- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (7/22)
- Next Post »A La Carte (7/23)
Book Review - Moment of Truth in Iraq
- 07/22/08
- 21
Michael Yon has logged more time in combat situations in Iraq than any other reporter, and this despite twice being removed from Iraq for his critical statements about the U.S. military leadership. Remarkably, he has spent his time in Iraq largely as an independent reporter and blogger rather than an associate of a massive media network. As such, he offers a unique voice--one that is vastly different from what we are accustomed to hearing on CNN or reading in the New York Times. He also offers, at least in my eyes, unique credibility as he is required to follow no agenda but his own. In Moment of Truth in Iraq he offers his assessment of the conflict in Iraq so far and some prediction as to what will have to transpire in the months and years ahead if the United States is to conclude the campaign successfully.
Though Yon was at one time a critic of the U.S. handling of the war, the focus of his book is the remarkable transformation that has occurred under the leadership of General David Petraeus. Since Petraeus assumed command, he has focused on moving soldiers away from isolated bases far removed from the population and instead on placing the soldiers where the Iraqi citizens are. This strategy has proven very effective with casualty rates falling to their lowest levels in years. U.S. soldiers are working with and among the Iraqi people to rebuild the nation and to provide the security that has so long been lacking. There have been setbacks, to be sure, but the trajectory seems encouraging. He illustrates this with story after story drawn from his own eyewitness accounts at the front lines of the war. He is so close to the action that on at least one occasion he has dropped his camera, grabbed a rifle, and, relying on his training as a Green Beret, has charged into a room of militants.
Those who have not heard of Yon will surely at least be familiar with one of his photographs. He took what has become an iconic photo for the Second Gulf War. In the photo, which was voted as TIME magazine's photograph of the year in 2005, U.S. Army Major Mark Bieger gently cradles a little Iraqi girl who has been wounded by shrapnel from a car bomb. The girl was rushed to hospital by U.S. soldiers but, tragically, quickly succumbed to her wounds. This photo stands as symbolic of the war--an American soldier brokenhearted at the devastation Iraqis are bringing to their own nation.
For those who are entirely skeptical about the war in Iraq and about the direction it is heading, this book will prove, I think, that the Americans are making some headway and are doing some good. Whether or not this is a just war will be for the history books to decide, I suppose, but the reality is that the U.S. cannot simply withdraw at this time. There is far too much to lose. Yon seeks to prove, and indeed does prove, that Petraeus' new strategy is working and that the United States military is making great strides in Iraq. Free from the bias that pollutes so much of the mainstream media, Yon offers an account of the war that is poignant, stirring, and encouraging. It is well worth the read.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (21)
There have been 3 wars in Iraq essentially:
War 1 against the Baath partWar 2 against the SunnisWar 3 against the Shites
And why can’t we withdraw? The country splits into 3 parts:
The kurds become a pro US stateThe Sunnis end up joining up with the Hashemites in Jordan. They might even become friendly.The Shites end up part of Iran.
I can live with that.
Do you really think that would happen , a country split into 3 parts . I think that is naive beyond belief . What you would have would be total chaos without any restraints , a huge infiltration of Islamic extreme groups using Iraq as a recruiting and training base , and any pro west sentiment would vanish because they would see us dumping them . I admit there are no easy answers but I think a bigger military presence and a push to train and arm Iraq’s own military to defend themselves is the way to go. Are we making a difference , I think we are and I’m proud of our military efforts in Afghanistan and the US military in Iraq .
Heck we can make that happen. If we tell the Kurds to declare independence and we recognize it, there goes the north. Tell the Shites they can have an independent country and ask Iran if they want an ally Southern Iraq, they’ll help. Then we just have the middle. Surrounded by Iran they’ll be happy to unite with Jordan.
As for the influx of extremists. That happened 6 years ago, they are already there.
I realize that war apologists will always find a way to blame the victim, but I doubt if most of the world reads the Yon photos with Challies’ pro-Bush interpretation. The sight of a defenseless and wounded Iraqi child being carried by an armed invader from the very foreign force that attacked and invaded her homeland — it’s a bit of a stretch, even for Challies, to try to gin up sympathy for the gun-toting invader.
KathleenM calls U.S. soldiers “gun-toting invaders”… nice. I’m curious… when Sadam was killing as many as a million during his time of control, what did you call him? Oh that’s right, you libs didn’t start worrying about the Iraqi citizens until the U.S. went in there and you could blame Iraq’s problems on Bush. The hypocrisy is beyond belief. A perfect example of it is watching Obama, who couldn’t bother with Iraq for over 900 days, suddenly show up there to do photo ops with people that would be dead or in jail if it wasn’t for the surge he protested so much against. What a bunch of phonies.
