When Mike Sanger returned from military duty in Iraq in 2004, he disdained war protesters.
"I thought what I was doing was for the good of the world. I was fighting terrorists, fighting for a good cause," the Lawrence resident, 31, said recently.
Now he is one of the protesters. And he is president of the Kansas City chapter of the national Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Sanger's attitude about the war started to change while he was still in Iraq, he said.
"A lot of us still tried to believe in what we were doing even though we did not like the circumstances we were in," he said.
Sanger, who grew up in Arizona, was an E-4 specialist with the Arizona Army National Guard's 855th military police company. His unit was attached to the Third Infantry Division, which led the invasion into Iraq in March 2003. He said his main duties once Saddam Hussein's government was overthrown involved training Iraqi police and security forces.
Sanger said his doubts about the war grew as the rift between Sunnis and Shiites became more apparent, as more weapons were turned over to Iraqis only to be found later in insurgent compounds, and as more roadside bombs exploded, killing and wounding more soldiers.
"We didn't know who to trust," he said. "It was like Americans were wandering around in Iraq with a target painted on their backs."
Other concerns Sanger developed after he returned to the United States had to do with wounded veterans who had difficulty getting proper treatment and the number of suicides committed by soldiers suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. The U.S. has bungled the war effort, he said.
"Nothing seemed to be going the right way," Sanger said.
Sanger joined IVAW this year. The organization has 600 members nationwide in 24 chapters. The fledgling Kansas City chapter has four members, including Sanger. He said he is confident the membership locally and nationally will grow as the war continues and more veterans leave the military. The purpose of IVAW is to bring awareness to the public about war issues and the problems the war has caused, Sanger said.
In June, Sanger and local activist organizations staged an anti-war march and rally in Lawrence. About 100 people marched down Massachusetts Street to South Park. In September, he was involved with a similar rally in Overland Park that attracted 200 people. Another march and rally is planned for Nov. 17 at Oak Park Mall.
"We're going to march around the mall and end up at (Kansas U.S. Sen.) Sam Brownback's office and do a few speeches and have a good old time," Sanger said.
Sanger has his own war-related medical problems. Roadside bombs took their toll on him, and he said he has received a PTSD diagnosis from private psychologists and medical doctors with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sanger, a full-time student at Kansas City, Kan., Community College, and his wife, Danielle, moved to Lawrence more than a year ago from Arizona. They wanted to be closer to Danielle's relatives in Kansas. They have two sons, ages 3 and 1.
"They will definitely be raised learning the truth about what war is and what politics are all about," he said.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Oracle_of_Rhode (anonymous) says…
madmike (Anonymous) says:
Unlike most of the anti-war crowd, he at least did his duty.
--
It seems to me it's the pro-war cheerleaders who have more of a duty to serve than the "anti-war crowd." Yet odds are good that if you're pro-war, you're a cowardly hypocrite chickenhawk who didn't ever fight for his couontry just like Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Ashcroft, Dennis Hastert Bill Bennett, Bill O'Reilly , Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, John Bolton, Ken Adelman, Jeb Bush , Tom DeLay, Roger Ailes, Brit Hume, Tony Snow, Andrew Card, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dornan, Trent Lott, Phil Graham, George Will, Dennis Miller, Ted Nugent, Michael Weiner, Matt Drudge and the rest of that "crowd."
Do you really think the anti-war advocates have MORE of a duty to serve than these idiots who lied and misled us into this fiasco?
Godot (anonymous) says…
I respect Sanger's opinion, and the reasons he is against the war. I also appreciate that, at least for this interview, he did not resort to name calling, grand generalizations, and hate speech. He cites specifics based on his personal experience and observations. A call for action (as opposed to a "protest") and redress based on the conditions the troops face and the treatment they receive when they return home is extremely valid, in my opinion. I hope his efforts result in action to solve the problems here at home, first, because those are the ones we can most quickly address.
