Losing heart and minds in Iraq?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 9:03 pm

I read this article in the January 1-7 issue of The Ecomomist.
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news3/economist.html
The Economist is a conservative British magazine that strongly supported the current war in Iraq, was disturbed but still supportive after the failure to find WMD but now seems to be getting more worried that the occupation has lost it's way.
Please read the article before you comment.

The article points out that a top quality combat force is not a top quality peacekeeping force. I don't think that is a criticism of the U.S. forces just a comment on the difficult (impossible?) job they are faced with.

kufyit · Post by **kufyit** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 11:21 am

Is it wrong to criticize US forces?

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:07 pm

Some people would claim so. They would probably go so far as to use the words 'unpatriotic' and 'anti-american'.

If that happens just tell them to f themselves.

Robo · Post by **Robo** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 5:38 pm

Ferno wrote:'unpatriotic' and 'anti-american'.

sigh.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:27 pm

kufyit wrote:Is it wrong to criticize US forces?

It is wrong to attack, slander, and otherwise villify the forces for doing the job they are assigned to do. It's not "unpatriotic" or "un-American", it's simply uncivil and childish.

It is not wrong to question the motivations of the administration for ordering them to do such things. Those who consider that "unpatriotic" or "un-American" are merely blindly devoted to a particular cause, much like those who attack anyone who supports President Bush in the least, even down to his choice of breakfast cereal.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:20 pm

DCrazy wrote:... much like those who attack anyone who supports President Bush in the least, even down to his choice of breakfast cereal.

Hey man... step off the Corn Pops or I'm going to have to hurt you. Corn Pops r00lz!

Er uh...

Not surprising that a top-quality killing force is less than top-quality in public relations. While the army has done some things to improve PR -- like hiring translators, for example -- it's not surprising that they wouldn't be able to do a perfect job.

But then, the concern that we've "lost our way" and we're losing the "hearts and minds" is way overblown. Embedded reporters aren't getting man-on-the-street interviews; they're getting people-who-just-got-inconvenienced-by-the-army interviews, and those will tend to be just as bad as the interviews you'd get for people just inconvenienced by a political rally. "F***ing politicians, closing off the street so I have to walk the long way! I hate politicians. (But I'm voting for that guy.)"

Hearts and Minds are won or lost based on whether the Iraqi people feel like they're better off or worse off, and whether we're helping or hurting their situation. Judging from the guys at Iraq the Model -- the tone of discussions they have with other Iraqis, in particular -- the general mood of the Iraqi people is improving as the situation in their country improves. Yeah, people get pissed off -- but they also see their situation continuing to get better. That's where hearts and minds are won and lost...

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 7:41 pm

Did any of you guys bother to read the article?

I am very reluctant to criticize the foot soldier of any army. They are serving their country often without the option of refusing. They are put in situations of extreme stress and some react badly. The example of the U.S. troops serving in Vietnam is always on my mind. The didn't start the war and in some cases did not support it they just fought the battles their comanders sent them into. When they returned they were sometimes treated like criminals by the disenchanted public.
I'd rather their commanders and political bosses that got them into their situations take the heat.

[quote]In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching within 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: â??If anyone gets too close to us we f**king waste them,â?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 11:20 pm

Ford Prefect wrote:Did any of you guys bother to read the article?

Yes.

Did you bother to read my post?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 9:51 am

they're getting people-who-just-got-inconvenienced-by-the-army interviews, and those will tend to be just as bad as the interviews you'd get for people just inconvenienced by a political rally. "F***ing politicians, closing off the street so I have to walk the long way! I hate politicians. (But I'm voting for that guy.)"

Sorry Lothar but I consider being shot because you are using your cell phone to tell your wife there was an explosion a little more that "inconvienced" or since it is an offence against Islam to leave a body unburied you try to take care of it and your dead too a little more than "inconvienced"

And not all of them were in cars. Since discovering that roadside bombs, known as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), can be triggered by mobile telephones, marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed. Sometimes, the marines say they hide near the body of a dead insurgent and kill whoever comes to collect it. According to the marine lieutenant: â??It gets to a point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody...It gets to a point where you don't mind the bad stuff you do.â?

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:53 pm

I already read the article; you don't have to keep quoting it trying to prove me wrong.

"Inconvenienced" is often too weak a term (though since I referred specifically to interviews, I think it still fits -- they don't interview those who were actually killed, since they're dead.) But the point still stands -- they've got a very, very limited perspective. All they see is what happens in close relation to the actual troop activities in the country. I don't deny that some of that stuff is really, really bad -- I just deny the "we're losing the hearts and minds" spin they put on it.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:44 pm

Lothar, usually I concur with your positions on things, but I tend to agree with Ford Prefect here. "Inconvenience" (like the analogy you made to people trying to park near a political rally) is really not the appropriate term. "Distressed" would be much better in this case, since we're talking about situations where at times even innocent lives have been taken. We invaded and have been occupying their homeland for months now; "inconvenienced" just doesn't fit the kind of anger/anxiety/grief some of the Iraqi people are feeling.

Imagine if the United States was being occupied by a military presence. Even if that military was generally humane and brutal violence toward US citizens only happened on occasion, would you still use the word "inconvenienced"?

As to whether the article put too negative a "spin" on the situation, I'm not so sure. As Ford said above, this article is from a source which staunchly supported the invasion. Even if it is unrealistically negative, maybe it just serves to balance the overly cheerful reports that typified American media coverage just after Baghdad was taken.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Jan 18, 2005 10:37 pm

Sorry about doubting your reading the article Lothar I just can't beleive you can express having innocent civilians killed, their homes destroyed and their city turned into a battleground to a term such as "inconvienced". And the bulk of the interviews seemed to me to be with U.S. troops not man in the street Iraqis. Well each to his own I guess.

What I actually wanted to discuss was the problem of combat troops in an occupier or peacekeeper role. There well may be areas in Iraq where the relationship between the U.S. troops and the Iraqis are much better that in Ramadi or the other places mentioned in this report but when you take troops trained to find and destroy an enemy,place them in a stressful situation in a foreign land the reaction too easily is to view all the locals as enemies. This occured in Vietnam where the troops could not tell the difference between a Vietnamese that supported them or one who was actually a Viet Cong. Soon all Vietnamese were "gooks" and treated like an enemy. Eventually support for the U.S. in the south collapsed.
Taking this report as an indicator of what might be happening in other parts of Iraq you can see that the longer the U.S. troops spend in Iraq the more likely that the Iraqis will come to view them as an enemy with the result that any future government that has the support of the people might also view the U.S. as an enemy.
It's a bad situation and not really the fault of the troops, more a problem of planing for the aftermath of the war. Or lack thereof.
The Economist is not a sensationalist magazine to say the least and for them to be printing a disturbing article like this as strong indicator that all is not well.