Marine Fights A 'Broken' System
(CBS)
All Blog Posts from Couric & Co.
Read all 'Iraq War' posts in Couric & Co.
August 3, 2009 11:33 AM CBS News Producer Mary Walsh recounts her first meeting in 2004 with Corporal Casey Owens, a Marine who was disabled in Iraq, frustrated with the treatment he received from the Veterans Administration.
July 11, 2008 5:29 PM
Alfred Didn't Have To Die: A Story Of Illness And Care In Baghdad
CBS News reported this week that despite millions of dollars flowing out from Iraq's rich oil resources every day, some of the country's social services, including basic hospital care, are sorely neglected. You can read the story here. Larry Doyle, our Baghdad bureau chief, saw the effects of this firsthand, when his friend and neighbor needed care. What follows is his story, told by Doyle.
It was about 120 degrees the day I met Alfred. One of those furnaces-like Baghdad days that come blazing in every June. Alfred had found about the only relief on our rock-covered dirty street. He looked pretty comfortable in a worn, formerly white plastic chair propped in a little shade supplied by a 12-foot-high concrete blast wall.
Damn, I whispered, I’m melting. Why isn’t that chair?
“Salaam alaikum,” I sweated out in fractured Arabic.
“Sit, my friend, please sit,” was the perfect English response. And that simple exchange started a great friendship.
Almost exactly a year later, Faried Yacob George lay in an emergency room in Baghdad Hospital, one of five in the Medical City complex.
Faried was my friend Alfred. I never wrapped my tongue around his real first name so we decided “Alfred” would do just fine. Actually Alfred was in the emergency room two days and nights and eventually was given a saline IV the second day because he was dehydrated. Sitting a long time in a sweltering room will do that to you. It will do that to a healthy 20-year-old. My friend was 76.
It was about 120 degrees the day I met Alfred. One of those furnaces-like Baghdad days that come blazing in every June. Alfred had found about the only relief on our rock-covered dirty street. He looked pretty comfortable in a worn, formerly white plastic chair propped in a little shade supplied by a 12-foot-high concrete blast wall.
Damn, I whispered, I’m melting. Why isn’t that chair?
“Salaam alaikum,” I sweated out in fractured Arabic.
“Sit, my friend, please sit,” was the perfect English response. And that simple exchange started a great friendship.
Almost exactly a year later, Faried Yacob George lay in an emergency room in Baghdad Hospital, one of five in the Medical City complex.
(CBS)
March 19, 2008 4:01 PM
The Notebooks Of War
It began five years ago tonight, and some of our correspondents who've been embedded in Iraq have shared their experiences – and unique viewpoints on this war – in Reporters Notebooks. A sampling and links:
From CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Chip Reid:
From CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Chip Reid:
Exactly five years ago I was with the Third Batallion, Fifth Marines, waiting for the order to cross what they called the Line Of Departure-a pass they'd cut through the giant sandberm that ran along the Iraq/Kuwait border. I was squeezed into the back of an Amphibious Assault Vehicle-an engineering marvel that was built for beach assaults but had no trouble making it all the way to Baghdad, and beyond. We were part of a convoy that stretched as far as I could see forward and back. Amazingly, many of the 19 or so Marines who were squeezed into a space built for about 10, slept. They were smart enough to know they'd need their rest. I was not. I stood and watched through an open hatch as we blasted through the LOD and roared across the Iraqi desert – with no idea of what to expect.
March 19, 2008 2:15 PM
The View From Iraq
On the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, Larry Doyle, the Baghdad bureau chief for CBS News, submitted this inside look at what it takes to cover this war. And he should know: Larry's been producing our coverage of conflicts and wars for four decades. Yes, you read that correctly: four decades. So, read on, and enjoy this photo our foreign desk dug up of Larry working with Lara Logan in Camp Victory, Baghdad.
When American troops crossed the sandy berms marking the border of Kuwait and Iraq, I was afraid, anxious and frightened.
Frightened, even though I was a good 50 miles away in a swank Kuwait City hotel suite (that doubled as a CBS News office) surrounded by solid walls, with good communications and room service. A dozen or so CBS colleagues were out there in the dark, inhospitable desert, some hearing angry gunfire for the first time and virtually cut off from the world. They were the “embeds," the pentagon’s journalist front line. I had seen combat, reported on wars, and knew they were in the middle of a life-changing and life-threatening event.