Rationalanimal (anonymous) says…
Oracle,
you forgot to ad Bill Clinton, AlGore, Hillary Rodham, Howard Dean, Terry McCollough, John Edwards, Barrack Hussein Obama, Dick Turbin, Dingy Harry, Nancy Pullout, moveon crowd and the overwhelming majority of all the other anti-American's who have been doing everything possible to make sure we lose this war. I guess John Kerry served, but he came home after serving and alleged war atrocities that he never saw. Now, like then, the phoney stories of atrocities are published to our enemies and their countryman as a propoganda tool. This in turn creates misinformation and additional resistance and hatred towards the US resulting in more American deaths. So yes, the soldiers in Iraq are dying for our freedoms. They die for the freedom of liberals and the media to exercise free speech, even if it is fabricated anti-war rhetoric that is used against them by our enemies. The difference between conservatives who have never served in the military and liberals is that conservatives actually appreciate and honor the sacrifice our soldiers make. We don't cut them down here at home while they are on foreign soil putting their lives on the line. Mike Spanger couldn't generate more than a 100 people to attend his "anti-war rally" in the liberal bastion of Lawrence. Which political party does the military overwhelmingly support Oracle? Well the answer was given when ALGore attempted to have the mailed military votes in Florida declared void. God bless our troops and their mission. We love you guys, pray for your safety, and honor your bravery and service to the Country. You are a fighting a just cause to protect America and freedom.
Weezy_Jefferson (anonymous) says…
Man, some of you pro-Bushers will support him and his mistakes no matter what; not even a war veteran who has witnessed the action first-hand can persuade you to at least temporarily step back and look at the picture with different eyes. How did your egos gets tied to Bush so tightly? People who aren't willing to show even a little doubt in their views---or leave room open for discussion---show warning signs of being fanatics.
Godot (anonymous) says…
The revelations about the size of the Blackwater mercenary militia, the fact that they are taxpayer funded, performing security for US diplomats without oversight by the US military, is shocking to me, and is definitely moving me away from support of our presence in Iraq.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
"Man, some of you pro-Bushers will support him and his mistakes no matter what.... How did your egos gets tied to Bush so tightly?"
You know, Weezy, I'm right there with you on this one. I was mystified by the reelection, and I continue to be mystified by the unwavering support of this buffoon. One need only spend a few minutes on YouTube to seriously question this shrubbery's credentials as LEADER of the Free World.
More than just a monumental embarrassment, this [expletive] has needlessly and ineffectually placed countless lives in harm's way.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
"These people have an irrational hatred for George W. Bush...."
So, what is the basis for your "irrational love" of the Shrubbery?
Inarticulation fetish?
Godot (anonymous) says…
The rhtetoric of people like notnowdear is so childish, so short sighted, so disrepectful of those the writer is trying to influence that it makes me pity him or her for lacking the ability to think, critically.
temperance (anonymous) says…
Rationalanimal: "The difference between conservatives who have never served in the military and liberals is that conservatives actually appreciate and honor the sacrifice our soldiers make. We don't cut them down here at home while they are on foreign soil putting their lives on the line."
Who's really trying to "cut them down here at home while they are on foreign soil putting their lives on the line?" It's Rationalanimal and other 29%-ers who cheerlead dumb policies like "The Surge." Conservatives sure have a funny way of showing their support of the troops: sending them into a war of choice, keeping them in a sectarian conflict with no exit strategy, extending their tours, and then under-funding their health care upon their return. And if you disagree with their war policy watch out their drug-addicted lead spokesperson will brand you as a "phony soldier" (and, worse yet, Rationalanimal will brand you as a "phoney soldier").
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Godot says: "The rhtetoric of people like notnowdear is so childish, so short sighted, so disrepectful of those the writer is trying to influence that it makes me pity him or her for lacking the ability to think, critically."
To view the matter "critically," I don't think that notnowdear is trying to "influence" anyone. Clearly, those who've aligned themselves with the current ad-mini-stration have demonstrated themselves to be un"influence"able.
sourpuss (anonymous) says…
I don't know why people make such a big deal out of serving in the military. It isn't a mark of some high personal achievement. It is a choice people make like any other. It is -job-. For many people, it is a great opportunity, for other people (like draftees) it is a horrible experience. However, it is what it is, and just because you've "served" doesn't make you a good or decent person. Housewives "serve" their country by raising the next generation. Scholars "serve" their country by researching new technologies (often used for warcraft) and educating the next generations. Businessmen "serve" their country by creating jobs, creating and spreading wealth, and providing goods and services people need to live. Sure, being in a war is very dangerous, but so is being a firefighter, a police officer, working in a meat packing plant... and war is almost always optional, unlike firefighting.
