A Father Addresses George Bush
By Mona
As The Chicago Tribune reports, Richard Landeck, 56, of Wheaton, IL recently sent off a letter to President Bush, signing it as the “proud father of a fallen soldier.†Landeck’s son, Captain Kevin Landeck, died this past February in Iraq; his emails home indicated a misguided war run by idiots.
This was Kevin Landeck:
This is the complete text of his father’s letter to the President, no emphasis is mine:
Feb 4, 2007
Dear Mr. Bush:
This will be the only time I will refer to you with any type of respect.
My son was killed in Iraq on February 2, 2007. His name is Captain Kevin Landeck.
He served with the Tenth Mountain Division. He was killed while riding in a Humvee by a roadside bomb just south of Baghdad. He has a loving mother, a loving father and loving sister.
You took him away from us. He celebrated his 26th birthday January 30th and was married for 17 months. He graduated from Purdue University and went through the ROTC program. That is where he met his future wife. He was proud to be a part of the military and took exceptional pride in becoming a leader of men. He accepted his role as a platoon leader with exceptional enthusiasm and was proud to serve his country.
I had many conversations with Kevin before he left to serve as well as during his deployment. The message he continued to send to me was that of incompetence. Incompetence by you, (Vice President Richard) Cheney and (former Secretary of Defense Donald) Rumsfeld. Incompetence by some of his commanders as well as the overall strategy of your decisions.
When I asked him about what he thought about your decision to “surge†more troops to Baghdad, he told me, “until the Iraqis pick up the ball, we are going to get cut to shreds. It doesn’t matter how many troops Bush sends, nothing has been addressed to solve the problem he started.â€
Answer me this: How in the world can you justify invading Iraq when the problem began and continues to lie in Afghanistan? I don’t want your idiotic standard answer about keeping America safe. What did Sadaam Hussein have to do with 9/11? We all know it had to do with the first Iraq war where your father failed to take Sadaam down.
Well George, you have succeeded in taking down over 3,100 of our best young men, my son being one of them. Kevin told me many times we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq and they could not do their jobs as soldiers. He said they are trained to be on the offensive and to fight but all they are doing is acting like policemen.
Well George, you or some “genius†like you who have never fought in a war but enjoy all the perks your positions afford you are making life and death decisions. In the case of my son, you made a death decision.
Let me explain a few other points he and I discussed. He said when he and his men were riding down the road in their Humvees, roadside bombs would explode and they would hear bullets bouncing off their vehicle. He said they were scared. He thought “why should we be the ones who are scared?†He asked permission to take some of his men out at night with their night vision glasses because as he said “we own the night†and watch for the people who are setting roadside bombs and “take them out.†He said, “I want them to be the ones that are scared.†He was denied permission. Why? It made perfect sense to me and other people who I told about this.
When he was at a checkpoint he was told that if a vehicle was coming at them even at a high rate of speed he could not arbitrarily use his weapon. He had to wave his arms and, if the vehicle did not stop, he could fire a warning shot over the vehicle. If the vehicle did not stop then, he could shoot at the tires. If the vehicle did not yet stop he could take a shot at the driver. Who in their right mind made that kind of decision?
How would you like to be at a check point with a vehicle coming at you that won’t stop and go through all those motions? You will never know!
You or Cheney or Rumsfeld will never know the anguish, the worry, the sleepless nights, the waiting for the loved one who may never return. If the soldiers were able to do their jobs and the ego’s of politicians like you, your “cronies†and some commanders had their heads on straight, we would be out of this mess which we should not be involved with in the first place.
My family and I deserve and explanation directly from you……not some assistant who will likely read this and toss it. This war is wrong.
I want you to look me and my wife and daughter directly in the eye and tell me why my son died. We should not be there, but because of your ineptness and lack of correct information I have lost my son, my pride and joy, my hero!
Again, you, Cheney and Rumsfeld will never understand what the families of soldiers are going through and don’t try to tell me you do. My wife, my daughter and I cannot believe we have lost our only son and brother to a ridiculous political war that you seem to want to maintain. I hope you and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the other people on your band wagon sleep well at night….we certainly don’t.
Richard Landeck
Proud father of a fallen soldier
Kevin Landeck’s guestbook may be signed here.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 20, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Things like this are the reason why Bush and his cronies will burn in hell.
Comment by sglover —
March 20, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Unfortunately, since the recipient is an emotional child, it’s pretty certain that it will trigger any response beyond petulance, sulking, blame-shifting. Impeachment, trial, and imprisonment are necessary.
Comment by mds —
March 21, 2007 @ 9:13 am
Lord of the Ancients, I hope the Landecks’ mortgage is paid off, so they don’t lose too much money when they have to flee Wheaton and go into hiding. ‘Cause if this letter gets enough play, the memory of their fallen son being smeared by bullying, cowardly scum will be the least of it. Perhaps they can move in with the Darbys, wherever they are.
Comment by Rich Casebolt —
March 21, 2007 @ 11:47 am
Cause if this letter gets enough play, the memory of their fallen son being smeared by bullying, cowardly scum will be the least of it.
