About 450 More US Troops Arrive in Iraq to Back Mosul Drive

No, I guess we don’t have any “Troops” in Iraq; as per the consensus of our politicians and the Department of Defense.

Oops! They let the cat out of the bag, again. The article, below, just came across my News Ticker.....

Military.com

Military.com | Sep 08, 2016 | by Richard Sisk

About 450 more U.S. troops have arrived in Iraq in the past week to support the imminent offensive to drive ISIS from Mosul, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad said Thursday.

Air Force Col. John Dorrian, spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, declined to give a time frame for the start of the offensive but added, "We're going to have to get started soon" if Mosul is to be wrested from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria by the end of this year.

Army Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, task force commander, appeared to suggest in a Wall Street Journal interview that the Mosul offensive could begin as early as next month to fulfill Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's prediction that the strategic northwestern city would fall before the end of the year.

However, in a Pentagon briefing from Baghdad, Dorrian denied that Townsend said that the Mosul push would begin in early October.

To support the coming offensive, more than 400 additional U.S. troops have arrived since last week to boost the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq from about 4,000 to 4,460, Dorrian said. The additional troops are from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky.

The deployment of the 2nd BCT was announced by the Army in August. The troops are expected to be assigned to the Qayyarah West airfield about 40 miles southeast of Mosul, which is being built up as a logistics hub and forward operating base for the Mosul offensive.

Dorrian said more than eight Iraqi Security Force brigades were ready for the Mosul offensive against what is believed to be about 3,000 to 4,500 ISIS defenders.

However, the offensive is temporarily on hold while the Iraqis form and train a follow-on force to occupy the city, provide relief and defend the population, Dorrian said. The size of the follow-on force had yet to be determined, he said.

Townsend predicted a difficult fight to retake the city, Dorrian said. ISIS has held Mosul for more than two years, and "they've had a chance to build intricate defenses."

Townsend, who took over the task force from Lt. Gen. Sean MacFarland three weeks ago, also has responsibility for the campaign to retake Raqqa, the self-proclaimed ISIS capital in northeastern Syria, in what Dorrian described as an "increasingly crowded battlespace" since Turkey sent troops and tanks into northern Syria late last month.

Dorrian said the task now is to "deconflict" the various opposition groups under the banner of the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces from clashing with the Turks, who have closed off the last remaining section of the border that gave ISIS access to resupply and reinforcements by foreign fighters.

The Turkish forces initially clashed with the Syrian Kurdish YPG, or People's Protection Units, which are part of the Syrian Democratic Forces and have been the most effective rebel force against ISIS in Syria.

Dorrian said the clashes have subsided since the YPG met the Turkish demand to move east of the Euphrates River.

"We're glad to see it's been relatively peaceful between those two," he said.

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.

© Copyright 2016  Military.com . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/09/08/about-450-more-us-troops-arrive-in-iraq-to-back-mosul-drive.html?ESRC=eb_160909.nl

THE SANDBOX SYNDROME

FALLING LIKE DOMINOES

[HEADS IN THE SAND]

So, our fearless leaders think they can “solve” all the problems in the Mid-East and Persia! If all our past attempts are any indication, our fearless leaders are in for a rude awakening.

Does the civilized world need to eradicate scourges like ISIL?

                                                  You betcha!

Is the United States the only entity capable of handing out guns and pulling triggers?

                                                  I don’t think so!

Somewhere along the way, our foreign policies and perceptions got skewed toward making us believe this part of the World really wanted our style of governance, economy, and society. We collectively forgot that, to this day, much of the World is still tribal, and acts in ways that tend to baffle and frustrate us. In doing so, we tend to get other folks rather upset with our “exceptionality”. That said, the current state of terrorism is generally more of a threat to the Mid-East, Persia, Northern Africa, and Europe than it is to the North American continent.

The past is gone, and we can’t do anything to change that. What we can do is take a realistic and honest look at where things stand now; including governance, economy, and society in the Nation-States most affected by the current rash of terrorism. The United States, especially, should be sensitive to recognizing a people’s right to self-governance; governance that will most likely look very different from the one we chose. After all, didn’t we fight a little war back in the 1700’s to do just that? Our Colonies were originally created out of religious persecution in Europe, and our Revolution was fought over the Colonial exploitation of Great Britain. So, perhaps trying to control all the tribal factions in this area of the World is not what the “West” should be concentrating on. Hell, it’s like herding cats, anyway; a no-win situation.