As the mother of an American infantryman who recently served a year in one of Iraq’s most violent cities, I have heard first-hand of the good progress that is being made. It has only gotten better since my son came home.
Thank you Tim, for reviewing this book. Many of my “military mom” friends are familiar with Michael Yon, he has done some good work. We need to hear more from people like Michael who have been side-by-side with our soldiers over there and can speak from a point of view that does not carry the socialist bias fostered by the main-stream media.
Regardless of whether or not we *should* have gone in there, we ARE there and to leave now would be a disaster not only for the Iraqi people but for the world. Those who say otherwise do not understand the extremists behind the terrorism that threatens us all.
As the mother of an American infantryman who recently served a year in one of Iraq’s most violent cities, I have heard first-hand of the good progress that is being made. It has only gotten better since my son came home.
Thank you Tim, for reviewing this book. Many of my “military mom” friends are familiar with Michael Yon, he has done some good work. We need to hear more from people like Michael who have been side-by-side with our soldiers over there and can speak from a point of view that does not carry the socialist bias fostered by the main-stream media.
Regardless of whether or not we *should* have gone in there, we ARE there and to leave now would be a disaster not only for the Iraqi people but for the world. Those who say otherwise do not understand the extremists behind the terrorism that threatens us all.
Ron should I link off to articles from liberal magazines and websites from all during the 1990s regarding humanitarian opposition to US policy during the Clinton years? While more difficult to find online you can find the same sorts of articles from the 1980s and 1970s about why the USA should not be allied with Saddam. “Liberals” have been consistent on the Iraq policy for almost 40 years now.
They were against the invasion, as being international aggression (you know the crime we hung people at
From the early 1970s they have consistently advocated:
1) Saddam Hussein has violated international law and committed crimes against humanity
2) The Iraq government is a dictatorship that the US should not be supporting
3) That in accordance with international law and the international community these issues should be addressed
The Iraqi civilian population (Shiite and Sunni) wants us out (with the exception of the Kurds)The Iraq government wants us outIraqi civil groups want us outIraqi religious organization want us outThe United Nations had consistently refused to authorize out occupation, i.e. they want us out. The other governments in the region have quite publicly called for us to leave.
Yeah I got no problem with Kathleen using the word invader.
In terms of the Shiites they wanted the US to overthrow the Baath and leave. You can use the Shiites as an excuse for our actions during the first 60 days after that no. Only the Kurds have supported a continued US presence. We aren’t invading their territory because unlike for the other two main groups we were invited. And that is the key difference. If I go into your home without your permission and then stay after you tell me to leave that’s a criminal act, if I go into your home with your permission and stay with your permission that is being a guest.
“Whether or not this is a just war will be for the history books to decide, I suppose…”
We don’t have to wait for hindsight to determine if a war started outside the Constitutional process for waging war and justified based on an ever-changing series of lies from the current administration is just. Clearly it is not. Whether or not we’re “successful” (whatever that means) in Iraq is not the issue, ends don’t justify means, at least that should not be our approach as Christians.
It is true the US has often times held hands with the devil so to speak and it has come back to bite them but that is the unfortunate nature of governing in a fallen , corrupt world . Plus I realize the “liberals” have been speaking against many regimes but what have their empty words produced , nothing . Perhaps we should have not gone in to Iraq at all and decided to invite Saddam to a nice 3 course meal and had a nice chat over why its wrong for his regime to act the way it is or continue to put “international” pressure via boycotts that would only hurt the common people , while Hussein and all his cronies lived like kings for a long time . Sometimes the only way evil can be dealt with is by force . As to leaving , do you think that outright civil war would not occur if the US troops pull out , leading to a killing field that would shock all. But then again , lets send in our great NDP leader Jack Layton to talk , I’m sure he will bring all the warring fractions around with his liberal wisdom.
I think Larry nailed it. Supporters of this war have adopted an “end justifies the means” approach. They seem to forget that we started the war in Iraq. Saddam never attacked us. Isn’t it interesting that the invaders are now the ones who get to define “progress”?
Yes, Saddam was evil, but there was no civil war while he was in power, and terrorists weren’t blowing up dozens of people at a time. Now, sectarian violence is a daily threat. Suicide bombings are still a regular occurrence. In many communities, militant Muslims have imposed Sharia law, and those who don’t comply are threatened or killed. And millions of Christians have already fled the country. Frankly, any talk of “progress” at this point is rather silly. It’s like tearing down your neighbor’s house to the foundation and then patting yourself on the back for rebuilding one wall.
