But to descibe the troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq as "moral" is a symptom of confusion of admirable qualities with morals. All these "fighters" chose to enlist in a military they knew or reasonably should have known was pursuing highly immoral aims. They cannot claim, and the author is wrong to claim, high moral purpose or behavior for those who signed onto a mission so obviously evil and pursued it knowing they would give up their own morality to act for a military which had none. The trauma they suffered is real, and, as we all are fallible, we should offer sympathy. But to celebrate their morality will lead to more wars of choice and aggression and further depreciation of our country's standing.

There is so little reporting on the daily events on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. One would hardly know that these wars are still raging and claiming thousands of lives. In my opinion, the war in Vietnam was finally ended because of the daily reportage - in print and on television - of the ongoing horrors there. The public could no longer stand to be associated with it and the government that had been telling us that you couldn't just leave, left. With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is barely a word mentioned by either branch of the media. And so the wars rage on - unnoticed and unending.

The war in Afghanistan is hardly the utter catastrophe it is often described as in the pages of this newspaper. The Taliban killed and mutilated - deliberately - on a much larger scale than Americans have, almost always accidentally. I notice they haven't been running the country since 2001. If they or their ilk eventually come back, as they may well do, we'll again see women shot in stadiums, whipped in the street and getting their faces mutilated. Holding off this nightmare is not an ignoble cause. I also notice that al-Qaida hasn't been using Afghanistan as a safe haven and launching pad for international terror attacks. War is hell, and this one isn't the exception. But it also hasn't been an unmitigated waste of blood and treasure.

Who cares? These are both meaningless conflicts that no one will win. Every life lost is just one more body thrown on the trash heap of history for no good reason.

The staggering cost in precious lives, for what?

Wow. Well written Robert. I'm eager to read this book thanks to your beautiful review. All through history, war has happened too often, too easily, based on instinctive impulses via the few leaders of a tribe or nation. From the boisterous posturing to the first shot to the cascading years of consequence and continuance, it's the same old horror generation to generation. The aching question to the millions who serve romantically or ironically out of love and later, bare the cruel brunt of realities, is a kind of existential 'why'. Why we do this, why did I end up here, why bother and why we let it. I say, blame unconsciousness and momentum. Two stones weighing down our elevation and ideals. As always, it will be a torn leading edge of hard-fought new awareness and thinking that will rip against the old guard. It's ugly, but it's how we change. We find growing pains first, then a new way that later is simply banal reality, all for granted and laying the foundation for our next growth. Trump is a horror for hundreds of millions, but the strange beauty is what comes later with this new generation living in psychic trauma. They are aware and angry, and they will lead the new consciousness in years to come. When they lead our governance, you will see something extraordinary... a bold and humanist vigor that will courageously, finally, build a new forethought against war in general. It will be the frontal lobe of us all winning against our collective brain stem. Finally

The picture from Kunduz is like a Last Supper for our times. I cried.

This review reminds me of something from the 1970s PBS history of the Vietnam War. News -- including videos, and live on-site reporting by real correspondents (not armchair bloggers) -- was a staple of nightly news in the 1960s and 1970s. This had a huge effect on the public's perception of the war and eventually turned the tide of public opinion. Yet, in an era of endless media-on-demand, we see NO such reporting, either online or in evening news, and certainly no video making the horrors of war clear. Why is this? Should we really have to wait for a book --- however good it is -- to have the ongoing horror of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria brought home to us? And no book can bring this home the way that live footage and on-site reporting can. Why aren't we seeing daily clips of the devastation in all these war zones?