I thought about Iraqi friends who, even farther north, were also terrified, crouched and bundled under beds, cars, and shelters as “shock and awe” rained down … and changed their lives.
(CBS)
When American troops crossed the sandy berms marking the border of Kuwait and Iraq, I was afraid, anxious and frightened.
Frightened, even though I was a good 50 miles away in a swank Kuwait City hotel suite (that doubled as a CBS News office) surrounded by solid walls, with good communications and room service. A dozen or so CBS colleagues were out there in the dark, inhospitable desert, some hearing angry gunfire for the first time and virtually cut off from the world. They were the “embeds," the pentagon’s journalist front line. I had seen combat, reported on wars, and knew they were in the middle of a life-changing and life-threatening event.
I thought about Iraqi friends who, even farther north, were also terrified, crouched and bundled under beds, cars, and shelters as “shock and awe” rained down … and changed their lives.
March 18, 2008 12:19 PM 
David Martin is National Security Correspondent for CBS News.
The war began in dramatic fashion: Stealth fighters and cruise missiles launching a bolt out of the blue attack against a compound where Saddam Hussein was believed to be spending the night. Saddam survived the strike and perhaps that should have been an omen of the difficulties to come – that it would take more than high tech weapons to get rid of Saddam. It took foot soldiers to flush him out of a hole in the ground. And today it is foot soldiers in the form of the troop surge who have helped produce a reduction in violence.
Donald Rumsfeld used to talk a lot about "transformation," and a great transformation has finally taken place, although not on his watch … and not the one he envisioned. What he had in mind was transforming the Cold War military into a smaller, more agile fighting force. After he left, a larger fighting force was sent into Iraq to conduct a new counterinsurgency strategy.
The conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. wouldn't be in so much trouble in Iraq if Rumsfeld had just sent more troops in at the start. I'm not sure I buy that. For one thing, more troops would have taken longer to get there, so the whole dynamic of the initial invasion would have been different. For another, there was no plan for what to do with more troops. Finally, if more troops had used the same heavy-handed tactics that prevailed in the first years of the occupation, they might have succeeded only in outraging Iraqis even further.
Five Years Later: An Axiom Of War
(CBS)
The war began in dramatic fashion: Stealth fighters and cruise missiles launching a bolt out of the blue attack against a compound where Saddam Hussein was believed to be spending the night. Saddam survived the strike and perhaps that should have been an omen of the difficulties to come – that it would take more than high tech weapons to get rid of Saddam. It took foot soldiers to flush him out of a hole in the ground. And today it is foot soldiers in the form of the troop surge who have helped produce a reduction in violence.
Donald Rumsfeld used to talk a lot about "transformation," and a great transformation has finally taken place, although not on his watch … and not the one he envisioned. What he had in mind was transforming the Cold War military into a smaller, more agile fighting force. After he left, a larger fighting force was sent into Iraq to conduct a new counterinsurgency strategy.
The conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. wouldn't be in so much trouble in Iraq if Rumsfeld had just sent more troops in at the start. I'm not sure I buy that. For one thing, more troops would have taken longer to get there, so the whole dynamic of the initial invasion would have been different. For another, there was no plan for what to do with more troops. Finally, if more troops had used the same heavy-handed tactics that prevailed in the first years of the occupation, they might have succeeded only in outraging Iraqis even further.
July 9, 2007 2:27 PM 
David Martin is National Security Correspondent for CBS News.
Civilians suffer in every war, and Iraq is certainly no exception.
The estimates of how many innocent Iraqis have died since the American invasion vary widely but average out somewhere between 75,000 and 100,000. Think of a town near you with a comparable population, and you get some feeling for what a horrendous number that is. Iraq is a perfect example of what happens to civilians in a counter insurgency war. The insurgents deliberately target civilians to prove that the government in power is unable to protect them, and the counter insurgents -- in this case, American soldiers and Marines -- try to protect civilians until the government in power is capable of doing so on its own.