What I find awful is that these veterans sign up and let the government tell them what to do for 20 years, then they are tossed out. I certainly believe that if someone serves in the military, it is society's job to take care of that person. There are so many wounded (both physically and emotionally wounded) coming home from Iraq and it troubles me that we do not have the facilities in place to properly care for these wounded veterans long-term, especially with regard to mental care. This is part of the hidden expense of war - a lot of traumatized people you must care for for the next 50 years.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
"... serving in the military...
Housewives "serve"...
Scholars "serve"...
Businessmen "serve"...
firefighter[s "serve"]...
police officer[s "serve"]...
meat packing plant[ workers "serve"]...."
We are becoming a service economy.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"This is part of the hidden expense of war - a lot of traumatized people you must care for for the next 50 years."
It's more of an externalized cost than a hidden cost. There's no shortage of folks complaining about the homeless problem, but a very large percentage of the homeless population is that way because our war-mongering government chewed them up and spit them out after doing what the military is primarily there for-- to make the world safe and profitable for billionaires.
bearded_gnome (anonymous) says…
the "phony soldier ref" is based on quotes taken out of context by the hillaryco subsidiary midamatters. before he made that comment, ABC news/brian ross did a story on "stolen valor" and phony soldiers" such as jesse mcbeth who were being used by the left to tout fake atrocities like what Kerry did after vietnam...thus it is valid what he said. put a lid on it, you're just displaying your own ignorance.
***
Sanger, thanks for your service, and thanks for speaking up. I disagree with your stance on the war, but I do honor your service because unlike "Sourpuss" I know that when you serve in the military, many rights are willingly surrendered so that you can serve a greater good, and I appreciate your choice and commitment.
the numbers cited in this article are tiny. the prosoldier/prowinning in iraq rallies have dramaticly dwarfed these numbers.
***
finally, some of sanger's comments betray the failure of our school system. people today seem to expect perfect intel, perfect wars. every war ever fought had errors made in them. every war had "combat fatigue" "shell shock" or properly called "ptsd." you can even find evidence of it in the writings of the ancient greeks.
it is what we do about it that is important, and agree with Sanger that knowing what we do, we need much better and fuller ptsd response for the people who need it, without question.
finally, just pulling out of Iraq is signing a warrant for victory by al-qaeda. we are fighting al-qaeda in iraq, even Hillary cites that. the sectarian violence has been stirred by them. they want that. and, now we are getting indications of civilian deaths way down, sectarian violence down. you lunatic fringie leftists want to snatch defeat as victory is on its way. you are so invested in defeat because of Bush derangement syndrome.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
I have no doubts that the vast majority of those who serve in the military do so with good intentions. Buy you know what they say about good intentions used as a road-paving material.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"So a total of what, 600 members in this group, out of a total of almost 1,500,000 that have served in Iraq."
We don't really know for sure, but it's human nature not to want to admit that what you did was a waste of time and/or just plain wrong-headed (even if the primary wrong-headedness lies with the leaders who signed your marching orders.) When those actions become downright criminal, the reluctance to objectively assess your actions becomes even greater. This makes Sanger's ability to be honest and contrite about the true nature of what he was ordered to do even more remarkable.
merrill (anonymous) says…
Bring the troops home!
http://antiwar.com/
Witnesses: U.S. Airstrike Kills Civilians in Baquba
- Dems Demand Secret Torture Memos
- House Backs Law to Prosecute Iraq Contractors
- Pentagon: Blackwater Guards Fired Unprovoked
http://democracynow.org/
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"bozo just said the majority of our troops are dumb and dishonest."
Naive pawns in denial would be a better description. But I've long since learned that a large number of posters here prefer to speak for me (and others they disagree with) rather than let me (and them) do that for myself (and themselves.)
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
I speak for the trees!
