War Room


Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Fulfilling the Iraq Mission

I interviewed former Marine E.J. Catagnus in a January 2007 Times Herald article just prior to the Iraq "surge". The Jan. 21, 2007 article follows:

Local marine wants to change military

By KEITH PHUCAS
Times Herald Staff

NORRISTOWN – In order to win in Iraq, former marine Earl Catagnus Jr. says U.S. troops must be there for the long haul, with helmets off to help Iraqis rebuild their war-torn country. The classic hearts and minds approach. Kinder and gentler.

“If you build a school and stay there, eventually you’ll see children graduate from the school,” he said.

Troops must get out of the Green Zone and mingle with Iraqis in their neighborhoods. Actually, sit down and eat meals with them.

“If you’re forced to sit down and break bread with someone, it’s harder to hate them,” he said.

To succeed in such a counterinsurgency effort, Catagnus said, coalition forces must clear neighborhoods of the enemy, hold the territory and build the economy. It won’t be easy, but ultimately this approach could win the day.

But the 28-year-old Norristown native questions whether the America public is truly committed to succeeding in Iraq.

“America has to have the stomach for the long term,” he said. “If we leave now, they’ll always hate us. But, if we stay, there’s a chance to actually win.”

And victory would mean having a United States ally in the Middle East.

Two years ago, Catagnus was walking house to house in the Iraq city of Fallujah with the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines ferreting out insurgents. Sometimes his squad had only four men.

He had injured his knee even before getting to the Middle East, but he kept his injury a secret.

“I fell all the time,” he said. “It was like a running joke.”

Thousands of Iraqis evacuated the city before the Second Battle of Fallujah began in November 2004. Those who remained were considered hostile. Though the marines came across Iraqis in private residences, many combatants were Jordanians, Saudis, Chechens or natives of African countries.

“The majority of the fighters we encountered were foreign,” he said.

In 2004, then Sgt. Catagnus was in charge of a sniper section, a mortar team and a group of Navy SEALS. He was later promoted to staff sergeant.

Often, his unit found houses contained a surprising assortment of weapons – AK-47s, grenades, 15-foot rockets, mortar shells and launching tubes. Explosives were tucked into sacks of flour or sugar.

“You name it,” he said. “Every house had a weapon in it.”

Improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, hidden in the dirt, under trash piles or buried in the road were especially dangerous.

“We found an IED factory that could produce 30 (explosives) a day,” he said.

Catagnus and nine other marine were injured in an explosion during a house-clearing operation in Fallujah. Fortunately, the men’s wounds were not serious. He was peppered in the face with shrapnel.

“I saw the fireball, and I remember hearing a pop,” he said. “I almost lost my eye.”

Other marines weren’t so lucky. His best friend, Ssgt. Eric McIntosh was killed in combat in Ramadi. Another friend lost both legs.

Catagnus first served in the Marine Corps from 1998 to 2002 as a scout sniper. He had two tours in Okinawa. The marine sergeant volunteered to be recalled to active duty in 2004 before deploying to Iraq.

In 2005, he got out of the marines and returned to Penn State University in Abington. When he graduated earlier this month with degrees in history and life sciences, the military presented him with the prestigious Purple Heart at the commencement ceremony.

Last week, he applied for a doctoral program at Temple University.

The former marine is articulate and could talk for hours about past wars, and how the military should learn from history and change.

He faults marine officers for neglecting the enlisted men, who should be taught critical thinking skills and undergo extensive cultural sensitivity training to aid their mission in Iraq.

“The smartest people I’ve ever met were the young marines (I served with), who were able to improvise, overcome obstacles and adapt,” he said. “A lot of the officer corps underestimates the capacity of the individual infantryman.”

Catagnus wrote a 37-page training manual for Iraqi Special Forces. In 2005, he co-authored, “Infantry Squad Tactics,” with three other marines in 2005. The article appeared in the Marine Corps Gazette.