One blatant truth that has run constant in the Mid-East and Persia is that Iran pulls the strings when it comes to dominating and solidifying the entire region. They have been it doing ever since the overthrow of the Shah in the late 1970’s. Apparently, they are a very patient people, and are slowly turning and twisting all the neighboring Nation States toward their religious caliphate. It is also apparent that the “West” has no idea of how to deal with type of religious expansionism. It seems Russia is in the same boat.

In trying to micro-manage the region, both the United States and Russia have attempted to slow the tide of Islamic Statehood. What has been lost is a focus on just how tribal/religious sects operate and govern their society and economy. Throw in misunderstanding and the greed for oil, and you have Super-Powers tripping all over themselves trying to exploit the region and at the same time keeping the peace, so their exploitations remain successful. The loss of focus on what is actually going on has led both Russia and the United States into quagmire after quagmire of armed conflict, which neither Country can afford, on multiple levels.

Taking all this into consideration, the World, in general, might want to reconsider the old “Domino Theory” (sic. twenty years of Vietnam for the U.S.; twelve years of Afghanistan for the Russians; centuries in Southeast Asia for China). This “Theory” has been used to mislabel many attempts to quell expansionism, colonialism, and exploitation. The “Domino Theory” certainly applies to modern day conflict(s) in the Mid-East and Persia. Take a very close look at Iran’s sponsorship of insurgencies and terrorist actions. Their actions are very quiet, slow, and patient, but completely insidious. It is deliberatively affecting the formation of one large, powerful Islamic caliphate ruled over by the powers in Tehran.

How does Iran do it? They slowly cement their ideology on a tribe-by-tribe basis. They do not directly attack the governments of neighbor States; they slowly create chaos and mayhem on a local level, and then duplicate the process from tribe to tribe, village to village, region to region. Their strategy is one of a ground up insurgency using religion and terrorism, instead of outright regime change (favored by the U.S. and Russia). I don’t know about Russia, but the U.S. has been warned of endless conflicts and armed quagmires for many years and by many Leaders and Heads of State. The most famous admonition I can remember came from Charles De Gaulle, President of France, in the 1961. He warned President Kennedy that warfare in Vietnam would trap America in a bottomless military and political swamp. Prior to that, ex-President Dwight Eisenhower mused that, having a row of dominoes set up, you knock the first one down, and the last one will fall very quickly thereafter. Eisenhower’s thinking led to the modern-day term; “Domino Theory”.

The last ten years have brought the Mid-East to a boiling point that has made the Iranian leadership ecstatic. As Russia, China, and the United States flex their diplomatic and military muscles in this region, Iran will force a tipping point that will look catastrophic to the rest of the World. The “Domino Theory” sets up like this:

1. Iran coddles Al-Qaeda and ISIL by furnishing them safe haven, training, weapons, and finances.

2. As the dominoes fall, Iran sets up "puppet" governments who force Sharia Law on the local tribes.

3. For the dominoes that prove a little tougher to topple, Iran foments Civil War to accomplish their mission.

4. Iran keeps Israel at bay by bolstering Palestine's military arsenal.

5. There are certain tribal areas that Iran will not touch until the very end of their jihadist expansion. Those left until the end will be: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and, possibly, Turkey.

6. Iran allows the United States to continue the destabilization in Pakistan. A job the U.S. seems to do well.

7. At some point, the Superpowers pull out of the Mideast, and abandon it altogether. The sheer cost of Nation Building becomes prohibitive for all concerned.

8. Pakistan falls to Iran, and Iran gets its nuclear weapons without having to rejoin their own nuclear program.

9. The U.S. is reluctant and slow to come to the aid of Israel. This leaves Israel no alternative but to take matters into their own hands, and all Hell breaks loose; especially, if Iran has secured Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

As all Hell is breaking loose, the United Nations will be called upon to come up with a viable plan of action. At this point, the most efficient plan would be for the United Nations to sanction and oversee some form of legal assassination. If such a plan were successful, after a certain number of assassinations, the Arab tribes might get the message and reject Iran’s intentions. This drastic step may be the only means by which to avoid mass collateral damage. This drastic step also needs the ownership of governments and militaries in the region.