Like the memory of Casey Sheehan has been abused by his mother and her ilk?
Unfortunately, this father has bought the real lie … the lie that this war is “a political war” …
… for this war was justified in even the simplest of terms … with or without WMD …
… the justification for our actions in Iraq does not hinge upon the presence or absence of Al Quada in Iraq …
… it hinges upon the actions of Saddam, his sons, and those who wish to succeed him and re-establish totalitarian rule there, and/or use Iraq’s resources and infrastructure to support totalitarian expansion, directly or through terrorist surrogates …
The “political war” lie ignores how many more would be placed at risk of death or subjugatation by totalitarians, if we had not acted decisively to remove Saddam & Sons (and their support of other terror organizations in addition to their own dictatorship) …
… and HOW MANY more will die, if we pull out.
Now, this father’s criticism of the rules of engagement is legitimate … let’s understand what drove the establishment of those rules: they were established in response to the hypersensitivity to violent action on the part of many, fed by the “faulty intel” of slipshod/sensationalized/biased reporting and/or political posturing..
Y’all who are critics created this climate … if you are really concerned, make sure and demand that this President loosen up the ROE’s … and give our soldiers a fair shake when mistakes happen, instead of trying and convicting them in the blogosphere at the first appearance of trouble.
George W. Bush is the grown-up here … while the critics are infants who will ignore and/or distort the truth, just so they can Save the Legacy of their Woodstock Nation …
… at least until these enemies reach our own shores in force.
If that happens, the death and destruction in Iraq today will be insignificant, compared to the destruction wrought here … and/or in the MidEast as, with our backs against the wall due to our own INACTION, we are compelled to unleash a military response that will not discriminate between terrorist and civilian … as happened in WWII.
We have a chance to avoid that, if we continue acting with resolve and decisiveness.
So be careful what you ask for, critics — if you are interested in saving lives.
Comment by Mona —
March 21, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Woodstock!?
(More more more) how do you like it, how do you like it
(More more more) how do you like it, how do you like it
(More more more) how do you like it, how do you like it
Yes Rich, let’s see the elaboration on Bush’s maturity, the invading hordes of whomever, and the apocalypse that Kevin Landeck’s death helps to prevent. If your views were not obscene, they’d be funny.
Comment by Greg Morrow —
March 21, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
The rules for checkpoint procedure are there because the soldiers are, indeed, acting like policemen (which they are ill-suited for). The procedures are there so that the innocent people don’t get shot as they approach a checkpoint that didn’t used to be there yesterday, manned by people who don’t speak the language.
You can distinguish between police and soldiers in this context by looking at the assumption of innocence or hostility.
Comment by sglover —
March 21, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
… at least until these enemies reach our own shores in force.
Please tell me more about al Qaeda’s upcoming Operation Overlord. This I gotta hear.
Comment by mds —
March 21, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
the memory of their fallen son being smeared by bullying, cowardly scum will be the least of it.
Wow, I confess I didn’t expect it to start here. This young man might still be alive if only American soldiers were permitted to be brutal enough by the pantywaists back home, such as his father.
Please tell me more about al Qaeda’s upcoming Operation Overlord. This I gotta hear.
Well, you see, if only we had had troops fighting Islamic insurgents somewhere in the Middle East, there would have been no one to spare to hijack commercial airplanes on 9/11. Alas, instead we thought that our oceans protected us, since they worked so well against the threat of Soviet ICBMs.
Comment by Dennis —
March 21, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Hey Rich, You ever serve in combat? No don’t bother answering, my guess is you got a stockpile of firearms, books on extraterrestrials invading the earth, you’ve never been in the military, hell you’ve never even been in a fight in your life, my guess is your fat, out of shape and judging from your praise of bush, you’re not very bright. And yeah this is a personal attack on you and all your “Ilk”. I always imagine owning a house sized canister vacuum on wheels and once a month I drive out and suck up the human debris. Help make the world a better place, you know what I mean?
Comment by KCinDC —
March 21, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
While I sympathize with the letter writer and agree with most of his points, I’m not convinced that the situation would be improved if our troops were accidentally killing more innocent Iraqis at checkpoints, which is what his recommended change would lead to. Increasing the number of Iraqis who have good reason to hate Americans is not going to help.
Comment by atablarasa —
March 22, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
#10, I agree that it wouldn’t help to be killing innocents, the real issue is the terms of engagement generally. As #6 said, it’s the whole problem with soldiers acting like the police (which, as an aside, makes giving Arizona Guard troops police powers on the border a very bad idea too). This is not a war any more. It’s an occupation. We have a military force being used, and used badly, in a job for which they are not qualified.
The same has been true all along. If you really want to stop the terrorists, it’s the cops and the intel people who will do it. 9/11 could have been prevented by vigilence on the part of the administration, but Condi and the rest are still fighting the Soviets. They refused to recognize that the threat was not state-sponsored.
This is not to say that military action might not have been called for, but it should have been in support of the cops. This would have been better seen as gang warfare instead of all-out war.