The Bush administration recently proposed sending a “surge” of 17,500 more troops to Iraq, including 4,000 additional marines to Al-Anbar Province that includes Fallujah.

Catagnus is critical of Army Gen. George Casey Jr., the top military commander in Iraq, who told the Associated Press Friday that troops making up the surge in Iraq could be ready to return home by late summer.

“I think it’s absurd that he’s saying that,” Catagnus said.

With lots of speculation about routing insurgent militia groups in the coming weeks, the Norristown native believes the historical moment demands more than combat.

“I don’t agree that it’s a purely military solution,” he said. “You engage the population, and the insurgency dies.”

Catagnus scoffs at setting timetables for the Iraq mission, believing success there is what’s most important.

“We’re going to take casualties, but in the long run it’s worth it,” he said.

Currently, Catagnus lives in Norristown with his wife, Rebecca.

8 Comments:

Blogger Michael said...

Keith, thank you for posting the thoughts of this very brave American serviceman. Marine E.J. Catagnus deserves our praise, respect and admiration for choosing to serve his, and our country, with his life and honour.

I am wondering, though, whether or not you will be posting the ideas, views and thoughts of any of the many servicepersons who subscribe to different views concerning our continued involvement in Iraq.

Your commentaries tend to lean towards the view of the Conservative and right-wing thinking on the Iraq war, and presenting views that support your opinions, from servicemen and women who served there, is perfectly fair. However, I feel you have the obligation, as a journalist, to seek out the other side. Talk to the service people who take the totally opposing view of what Marine E.J. Catagnus expresses. After all, their bravery, service and sacrifice is no less important or admirable than his.

June 26, 2008 12:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am EJ Catagnus. I spent six years in the USMC as an infantryman, and am currently a PhD student at Temple University for military history. The reason why Keith wrote about me and continues to write about servicemen with Pro-Iraq views is because that is the majority opinion of veterans who served in COMBAT occupations during their Iraq tour.

In all my years of experience, personal interviews, and detailed study I have found that "today's" warriors (the ones who actually do the fighting) overwhelmingly support the mission. They have sacrificed too much for the US to be defeated. Although some may not want to go back to Iraq, they do it because they volunteered.

Now, I know what you are going to say. Everyone in Iraq is in a combat occupation because of the decentralized counterinsurgency nature of the fighting. Well, I am here to enlighten you. The idea that everyone fights is a fallicy perpetuated by the military and media. Do they encounter IED's and indirect fire - Absolutely. But, it is only the infantryman that encounters them daily. There are levels of engagement with the enemy, and the majority of support personnel do not come close to engaging in real combat. If they do, then it is only once or twice, not daily, or in some instances hourly.

There are some other considerations for someone to understand Iraq. First, the amount of combat per capita that is seen by our troops is significantly less than past wars (even Vietnam). Second, UPenn conducted a statistical study and determined that a serviceman has more of a chance of getting killed in the US than in Iraq. Third, we have won in Iraq. The Iraqi's, in a movement called the Sunni Great Awakening, declared Al Qaeda an enemy. Within two months the Iraqi's cleared out Fallujah and Ramadi (two insurgent hot spots) of all foreign fighters, cleaned up the streets, and began sending their children to school. This remarkable happening occurred for several reasons, which I will not discuss here.

In a counterinsurgency fight, the enemy's center of gravity is the civilian population. If we win popular support, then the insurgency dies. It is the equivalent of cutting the stem on a vine that is strangling a great Oak tree. The vine survives in the short term. It attempts to last even without being grounded in the earth. Eventually, however, in the long term, the vine dies. That is what will happen to the insurgency in Iraq. It will perish, but only if the US stays vigilent, ready to cut anymore vines attempting to strangle the Iraqi tree.

June 29, 2008 5:37 AM  
Blogger Michael D said...

