By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Two members of the Iowa National Guard were killed in a terrorist attack in Syria, ambushed by a lone ISIS gunman. The attack resulted in the deaths of the two soldiers and a civilian, while also wounding three other soldiers; the gunman was killed in the attack. The two service members killed were part of a group of 1,800 members of the Iowa National Guard deployed to Syria this past summer. President Trump vowed retaliation for the attack, and several Iowa politicians have offered condolences and expressed gratitude for the fallen soldiers’ service.
Read the original article here
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack. This news has understandably sparked a lot of questions, a mix of shock, and, frankly, a lot of anger and confusion. It’s hard not to feel a sense of profound sadness and, frankly, a little bewilderment when you hear about soldiers, especially those serving in the National Guard, losing their lives in a place like Syria. We can’t help but wonder: Why were they there? What exactly is the mission?
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: Why Syria, anyway? The situation in Syria has been complex for years, and the United States has maintained a presence there. The official line often involves supporting regional stability and keeping an eye on groups like ISIS. However, it’s also clear that many people find it hard to understand how a soldier who maybe signed up for state-side duty, or at least thought of it as a significant component of their service, finds themselves in a combat zone. The idea that soldiers from Iowa are deployed to Syria alongside a translator raises further questions about the nature of their mission and the potential risks they face.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: The role of the National Guard is a crucial part of the puzzle. It seems there’s a real disconnect between what many people think the National Guard does – assisting with natural disasters, maybe some training – and the reality of their deployments. The National Guard, as many people have pointed out, is, in fact, the primary combat reserve of the U.S. Army. They deploy overseas, often as entire units, and they’ve been doing so for a long time. They’re just as likely to see combat exposure as any active duty unit, some might argue more so. There’s a history that changed from the pre-9/11 days where the Active Duty deployed and Guard backfilled at home, to today where the Guard deploys units just like active duty.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: The dynamics between the National Guard and Active Duty forces are also worth noting. There’s an interesting shift occurring within the Army. Active Duty is retooling and focusing on large-scale combat and, correspondingly, cutting back on support roles like engineering, intel, and logistics. It seems like the Guard may be stepping in to fill those crucial roles. This means that Guard units are not only deploying, but they’re often doing so in crucial capacities that can be high-risk.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: The emotional impact of this news is undeniable. Reading through the reactions, it’s clear that this hits home in a very personal way for many. For those who have served in the Guard or have friends or family who have served, the news carries a particular weight. It’s a sobering reminder of the dangers these soldiers face. There’s a sense of frustration, too, a feeling that perhaps these deployments are not always transparent or easily understood. There’s also the feeling that the deployments themselves are part of something larger that feels very wrong.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: The role of a translator or any “agent” cannot be ignored. The mention of a translator raises another set of important issues. These individuals are a vital part of the team, but questions around their roles in these deployments are quite significant. Are they CIA? Are they merely translators? The idea that three people have died “needlessly” resonates strongly, underscoring the tragedy and the potential miscalculations that may be contributing to the loss of life.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: The scope of American military involvement in the Middle East is another significant factor to consider. With a consistent presence in Syria since 2015, and the broader context of deployments across the region, it’s important to ask what the long-term strategic goals are and what the cost of those goals is. There’s a widespread feeling that the U.S. has been involved in too many foreign conflicts for far too long, and that a reassessment of its priorities is overdue.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: There are questions about the rationale behind using the National Guard in overseas deployments, instead of simply deploying the regular Army. Some people suspect it might be a way to avoid the political optics of a large-scale active duty deployment. It seems fair to ask if this is an efficient way to fulfill military objectives.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: Beyond the specific circumstances of this incident, it does seem as if it reinforces the fact that the Guard and Active Duty are the same thing in a deployed environment. There really is no distinction. This means that when the Guard deploys, they face the exact same dangers as their Active Duty counterparts. This is something that many Americans may not fully grasp, especially if they are only familiar with the National Guard’s role in their local communities.
Two Iowa National Guard members killed in Syria attack: The overall feeling is of a tragedy, one that has brought into stark relief the complexities of military deployments and the cost of international conflicts. It highlights the dedication and sacrifice of those who serve, and the need for a deeper understanding of the missions they are asked to undertake. It’s a somber reminder of the human cost of war.