Take a moment and consider Iran as our modern-day North Vietnam. Think back to Dwight Eisenhower’s summation that the Domino Theory was a real possibility in the Vietnam Conflict era. As in the current Mid-East situation, the U.S. was able to keep the dominoes from falling too fast, but, in the end, the result was exactly as Eisenhower had predicted. To this date, our Government refuses to equate the two conflicts. Unfortunately, those Americans with first-hand knowledge of Vietnam have no doubt about the similarities.

If Israel were to succumb to the new Islamic caliphates and end up in the Sea, Iran formally takes the reigns and declares the entire Mideast/Persian region a Supreme Islamic Caliphate. Iran will then control the land mass from India all the way to the Mediterranean Sea. The big question to follow is who among the Superpowers tries to sneak in the back door and form alliances with the new Church Nation, and how will that work out? The next question is where does Iran take its Islamic expansion from here?

And, there you have your “Heads in the Sand”and your “Dominoes in the Desert”!

COMING TO AMERICA ?

Can you say, “U.S. National Immigration Policy”?

Over the course of two hundred and thirty-nine years, thirty-seven out of forty-four U.S. Presidents have tried and failed. The other seven, apparently, just didn’t give a damn. Do not lose sight of the fact that the U.S. Congress hasn’t been able to craft a workable solution either, so no political Party is above this short-coming.

The United States has been able to craft the World’s most powerful economy, military, democracy, and progressive society. The Nation has overcome Colonialism, slavery, women’s voting restrictions, Labor abuses, major diseases, one major economic depression, countless recessions, two World Wars, and a slew of natural disasters. Based on this short list, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume that the Nation could come up with a comprehensive Immigration Policy that would stand the test of time (as the U.S. Constitution has). At the start of the Industrial Revolution, our Immigration non-policy was necessarily open to the masses. The U.S. needed a work force to fill the emerging factories, and build a solid middle-class for the Nation. This approach is no longer valid given the World economy and the U.S. economy in the twenty-first Century. No one who preaches the historic policies is dealing in reality; the Government needs to step away from that train of thought.

The solution might be multifaceted, and, as such, require folks from all corners and persuasions of the Political, Social, and Economic spectra to actually agree on something other than their own trite, insignificant agendas. A practical proposal would take “a little of this, and a little of that” to construct at least the framework of a comprehensive, long-term plan of action. This may best be served by, first, looking at the short-term; three to five years out. Follow this with a seamless transition to a long-term, permanent Policy, Legislation, and/or an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

There are a number of basic areas that need addressing

in the overall, larger picture of Immigration Policy:

Categories – Normal, modern-day flow of immigration; refugee immigration; student visas; tourist visas; business visas; any more that make sense; permanent vs. temporary; keep it simple; *based on the U.S. Constitution, there is a division between Church and State, so Church will not be a considered

Numbers – in each category, come up with an annual quota amount; leave some room for emergencies (war, natural disasters, etc.)

Tracking – U.S. citizens who leave the Country and end up in a war zone aiding, abetting, or fighting for the enemy will automatically forfeit his/her U.S. citizenship and passport/visa –they will not be allowed to re-enter the U.S., ever; for temporary entrants, a strict no nonsense verification method (a three month, or one semester, re-registration stipulation); any deviation from this will result in immediate expulsion and a ban on re-entry; certain restrictions on Social Services will apply

Entry - airports and seaports designated and fully  equipped to handle the processing of immigrants; as for the borders - the Nation must make a decision to stop invading other Countries with armed forced; The northern and southern borders can then be patrolled by the Army National Guard rotating on a State-by-State basis; Naval Reserve will help enhance to Coast Guard; the Air Force Reserve will secure the air space; this will guarantee that the Nation will have a  “well maintained Militia” as eluded to in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; appropriate, modern surveillance techniques and hardware will be used in all instances; ( a collateral spin-off might just be a gross reduction in drug and human smuggling across all four borders)

Path to Citizenship – a one-size-fits-all program; must learn to be proficient in English; residency rules will apply; birth in the U.S. does not make one a citizen until parent(s) fully fulfill their obligation; certain restrictions on Social Services between entry and citizenship

It is probably unrealistic to think about a Constitutional Amendment. The current state of the Federal Congress might preclude any meaningful legislation. That leaves a State-by-State nationwide referendum as the most viable way of achieving the goal. A simple 2/3rds majority should seal the deal. The referendum in each State will be identical; no changes allowed; and, definitely no “ear-marks”, or addendums. There will be no list of “exemptions”, thus closing out any attempt at creating “loopholes”. 