E.J. it is very difficult to debate a person with your credentials, nor do I have any reason to doubt or disparage your experienced views. However, I have read many, many reports of large numbers of infantrymen and women who do not support the war in Iraq. Whether they are in the majority or not, is hardly the issue. Their view and opinions are equally valid and valuable. So, while I honour your service to our country, and I am proud to have the opportunity of communicating with you, I believe it is only fair for a journalist to present all views, and not just offer a one-sided picture of a situation. Even a minority view has the right to be expressed.

July 2, 2008 3:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael, Michael, Michael. There are no infantry women. There are no women in the US military in combat arms military occupational specialities. Therefore, you could not have read "many, many, of large numbers of infantrymen and women who do not support the war in Iraq."

I do agree, however, that all of our United States citizens' opinions count and are valid. That is the beauty of living in the United States of America. I also believe that listening to the men who sacrifice the most in Iraq, the infantrymen, carries more weight than most.

Now, do non-infantry military occupations see combat? Yes, they do. Again, the problem is that the frequency which they participate is greatly exaggerated by the military and media. Both the military and media perpetuate this myth that all servicemen in Iraq are warriors. It, quite simply, is good public relations for the military and it fits the liberal agenda of the media. It is a win-win situation when the vast majority of support personnel (probably 10 service troops for every 1 infantrymen) come home to a hero's welcome.

I do not diminish the accomplishments these much needed troops did. In fact, a large part of our victory in Iraq will come from their work (building schools, logistics, electricity, civil affairs, etc.). I question their "war stories" and professed expertise on the actual fighting that is being done in Iraq. It is similar to me giving testimony that I am an electrician when all I did was change a light switch.

-EJ

July 2, 2008 4:22 PM  
Blogger Michael said...

EJ, I apologize for misspeaking about women in the infantry. I was attempting to show respect to all members of the service regardless of gender.Sorry for the error.

One thing you must please understand, in no way am I questioning, disparaging or doubting one word you say. I respect your perceptions and I recognize the extraordinary vantage point from which you are making your assertions. So, please do not take anything I say as being disrespectful.

My point is strictly that there are infantrymen and others in the service who are very much against the Iraq war. The exact number or percentage I could not even venture to guess. But they exist, and their perceptions, in my opinion, deserve the same consideration and recognition as do yours, as well as other service members who agree with your point of view.

In no way am I saying your opinions are incorrect. I have not been there, and I have seen nothing with my own eyes. I have my opinions of the Iraq war that have nothing to do with the actual art of fighting it. My perceptions are political and moral, and in no way involve the men and women who serve our country and follow the orders of their commander in chief. My argument is with the commander and his cabinet etc, not with the military personnel fighting the war and laying their lives on the line at his orders. Never doubt my respect for what you and your compatriots do for our country.

All that being said, I make the same point as I made earlier, which I believe is very simple and not in the least bit disrespectful of your point of view. I feel as a journalist, Keith has the 0bligation to present more than one opinion and set of perceptions. I believe he should seek out an infantryman in particular, who holds a differing opinion from yours. That is all. This in no way negates what you have to say, but it simply offers a more balanced and nuanced view of the story.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to communicate with you.

All of my very best and warmest wishes,
Michael

July 3, 2008 8:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Michael, thanks for your kind note. My point, in fact, was missed, and I apologize for not communicating it correctly. If the vast majority of warriors support the war, does that not speak of a trend that is worth focusing on? Are there nay sayers and non-supporters of the war in the infantry? Yes, there are. Look at any issue, and you will find that there are opinions supporting both sides as well as a few more that do not support either. Should a journalist report on all opinions or just the two most popular? Should a journalist hunt down and report on all aspects of public opinion even though they are considered to be on the periphery of the argument?

These questions are central to a journalist's profession. It is up to the journalist to decide how to handle them, and the editors to determine if the journalist was successful. An example is necessary to illustrate this.