For a while, it looked like the American troop surge was having some success in bringing down civilian casualties. The U.S. military doesn't release body counts of civilians -- in part, because the numbers are unreliable and always subject to dispute -- but internal estimates had civilian deaths down by 46% in June. The car bombing this weekend in which an estimated 170 people were killed seems almost certain to reverse that trend. As bad as it seems, Iraq is probably not as bad as previous wars...
Civilian Casualties: "What A Horrendous Number That Is"
(CBS)
Civilians suffer in every war, and Iraq is certainly no exception.
The estimates of how many innocent Iraqis have died since the American invasion vary widely but average out somewhere between 75,000 and 100,000. Think of a town near you with a comparable population, and you get some feeling for what a horrendous number that is. Iraq is a perfect example of what happens to civilians in a counter insurgency war. The insurgents deliberately target civilians to prove that the government in power is unable to protect them, and the counter insurgents -- in this case, American soldiers and Marines -- try to protect civilians until the government in power is capable of doing so on its own.
For a while, it looked like the American troop surge was having some success in bringing down civilian casualties. The U.S. military doesn't release body counts of civilians -- in part, because the numbers are unreliable and always subject to dispute -- but internal estimates had civilian deaths down by 46% in June. The car bombing this weekend in which an estimated 170 people were killed seems almost certain to reverse that trend. As bad as it seems, Iraq is probably not as bad as previous wars...
May 17, 2007 5:14 PM 
Often obscured in the debate over the Iraq war is the cost of the Iraq war—and who’s paying for it.
Robert Hormats, an international finance expert at Goldman Sachs and former presidential adviser, has written a new book on how America pays for its wars—and he’s the subject of this week’s 10 Questions.
1. In your new book, ”The Price of Liberty”, you argue that America has always sacrificed to pay for its wars—that is, until this current one in Iraq. Why is this war so different?
It is different in part because the war is easier to pay for than past wars. For instance at its peak World War II cost nearly 40% of GDP, the Korean War, 15%, and Vietnam 10%. This costs less than 1%. Also, American’s were initially told that it would be short and cheap, so no sacrifice would be needed — and that Iraq’s oil revenues would cover the costs of reconstruction after the war; all of these predictions turned out to be wrong. In addition, the administration was unwilling to alter fiscal policy to make room in the budget to pay for the war after it became apparent these were wrong; for example, in past wars there have been significant cuts in non-security-related spending programs, but in this war they have continued to increase along with earmarking (a.k.a. pork barrel spending).
2.You argue that sound financing of wars is necessary both in terms of funding a superior military, and also to sustain popular support for the war. How does the method of war funding affect the way the public feels about the war?
In past wars, Americans have been asked to sacrifice financially while U.S. troops were sacrificing on the battle field, which gave average citizens a sense of engagement or involvement in the war effort. That was certainly true in the two World Wars and early on in the Korean War. Of course, when a war becomes a stalemate or quagmire, as did Korea and Vietnam, large numbers of Americans become reluctant to make any sacrifices and want the government to find a solution so that human casualties and wartime spending can be brought to an end; that is what has happened in Iraq...
10 Questions: Who's Paying For The War?
(CBS)
Robert Hormats, an international finance expert at Goldman Sachs and former presidential adviser, has written a new book on how America pays for its wars—and he’s the subject of this week’s 10 Questions.
1. In your new book, ”The Price of Liberty”, you argue that America has always sacrificed to pay for its wars—that is, until this current one in Iraq. Why is this war so different?
It is different in part because the war is easier to pay for than past wars. For instance at its peak World War II cost nearly 40% of GDP, the Korean War, 15%, and Vietnam 10%. This costs less than 1%. Also, American’s were initially told that it would be short and cheap, so no sacrifice would be needed — and that Iraq’s oil revenues would cover the costs of reconstruction after the war; all of these predictions turned out to be wrong. In addition, the administration was unwilling to alter fiscal policy to make room in the budget to pay for the war after it became apparent these were wrong; for example, in past wars there have been significant cuts in non-security-related spending programs, but in this war they have continued to increase along with earmarking (a.k.a. pork barrel spending).
2.You argue that sound financing of wars is necessary both in terms of funding a superior military, and also to sustain popular support for the war. How does the method of war funding affect the way the public feels about the war?