DO WE REALLY HAVE TO GO TO WAR, DADDY?

                                       Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Given that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different outcome each time. Is the United States of America ready to re-engage the Mideast in armed conflict, again? (We can’t even seem to call it “war” anymore.) Haven’t we learned anything from our latest fiasco in the desert? From the sound-bytes coming out of Washington, DC, it certainly seems we will never learn from our mistakes. I thought the Viet Nam War was supposed to teach us all we needed to know about open-ended, limited engagement, conflicts without any exit strategy, or end game.

A new Century, a new part of the World, and we find ourselves mired in the quicksand of the Mideast deserts among tribal communities who have been at war with each other for thousands of years. We find ourselves, once again, without an exit strategy, or an end game, and on the verge of being sucked into ground combat in the very near future. What could possibly go wrong?

I need to make one thing very clear, right up front. The National Media, both electronic and print, have taken the American Public for a bunch of ignorant fools. The “facts” they so easily string together make absolutely no sense when placed in the same sentence, or argument. The “facts” they so easily string together are not, indeed, facts. Most of what is spewed over the airwaves and in the papers is total fabrication. What is amazing, to me, is that these fabrications are so transparent if their attempts to foster one editorial position, or another.

When the President of the United States says that he will not commit ground troops to a renewed engagement in the Mideast, you cannot tell the American Public that the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces is overriding that statement by saying he “envisions” there could be a day when ground troops would be a necessary commitment. The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and what he says goes; no matter what. The Chief of Staff is simply stating a military possibility that needs to be considered,; even if not used. I do have a bone to pick with the President, however. He tells the American Public that there are no “combat” troops currently being sent to the Iraq; they are only behind the scenes advisors. I harken back to 1956, when President Eisenhower told us that he was only sending “advisors” to South Viet Nam. Does anyone remember how that worked out? Another bone I have to pick with the President and the Press is that they have both insulted the American Soldier by referring to them as “boots-on-the-ground”. If you can’t respect the men and women, you send off to war. Perhaps you don’t have the right to do so in the first place. These men and women are not simply a bunch of boots on anybody’s ground. They form the backbone of the American Dream and the American Democracy, so don’t ever disrespect them; what they do for you, they do willingly. And, one more bone to pick with the Press. When you are good enough to seek commentary from a recent Veteran, or an Active Duty member, please save a few seconds of your precious time to thank them for their Service to their Country. By skipping by that part of the program, you are, once again, showing your total disrespect for our men and women in Uniform. (note to newscasters: Our Military men and women are the only reason you folks have the liberty to do what you do, night in and night out.) And, please, all of you, stop lying to us. We’re not that stupid, and we see right through you for who you are and what you’re trying to do. One little caveat to the American People. Wake up, folks, your Country is being yanked from under you and only you have the power to set things straight, again. You know who you are!

Now, getting back to the Mideast, would someone please pick up an elementary school history book on this the part of the World? No fewer than five “Empires” have tried to conquer and occupy this region. To date, no one has succeeded. I realize that there are some in this Country who just can’t understand why those Arabs over there won’t take to our style of governance. Why wouldn’t they want the very best the West has to offer in societal, political, and economic systems? We can show them the way to their salvation through democracy and capitalism; it’s so easy. Apparently, the folks who have been running our Foreign Policy for past eighty years have neglected to pay attention to history, and have, instead, been bent on spreading American Exceptionalism throughout the World. We seem to just love that “Nation Building” thing. When does this Country wake up and realize that there aren’t a lot of people who think the same way we do. They have a very different view on the meaning of Religion in their lives. They have a very different value system for their society; they like their tribal hierarchies. And, most of all, they don’t like to be told what to do by people who don’t understand them. And, history will prove me right, they don’t like being told what to do by people who do understand them. They’ve been warring among themselves for thousands of years, and they don’t trust one another, either.

So, I ask the question, “What are we doing over there, and why would we want to go back for more?” I don’t think our Government has the answer to that. I am inclined to think that the Military/Industrial Complex has the answer, and they aren’t talking. Maybe our most favorite dick, President Cheeney, could shed some light on the problem. What say you, Dick?

From Egypt via Iran

There are definitely some very interesting things going on in Egypt. This is one Nation that may lead the way as the "Arab Spring" sorts out its revolutions and gets better organized. Perhaps, as go the Egyptians, so goes the entire Middle East and Northern Africa.