The current rise in child molestation and rape cases is a hot issue with the media and public at large. Much of the debate centers on the controversial Megan's Law. Whether sex offenders should register for public identification has yeilded two popular opinions- Yes they should and no they should not. All of the reporting is centered and framed by these two camps.

There is, however, a another under-reported opinion. That opinion is held by members of our society, mostly men, who believe that sex with children is a natural expression of love, and is necessary for the normal growth of a child. This is not a new opinion. It was around during the First World War as Paul Fussell records in _World War I and Modern Memory_. Why then is this opinion not reported on? Should not all aspects of this issue be written about by journalists even though it is not part of the two popular opinions?

I wonder, however, do you hold liberal journalists to the same standard as Keith? Are you demanding fair and balanced reporting from media outlets that continually focus on the negative effects of an Iraq war that we are currently winning? Where is your commentary denouncing the majority of reporters who use their status as news reporters to editorialize for their liberal agenda?

Keith Phucas is a well balanced reporter, and does not write towards an agenda. Did you not notice his article where he reports on Rep. Sestak attacking the Administration for not demanding reparations be paid by Iraq for tortured Gulf War veterans? This was a direct attack on President Bush. Keith reported on that as well as many other controversial topics.

If you are looking for a reporter to find an agenda, then you should look at the _Philadelphia Inquirer_ or the _New York Times_. Look up Thomas Ricks, read his articles, and then I will tell you how he acquires his information. Is he fair and balanced? Does he report without bias?

Michael, I know you are not attacking Keith or his professionalism. Simply, my point is that there are a lot of other reporters and media outlets that espouse a liberal slant as opposed to a conservative.

-EJ

July 7, 2008 6:01 AM  
Blogger Michael said...

Hey EJ,

Sorry I missed this particular post until now. I've been crazy busy with far too many things, and this one slid by me.

After reading your comments all I can say is that I agree with you totally. Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one, and believe me, my opinions are many and varied.

Would you be terribly surprised to know that for many years I was a die-hard, Conservative Republican? And I really DO mean Conservative. I have come by my Liberalism over many years of thought, research, observations, discussions with people on all ends of the spectrum and other good stuff. But over the years, I have gone from a far-right righty, to a very left lefty. I assure you though, it was not an overnight, hasty, knee jerk decision.

This is why I read your comments carefully and respectfully, because there was a time when I would have probably been writing very similar posts. I know it is strange, because so many people start off as Liberals and as they age become Conservative. I have taken the total opposite track.

One significant factor was my having come out as gay when I was 35. I found that I started focusing on issues from a different slant. I began to feel, for the very first time, how much pain some, not all by any means, but some Conservatives caused gays and other minority groups. And when the Christian right started playing such a major role in Republican, Conservative politics, I really began to turn off big time.

Naturally, there is far more of a story here, but this is not really the forum to go into such detail. But I want you to know, that even though we disagree on various political issues, I really do enjoy our communications. I would be very happy to take it out of the forum and get to know each other better through regular emails. If you care to reach me you may do so at compuyid@gmail.com

Oh yes, one more point. I do respect Keith as a journalist. I am familiar with his political views as we have had numerous opportunities over the years to discuss them in person. But Keith is a very responsible reporter, who is well informed and deeply thoughtful.

July 7, 2008 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

EJ - Thank you for your service. I too respect Keith's reporting on military matters. Unfortunately many reporters have no knowledge of the military at all and it shows in their reporting. It is a disservice to their readers. If they cared they would hire former military or persons like Keith but that would make too much sense. If CBS or the Nytimes are not openly biased in their reporting, they are ignorant and it shows a total lack of understanding. Oh well, the American people see through it. The most respected institution in America is the military while the main stream media is the least respected institution

August 9, 2008 8:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home





ADVERTISE WITH US  • CONTACT US  •  OUR PUBLICATIONS  •  PRIVACY POLICY
NEWSPAPERS IN EDUCATION
® Journal Register Company. All Rights Reserved.