(... no, that would be the Lorax.... )
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Looks like the Bush administration got to Amy Goodman this week."
Actually, she has Bell's Palsy, which is not a well-understood affliction, but generally considered to be caused by a viral infection. It usually runs its course in a few weeks or months, and goes away.
But judging by the quality of your posts here, I can understand why you'd rather make fun of her appearance than debate her on anything of substance.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"I speak for the trees!"
Can you ask Lorax whether the trees hear the thunder in a human-free forest?
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
bozo says: "Can you ask Lorax whether the trees hear the thunder in a human-free forest?"
I have asked.
No reply.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"I never made fun of Goodman's appearance."
I guess you have a point. But her pronunciation and diction have never been "slurred," and even though paralysis caused by Bell's Palsy can affect the mouth and speech, it hasn't in her case. So you're still full of sh*t, which I guess is what motivates you to prefer to engage in spurious personal attacks rather than well-reasoned debate.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"No reply."
The answer I get, too.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
max1,
Thanks for providing some solid facts. I have but one small qualm with the military times poll and this is in regards to its validity. The poll was taken of subscribers of a magazine, and this wouldn't really give a completely true count of what people in the military are thinking. This is because there is no randomnization that would yield more accurate results. However, the error margin that this poll has is unlikely to change the results of the poll. All that being said, the far right cannot really say that Dubya has the full backing of the military anymore.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
gnome:
"finally, just pulling out of Iraq is signing a warrant for victory by al-qaeda. we are fighting al-qaeda in iraq, even Hillary cites that"
-----------------------
Oh well then it MUST be true! Finally someone has found the truth, thanks gnome, great job!
daniellersanger (anonymous) says…
It is amazing to me that so many people missed the important issues that this article raises. It does not matter whether you are for the war in Iraq or against it. The men and women who have served should have voices that can be heard. Instead they are coming home to services that are unacceptable. They deal with inept doctors, long wait times, people who are rude, hospitals that are understaffed and underfunded, pertinant military records being lost. This is unacceptable. Every person who is for or against the war in Iraq needs to be making steps to help fix these things because I would hope that it is something that everyone can agree on. My husband happens to be against the war but that doesn't mean that he does not share common values with many others. So those of you who are for this war, is it too much to ask that you stand up for the soldiers in your own way---make a sign that says "Supporting the war includes providing services to returning soldiers. Get them the services they need NOW!" I don't think anyone, pro-war or anti-war, would disagree with that.
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
hmm... what's the "r" stand for...?
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
(just trying to break the tension... nothing seems to shut down a forum faster than a truly credible post, i.e., danielle's)
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"She has always been a terrible news reader and interviewer, but she has been even worse this past week after her herpes problem"
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And everyone is entitled to their own pointless obsession, even if, like you, that's all you have to offer.
erod0723 (anonymous) says…
max1,
Thanks for the clarification!
tangential_reasoners_anonymous (anonymous) says…
Reportedly, the President remains unresponsive.
Mkh (anonymous) says…
gnome:
"finally, just pulling out of Iraq is signing a warrant for victory by al-qaeda. we are fighting al-qaeda in iraq, even Hillary cites that. the sectarian violence has been stirred by them. they want that. and, now we are getting indications of civilian deaths way down, sectarian violence down. you lunatic fringie leftists want to snatch defeat as victory is on its way. you are so invested in defeat because of Bush derangement syndrome."
------------------------------------------
So gnome if the US is fighting the supposive "al-qaeda in Iraq", aren't we just helping the "evil people" in Iran? Or do you not understand the details?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"And you're entitled to use the name of a clown, which is very appropriate."
The clown reference is all-inclusive, fellow bozo.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
DotsLInes--
It's a stupid war instigated by stupid people. Are you one of them?
laika (anonymous) says…
Isn't the fact that there needs to be a continued military presence in Iraq proof that this war has been mismanaged from the start and was based on many wildly optimistic hopes? Even if we cut through all the WMD stuff, which was just a political pretext for the war and get to the realpolitik, which was to invade Iraq in order to create a democratically centered ally in the middle east that could be used to "stabilize" the whole region, obviously that hasn't worked either. So really if you get to the brass tacks, even if you have a conservative agenda, why should you like Bush or the republican party he leads? He obviously hasn't accomplished what the neocons dreamed of with their New American Century think tank and really this should serve as repudiation of their entire agenda. Beyond that, any one who thinks this was is about terrorism I would challenge them to explain how invading Iraq when Al-qaeda has never been heavily involved there prewar is a direct challenge to Islamic fundamenlist terrorism? Seems like you care less about terrorism and more about yelling about liberal agendas.