New poll: Egyptians turning toward Iran, want nuclear weapons

BY JOSH ROGIN, OCTOBER 19, 2012 - 12:15 PM   

A poll of Egyptians conducted last month shows that they have increasingly positive views of Iran, believe that both Iran and Egypt should obtain nuclear weapons, and still trust their own military more than any other institution in Egypt.

Armageddon!

The poll of 812 Egyptians, half of them women, was conducted in a series of in-person interviews by the firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner and sponsored by the Israel Project, a pro-Israel advocacy organization with offices in Washington and Jerusalem. According to the poll, Iran is viewed favorably in Egypt, with 65 percent of those surveyed expressing support of the decision to renew Egypt-Iran relations and 61 percent expressing support of the Iranian nuclear project, versus 41 percent in August 2009.

Sixty-two percent of those polled agreed that "Iran and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are friends of Egypt," though 68 percent held unfavorable views of Shiite Muslims.

Iran's deputy defense minister said recently that the Iranian regime is seeking more military cooperation with Egypt. "We are ready to help Egypt to build nuclear reactors and satellites," he said on the occasion or Egyptian President Mohammed Morsy's meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last month. Morsy's office has said the two didn't discuss military cooperation.

Eighty-seven percent of respondents want Egypt to have its own nuclear bomb.

Israel Project CEO Josh Block told The Cable that the statistics show the effect of Morsy's outreach to Iran and the danger of regional proliferation of nuclear weapons if Iran is successful in obtaining a nuclear bomb.

"Very scary to people opposed to proliferation of nuclear weapons, let alone to unstable countries in the world's most turbulent part of the world, is the 87 percent who want Egypt to build nuclear weapons," he said. "Morsy's dangerous embrace of Iran is leading a surprising shift in favor support for Tehran, which has for decades been seen by Egyptians as their top threat, as well as for their work on nuclear weapons."

Egyptians are overwhelmingly focused on the dire state of their domestic economy. Only 2 percent of those polled said that "strengthening relations with other Muslim countries" should be one of Morsy's top two priorities, and 45 percent agreed with the statement that "Egypt needs to focus on things at home and should be less involved in regional politics."

Nevertheless, 74 percent of those polled said that disapprove of Egypt having diplomatic relations with Israel -- an increase from 26 percent in August 2009 -- and support for a two-state solution to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at only 30 percent. Seventy-seven percent agreed that "The peace treaty with Israel is no longer useful and should be dissolved."

Block blamed that result at least partially on the stance of leading Egyptian politicians like President Morsy, who has indicated recently he does not plan to abrogate the Israel-Egypt peace treaty but whose Muslim Brotherhood party identifies Israel as a racist and expansionist state.

"The fact that Morsy and other leading politicians in Egypt regularly express disdain for the peace treaty leads to such decay in public attitudes," Block said. "Then again, nearly half the public voted for a presidential candidate who openly declared his intent to travel to Israel and support for the Camp David accords."

Block was referring to retired Air Force general Ahmed Shafiq, who served as prime minister under Hosni Mubarak and was defeated narrowly in a runoff election earlier this year.

The poll found that 64 percent of Egyptians still feel warmly about the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which ran Egypt in the interim period before Morsy was elected, and 81 percent approve of the job they are doing. Forty-nine percent of Egyptians polled felt warmly about Morsi, and 43 percent felt warmly about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Forty percent felt warmly about the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, but only 11 percent felt warmly about the Salafist Nour Party, a hard line Islamist party that fared well in the parliamentary elections.

American politicians fared poorly in the poll, but among them Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the most popular at 25 percent favorability. President Barack Obama scored 16 percent and Republican nominee Mitt Romney only 8 percent, although only half of Egyptians polled knew who Romney was. (Ahmadinejad's favorability rating? Forty-three percent.)

WON'T YOU BE MY NEIGHBOR?

Most Egyptians don't seem to buy Romney's line that Obama has "thrown Israel under the bus," but they're not too happy about his handling of the region, either.

Asked, "Do you think that President Barack Obama is more on the side of Arabs or more on the side of Israel?," 68 percent of Egyptians said Israel, and 60 percent said that Obama's presidency had been "a negative thing" for the Arab world.

39% of the Egyptians polled expressed interest in learning more about Israel, especially its political system. The Israel Project runs an outreach program to the Arab world, focusing on social media. Its Facebook page is called "Israel Uncensored."