I realize that anti-war apologists will always find a way to blame the very people who are trying to make things right in this world. The sight of a defenseless and wounded Iraqi child being carried by a compassionate soldier from what could possibly be certain death at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s henchman is even a stretch for someone to try to gin up sympathy for a dictator who has enslaved a country of 20 million.
In answer to Reg’s question about what liberalism (by which he means diplomacy over warfare produced) I’ll give one good example. Not having a nuclear war with Russia resulting in the deaths of somewhere between say a hundred million and a billion people. That’s a good start.
Lets take China which was much more of threat in the 1950s than Iraq ever was. Almost every country in the region is moderately friendly both with us and with each other. Some much more than moderately friendly. The only major war we had was our invasion of vietnam.
The collapse of the Soviet Union had more to do with an aggressive cold war waged by the US and a clear resolve of the US to match arms for arms . I would not say it was a victory of liberal mind set. Plus the USSR was on the brink of total financial collapse. I also think the nukes are what prevented the war not any diplomacy . Both sides knew the outcome would produce no winners. I’m not against diplomacy and do not put words in my mouth , but the type of liberal talk , talk , talk is all we do, cannot solve some problems . Actions need to take place . I have been ambivalent towards the war in Iraq but also think the world is a better place without a Saddam Hussein.
I urge folks to visit Michael Yon’s website at http://www.michaelyon-online.com/
Also to KathleenM, your interpretation of the photo is off the mark. It is of Major Mark Bieger cradling an Iraqi child murdered by a suicide bomber in Mosul. Please get the story before making assumptions.
From Michael Yon’s own words:
“Major Mark Bieger found this little girl after the car bomb that attacked our guys while kids were crowding around. The soldiers here have been angry and sad for two days. They are angry because the terrorists could just as easily have waited a block or two and attacked the patrol away from the kids. Instead, the suicide bomber drove his car and hit the Stryker when about twenty children were jumping up and down and waving at the soldiers. Major Bieger, I had seen him help rescue some of our guys a week earlier during another big attack, took some of our soldiers and rushed this little girl to our hospital. He wanted her to have American surgeons and not to go to the Iraqi hospital. She didn’t make it. I snapped this picture when Major Bieger ran to take her away. He kept stopping to talk with her and hug her.”
I doubt if KathleenM will be back to read my comment which would educate her with information of which she was previously ignorant. It irks me when people like KathleenM makes comments based on assumed and/or erroneous information as she demonstrated here.
Reg what liberal have you ever seen who advocates a talk only position towards foreign policy? The conservatives are being criticized for policy they have enacted lets at least address positions someone actually holds rather than making ones up.
Making ones up . Well lets see ,the type of liberals I’m talking about perhaps exist more in my country of Canada . I’m specifically referring to the NDP , who under Jack Layton have publicly called for getting all sides to the table , thinking that including the terrorist will defuse the problems they have with the west . Plus at our local University they have had many speakers who come from what I would call the new liberal traditions who advocate a no war at almost any expense. Plus I never said they would not take action but force is something most liberals in my circle of contacts would not agree with and their choice of action is embargo and with many despots and dictators , this from my understanding rarely works. Using the word liberal perhaps isn’t even the right word , sense it has been removed from its classic political framework.
Reg —
There is no question there is a huge difference between Canadian and American political culture when it comes to use of force in foreign policy. The two countries have very different international profiles. Canada did opt out of this war, when all that was being asked was a token use of force. Canadian political culture is tied strongly to the United Nations, which frankly is rather paralyzed mainly because in most global conflicts of importance the major powers are not on the same side.
Arguably what the UN has done an excellent job of preventing is proxy wars (i.e. struggles over minor countries) from turning into full scale wars. Paralysis may be better in lots of cases than the other outcomes. But again the strongly pro UN attitudes are not part of American culture and I think if we are discussing Iraq it makes sense to focus on US liberals.
As for embargo it tends to work well for containment not so well for deposing leaders.
“The sight of a defenseless and wounded Iraqi child being carried by a compassionate soldier from what could possibly be certain death at the hands of Saddam Hussein’s henchman…”
This kind of anecdotal evidence certainly causes an emotional response but it has no bearing on the overall rightness or wrongness of the action in Iraq. For every picture like this one could also find a picture of an Iraqi child wounded or killed by American military action. An individual compassionate soldier, while commendable, cannot be used to justify the unprovoked invasion and subsequent destruction of Iraq, a country that posed no threat to the United States.
Its also important to distinguish between ‘anti-war’ in all circumstances and ‘anti-THIS war’. War unfortunately is a necessity in some cases in this fallen world, however, the necessity of this particular war is very much in question.
CD-Host : Very well put and excellent points . One thing is certain this conflict will shape the future in the middle east for years to come .
Reg —
Well thank you glad we can end this thread on a positive note!