As far as Iraq perishing, do we really need another republican president when that party couldn't even stabilize the country when it was their idea to invade? Sounds like poor leadership based around the failed neocon policy mentioned above. We need a new foreign policy, one preferably that can patch up the damage that this conservative agenda has brought.
BigAl (anonymous) says…
I think this is all amazing that people are standing up for Limbaugh. Even right-wingers know that he says anything he wants, true or not, without ever being challenged. During the last republican primary, he actually was making fun of John McCain, a true American hero. But, McCain was running against Bush and Limbaugh couldn't have that. And now people like O'Reilly are standing up for Limbaugh? Give me a break.......
Limbaugh talks about family values and this man has been married how many times? He has no children, reformed drug user, draft dodger and he promotes "family values"??? And, the right-wingers love him. Go figure.....
laika (anonymous) says…
"what was not expected that the Iraqi people would, given the chance, so much enjoy killing each other, hating one another as much or more than they hated their former dictator. I don't recall any Democrats warning of this possibility, either."
Why would you not expect this? The only people this is not obvious to is people who have no understanding of history of Iraq. First, Iraq was artificially created by the British during their imperial era. Once they left, Iraq was created as a nation with three divisive cultural/ethnic groups (the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds) none of which wanted to live together. Saddam kept this unnatural amalgamation together through brutal oppression (gassing the kurds, etc).
Again we come to Bush and his neocons. They completely ignored the state department, which I'm sure made them well aware of all of this and proceeded right ahead. Which I guess answers you're question of why we didn't invade the country after gulf war 1, because it would've put us in the quagmire we're in now and Bush 1 being the former director of the CIA knew exactly what would happen. Many of the neocons wanted to do exactly what you suggest and march right onto "freedom and victory". Obviously, they got their wishes later on.
As far as the rest of the wildly optimistic hopes I referenced above, they all conveniently avoid the inevitable realities of invading/ruling a foreign country in the modern era (see Algeria with the French, Vietnam, etc). The key distinction here is that we have to at least appear to not randomly be torturing, executing, preforming illegal searches etc. It's much harder to rule a defeated country in these days of expected human rights and international media attention, which I think is great and one more reason not to do so.
As far as democrats being guilty of something, it was mainly allowing themselves to be politically railroaded beyond the big ole terrorism/9-11/WMD argument that allowed Bush and co. to invade. They know or have people working for them that know everything I just explained, but of course translating that it into political action is another thing entirely.
So yeah, I guess it's great that Bush really wants to help those poor Irqais he cares about so much. Unfortunately, his completely military based strategy has obviously not united the country. I guess you can hang onto those good intentions Bush has, they'll make some great paving material.
toefungus (anonymous) says…
Don't we have a volunteer armed forces? Maybe the recruiter lied to him and said he would not have to go to work once he signed up.
daniellersanger (anonymous) says…
It is funny to me that someone who cannot even spell the word "loser" or "probably" is the one casting stones about others being "loosers".
Danimal (anonymous) says…
I don't know why an extremely small group of veterans, many of whom are deserters, continues to get so much media attention. Unfortunately this detracts from the real issues of trying to get expanded veterans health care and education benefits passed through Congress. I know that Sanger made a brief allusion to improving health care, but that's only half the battle. When these vets come home and can't get enrolled in VA education programs so they can get a good civilian job what happens then. Unemployment amongst GWOT vets is regularly two to three times the national average for civilians. Finding a reasonable way to end the war with as little carnage and few ripples as possible is important; but shame on the LJ World for continually being a sensationalist rag and regularly ignoring the efforts of veterans who are out there everyday trying to actually improve veterans benefits simply because we won't make outrageous, politically-charged statements.