Source:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/new_poll_egyptians_turning_toward_iran_want_nuclear_weapons

“Recent al-Qaida push stresses LI Iraq War vets” – NEWSDAY

My friend, Martin Evans, is keeping the flame alive, as he reports on the plight of Long Island’s Veteran population. His most recent article, below, helps to give some insight to the feelings of frustration and anger that our OIF & OEF Veterans are currently experiencing. The old guard, Viet Nam Veterans, had a similar feeling of despair, frustration, anger, and mistrust after the fall of South Viet Nam in 1975. I am honored with the opportunity to walk among some of our newly returned Veterans, and I am equally saddened by what they are going through in their battle to re-enter civilian life. As Mr. Evans has reported before, the suicide rate for our younger Veterans is climbing at alarming speed. It is now true that the primary cause of death for Soldiers and Veterans is suicide, not being in battle. Thank you Martin, for keeping this subject on the radar.

I sincerely hope that the United States of America comes to its senses, and stops making Veterans.

Originally published: January 9, 2014 7:53 PM
Updated: January 9, 2014 9:27 PM
By MARTIN C. EVANS (click)martin.evans@newsday.com

   Photo credit: Newsday / John Paraskevas | Francis Romanitch,

   a Marine Corps reservist who helped pacify Anbar Province

   when he served in Iraq. (Jan. 9, 2014)

The al-Qaida takeover of parts of Iraq's Anbar province, where about a third of American troops killed in the war perished, has left area Iraq War veterans bitterly wondering what their sacrifice was all about.

"It's disheartening," said Francis Romanitch, 28, a Marine Corps reservist who served in the Anbar city of Ramadi in 2004 as Marines fought door-to-door 25 miles away in Fallujah. “It’s like seeing the Japanese flag flying over Iwo Jima 10 years after World War II," said Romanitch, of Babylon.

Last week, al-Qaida-linked forces overran parts of Fallujah and Ramadi, commandeering police and military facilities, and setting up armed checkpoints. The White House has ruled out resending U.S. troops -- who withdrew from Iraq in 2011 -- but is providing the Iraqi government with arms.

Beginning in 2004, Anbar, a Sunni power base for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein before his capture, became the scene of some of the bloodiest confrontations during the war.

After insurgents hung the burned bodies of four American contractors from a bridge in Fallujah, U.S. troops that April rooted out opponents during weeks of door-to-door confrontations. But they paid a horrific price, according to historian Richard Lowry, author of the book "New Dawn: The Battles for Fallujah."

"These young Marines -- 19 years old -- went in every building and every room of Fallujah," Lowry told Fox News. "They entered darkened rooms, kicking down doors, never knowing if they would find an Iraqi family hunkered down in fear or an Islamist terrorist waiting to shoot them and kill them. And they did that over and over and over again."

Mental health workers have said witnessing a military collapse can be emotionally traumatic for war veterans regardless of what conflict they fought in.

"It's re-traumatizing, if you will," said Denis Demers, who served as a psychological medic in Vietnam and now counsels veterans at the Suffolk Veterans Service Agency.

In 2004, Michael Posner was stationed in Mosul with a New York National Guard unit when a bomb ripped through a military mess tent, riddling him with shrapnel and killing 14 fellow soldiers. He said watching parts of Iraq slip under insurgent control weighs heavily on him.

"It brings back a lot of memories and flashbacks," said Posner, 43, of Bellport. Feelings of anxiety, depression and anger spawned by his wartime experience for a while pushed  him to abuse alcohol and cost him his marriage.

"I lost a part of my soul over there," he said.

Posner, who since returning from Iraq has helped counsel fellow soldiers suffering from anxiety attacks, said he's recently received phone calls from veterans expressing rage.

"A lot of these guys lost a lot of their buddies and saw a lot of bloodshed," he said. "There was so much work they did, and it's gone to hell."

Scott Molloy, 29, of Kings Park, who served in Afghanistan in 2012, said the feeling of accomplishment he had over there has turned to disillusionment. Molloy has struggled to control feelings of anger and frustration related to post-traumatic stress disorder. He said those feelings have worsened because of the al-Qaeda surge.

"It hits you like a ton of bricks," he said. "You ask yourself, 'Why did I go through all that? Why am I suffering?' "d him to abuse alcohol and cost him his marriage.

Galleries:

(click)Honoring Long Island's veterans 

(click)Military heroes return to Long Island

(click)LI, NYC war casualties

(click)LI troops who died in war