Home › Blogs › Ironman's blog ›

Captain Benjamin Sklaver 1976-2009

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 18:03
in

A reminder than the War on Terror is very real indeed appeared in Connecticut newspapers today. One of our better sons gave his life for freedom in Afghanistan

An Army reservist and native of Hamden who worked to provide clean water to villages in Uganda was killed while on patrol in Afghanistan Friday.Benjamin Sklaver, 32, son of Laura and Gary Sklaver of Hamden, was one of two soldiers killed in an ambush, his mother said Saturday.“We were told that his team was on patrol on foot in a town and they were ambushed by a suicide bomber,” Laura Sklaver said. 

I suggest one read the whole article to appreciate the sorts of people who are in our military today putting their lives on the line trying to improve the lives of people who have suffered under tyranny and despotism. Hopefully it should dispel the idea that we are fighting the war against Al-Queuda by bombing villages from a bomber cruising @40,000 feet.

This hits me personally because in a prior job I had the occassion to do a number of closings with Captain Sklaver's mom, who is a very well respected real estate attorney in Connecticut. My prayers tonight are with the Sklaver family, who mourn the loss of a life cut tragically short.

I'm not going to get into partisan politics on this, except to mention the the meeting the President had with the U.S. commander for Afghanistan Friday means a lot more to me than whether Chicago gets to play host to the Olympics.  Maybe its time we put things in perspective, folks

0
Your rating: None

Comments

 To put things in

Submitted by In between on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 21:20.

 To put things in perspective. Afghanistan is most important to us as you say. It is sad that it was neglected for Iraq. It is sad that consultation was ignored with those who understood the Middle East. It is sad Bush only had 170,000 soldiers for two wars and the wars not paid for.  It is sad that we had a quagmire for years in Iraq and was ignored by the president. And it is sad so many people died because we did not have enough soldiers to do the job.

It is hard to put Humpty Dumpty together again. Many people are tired of war and want out and that is understandable. However, getting out creates a void for Al Qaeda that was there before.

I hope Obama makes the right decision on Afghanistan. We have lost our way and after all these years it confuses the situation.

Putting things in "perspective", we have to go back to 2002  and remember how CIA advisors was being pulled out of Afghanistan for Iraq. And after that our soldiers.

well, can we agree that a war is more important

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 21:51.

than a bid for the Olympic Games? And for the past few weeks I'm not sure the White House thought so.

One of the difficulties now in Afghanistan is there was the bipartisan thought that NATO troops would cover for the manpower needs. In fact, I recall John Kerry was adamant in 2004 that Iraq was failing because of the lack of allied troops. In retrospect, the added allied troops in Afghanistan did not address the problem--and by inference, wouldn't have made much difference in Iraq; indeed, it seems the US military works best when it is clearly running the show. Which is what I think the present generals would like to emulate now.

 

 

I do agree that Obama puts on

Submitted by In between on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 22:47.

I do agree that Obama puts on a nonchalant attitude. I guess having the olympic games in one's home town is a big deal. I personally thought that Rio would get it based on the fact South America has never had the Olympics. Sometimes a person has to wonder what is important in the world.

It is odd you say that "our military works best when it is clearly running the show." Because that is exactly what we did-at least under an incompetent president-he ran the show. Or should we say Rumsfeld. They were more interested in WMD than securing two countries and the potential quagmire.

I don't know how many added allied troops there were or was said to be needed. I do know that Bush wanted to do it alone and that arrogance angered our allies and they have little interest to this day as we saw years of arrogance and blunders.

Now as I recall, Bush 41 had 500,000 coalition troops for one war and the war paid for. Bush 43 had 170,000 troops for two wars and the wars not paid for. 

Watching an episode on PBS, they had a biography on Bush 41. His achievement was to have friends around the world. Hence, he got help for the gulf war and our allies paid for the war. 

And that is the difference on one president that knows how to handle a job and the other didn't.

My opinions are based on Iraq under the surge v. Afghanistan

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 06:00.

I think the argument some have raised is we should have managed Iraq more like Afghanistan and relied more on foreign troops. Until we committed a sufficient number of US troops in Iraq, matters deteriorated.

The metric in war is not how happy your allies are. It's whether you are winning. The force structure and diplomacy needs to be results oriented.

There will be volumes written on what Rumsfeld got right and got wrong during Iraq.  We need to look at what worked after he was relieved.

As for Bush 41, yes he was a success in Gulf War I. Had Bush 43 left Baghdad immediately after ousting Saddam Hussein; he'd also have had a "success".  This approach did leave unresolved matters for future leaders, though.  Would have it had been better to have done regime change in 1991? Maybe. That chapter is already written, though. 

 

 I don't believe leaving

Submitted by In between on Mon, 10/05/2009 - 08:23.

 I don't believe leaving Baghdad after ousting Saddam Hussein would have made any difference. Invading Iraq and going to Baghdad is what made the difference. And that is why Bush 41 stopped General Schwarzkopt from going to Baghdad as everyone knew it would be a quagmire. Ousting Saddam Hussein left a power vacuum in a country with different sects. And that is exactly what we saw whether we were there or not. You either have some dictator or some religious faction running the country.

Our allies were upset in the way everything was handled in the Middle East. You can only take so much. It was upsetting to see so many mistakes and blunders and total arrogance and ignorance. If I can sit in front of the TV and wonder for some 3 years and ask what is going on and the president still keeps going on with failed rhetoric, then I just give up. Hence, the mess we are in.