Jim Spiri in Iraq

Both sets of my wife's grandparents came to the
Pacific Northwest from 1936 on one side, and 1944 on
the other side. One set from the "Dust Bowl" era, the
other from the "Midwest". Both came in part, from
events that FDR dealt with on a national basis during
his tenure as President. They were the hardest
working people I've ever known. Some were Democrats
and some were Republicans. All were staunch,
patriotic Americans. These people are and were
extremely influential in shaping my outlook.

Flash-forward to 2007, Iraq and home-front USA.

One would think that in years past, everyone was on
the same page. Not exactly the case, is what I'm
finding out. During the war years of the late 30's
and into the mid 40's, there was constant debate about
isolationism, commerce, building international
coalitions and many other things that we see today.
There are many similarities.

It is not strange to see a vigorous debate raging on
the home-front concerning involvement in a war, half a
world away. In fact, it seems to me that it is quite
healthy. One of the things that FDR was famous for
were his cabinet meetings. Many that were present
during those times, later reflected that FDR handled
those meetings without any control. Some even stated
that they were totally out of control and completely
unorganized. But, it was later determined that FDR
knew exactly what he was doing and gathered all
opinions not just to find who agreed with him, rather
to find and hear what the real problems were from all
sides. Then, he knew exactly how to mobilize the
population in support of the objective. That was his
one most valuable tactic in accomplishing the mission.
Although FDR died in April of 1945 just prior to the
defeat of Nazi Germany, he set a path for victory by
listening to all sides.

What I have experienced in my little corner of the
raging debate called, "The War in Iraq", is that the
home-front has to be convinced that the best possible
method for victory must have a clear objective. Every
person I have spoken with on this journey tells me
from every angle, no matter what their political views
may be, a clear objective is first and foremost in the
carrying out of any mission, big or small.

In more recent history, such as what our current
President has brought up in recent days, (Vietnam) the
war on the home-front was lost. Many of us nowadays
simply refer to it as, "Oh, that was the 60's". In
Gulf War I, the senior President Bush, clearly defined
the objective, set a path, met it, and exited, in
spite of some objections. The home-front was able to
grasp the objective and maintain support. It turned
out to be the "100-hour war".

After spending over three years in this region, from
many, many different perspectives, it is clear to me
that the only thing lacking is a clearly defined
objective for those remaining on the home-front.
Perhaps in the past four to five years, the definition
of the objective has changed or wavered or just plain
never been defined properly. Whatever the case might
be, now is the time for those in charge to take up the
responsibility to define the objective clearly, with a
view towards gaining the home-front for without the
home-front, the war cannot be won.

And here in lies the challenge.

No more will those waiting at home listen to
"political rhetoric" simply to keep someone in office.
Those fighting the war on the ground, the ones I've
spent many a time with, are waiting for the home-front
to receive a clear objective so their support can
overwhelm and defeat the enemy. No longer will simple
acts of sending care packages do the trick. They
help, but it is not enough. I cannot in good faith
assign blame to one side or the other for lack of
success in what we call "The War in Iraq" these days.
I can only see where the lack is.
There is no lack among those we've sent to fight. The
lack comes from those left stateside.

Why is there a lack of support on the home-front?

Harry Truman put it best. "The buck stops here", he
said, referring to his desk in the Oval Office. We
have elected President George W. Bush to lead the way.
He must now, once and for all, not be afraid to
CLEARLY define the objective, gain the support of the
home-front, and once again use the word "victory" in
his vocabulary. It can be done. It has to be done.
History tells me that is the only way.

Making history is not so difficult. It is following
the recipe that complicates things.

Jim Spiri
FOB Marez
Mosul, Iraq