In past wars, Americans have been asked to sacrifice financially while U.S. troops were sacrificing on the battle field, which gave average citizens a sense of engagement or involvement in the war effort. That was certainly true in the two World Wars and early on in the Korean War. Of course, when a war becomes a stalemate or quagmire, as did Korea and Vietnam, large numbers of Americans become reluctant to make any sacrifices and want the government to find a solution so that human casualties and wartime spending can be brought to an end; that is what has happened in Iraq...
May 1, 2007 2:45 PM
Isn't it time for both sides to stop posturing and start listening?
Just click the monitor for more.
Katie Couric's Notebook: Moving Beyond A War Of Words
Four years after declaring that major combat operations in Iraq were completed, President Bush vetoes a war funding bill.
Video: Isn't it time for both sides to stop posturing and start listening?
Just click the monitor for more.
April 26, 2007 6:27 PM 
Sharyl Attkisson is the Capitol Hill Correspondent for CBS News.
Congress just passed its most aggressive challenge yet to the Iraq War and the way President Bush has run it. Attached to the bill that pays for the war are provisions that limit what the President can do. For example, the bill says the President can't extend troops beyond a one year deployment. He can't send them into Iraq without certifying in writing that they are fully combat ready (trained, rested and equipped). And the bill calls for troops to begin withdrawing as early as July but no later than October. When President Bush strikes it down with a veto, it will be the second of his presidency. There aren't enough votes in Congress to reject the President's veto. So he wins.
Or does he?
Veto or not, the bill and the debate over what it seeks to do have already left their mark. Democrats have known all along the President wouldn't go along with timetables and deadlines...with the legislative branch attempting to, in his view, run the war from 8,000 miles away. What Democrats really wanted was a public debate. To get their position aired on places like the Evening News. They got it.
That public debate -- an extension of one that's been going on for some time -- has put pressure on the President, Republicans in Congress and the war commanders. They acknowledge it's helped push them in a different direction than they otherwise might have gone. President Bush has gone from full force support for the original strategies in Iraq, to admitting they didn't appear to be working as intended, to pledging a shift in tactics. That change didn't happen overnight, but if you compare where the Bush administration was two years ago to where it is today, there's a dramatic difference in attitude.
At the moment, it's unlikely Congress can force an end to the Iraq war on a certain date. But even with a Presidential veto of that idea, they just may have been successful applying pressure that will help it draw to a close sooner. We'd all like to think that will save American lives while leaving Iraq well-positioned to face its future. But nobody knows for sure whether that will be the case.
Veto, Schmeeto
(CBS)
Congress just passed its most aggressive challenge yet to the Iraq War and the way President Bush has run it. Attached to the bill that pays for the war are provisions that limit what the President can do. For example, the bill says the President can't extend troops beyond a one year deployment. He can't send them into Iraq without certifying in writing that they are fully combat ready (trained, rested and equipped). And the bill calls for troops to begin withdrawing as early as July but no later than October. When President Bush strikes it down with a veto, it will be the second of his presidency. There aren't enough votes in Congress to reject the President's veto. So he wins.
Or does he?
Veto or not, the bill and the debate over what it seeks to do have already left their mark. Democrats have known all along the President wouldn't go along with timetables and deadlines...with the legislative branch attempting to, in his view, run the war from 8,000 miles away. What Democrats really wanted was a public debate. To get their position aired on places like the Evening News. They got it.
That public debate -- an extension of one that's been going on for some time -- has put pressure on the President, Republicans in Congress and the war commanders. They acknowledge it's helped push them in a different direction than they otherwise might have gone. President Bush has gone from full force support for the original strategies in Iraq, to admitting they didn't appear to be working as intended, to pledging a shift in tactics. That change didn't happen overnight, but if you compare where the Bush administration was two years ago to where it is today, there's a dramatic difference in attitude.
At the moment, it's unlikely Congress can force an end to the Iraq war on a certain date. But even with a Presidential veto of that idea, they just may have been successful applying pressure that will help it draw to a close sooner. We'd all like to think that will save American lives while leaving Iraq well-positioned to face its future. But nobody knows for sure whether that will be the case.
