Very interesting read Pindar
Printable View
Very interesting read Pindar
While winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis is a desirable goal, we must first win the war against the insurgency. They will do nothing but tear down any goodwill we may engender among the people by keeping them in a constant state of fear. Help the Americans and the British and we will kill your family! Join the police force and we will kill you while you are in line at the recruiting centers. Attempt to become an Iraqi soldier and we will kdinap you and murder you and your comrades in the desert. Americans, we will not fight you openly, but give your army the "death of a thousand cuts", so that you will have to become brutal in your frustration. I realize that these are generalizations of the enemiy's strategies, but does it not fit the pattern of what we see? These resulted from failing to understand what kind of enemy we were up against I agree. What is to be done about them?
Just for the sake of discussion, the Romans, and the Macedonians before them
also faced tribal warfare as well. The Romans in Britain and Gual used a divide and conquer strategy, often playing one tribe against another. The Macedonians, because they were not a large army, ruled through the local leadership of the conquered peoples as much as possible, allowing them to keep their cultural differences. In both cases however, the use of force to keep order and quell uprisings was was swift and brutal. I won't name every instance I can remember, but just mention the siege of Jeruselam by Rome, and the siege of Gaza by Alexander as examples of the effective use of extreme force. This is the dilemma that the coalition has placed itself in, are we liberators, or merely the new "Rome" in the Persian Gulf? How do the different Iraqi tribes see us? Can we play one against the other? How much force will we have to use to put down the insurgency? Will goodwill alone get the job done, or will we too have to resort to draconian measures as Rome and Macedon did?
I see we're in agreement here and you also understood my point about retaliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
It won't work guys.
Rotogun: Yeah, you're plenty proud to work with us but you don't know what we look like. I've spoken to guys who've been out there and the Americans shoot at everything.
SOP if you see American forces?
"Run like Hell, don't even bother with a Union Flag, they don't know what it means."
It wasn't unlit last year that American commanders actually asked the British to come in and teach their officers to recognise British gear. Everyone else in NATO know what their friends, including the Americans, look like.
To your other point: Yes normal Iraqis care about oil money and reconstruction but the militants don't, the only thing they might care about is their entire people being wiped out.
These men don't care about death or money, they care about their people, if anything.
Thats all you can threatan them with.
As I said the current American attitude is responsible for the current, avoidable, situation. Let me speel it out.
Its all your fault and you need to change the way you opperate.
@ Wigferth Ironwall,
What exactly do you recommend we do? I have at least attempted to offer some kind of suggestions. I am more than willing to listen to your ideas if you would only offer more than criticism. You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person, so come now, let us reason together.
I am also very sorry to hear of accidental shooting up of British forces. I agree with you totally, American commanders can often be very arrogant and negligent
in ackowledging their allies. I also know of our proclivity to "shoot first and ask questions later" as you claim. I apologize for my comrades who have done so, and shall take to heart what you have made known. I will teach a class to my Platoon next drill weekend on this very subject. Will this suit by way of a personal apology?
Regards,
Next time you want to spell something out, do it in such a way that it doesn't invalidate everything you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Someone got a George Cross for retrieving dead and wounded comrades from a shot up APC, braving fire from the US Warthog that had destroyed it and an accompanying vehicle. It would have been a Victoria Cross, but they're only given for acts in the face of the enemy. Freaking huge Union flags didn't stop the Warthog from attacking those vehicles, nor indeed from its return run. IMHO the pilot should have been court martialled for his sloppy work in not finishing those vehicles off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
I thought he did it on purpose. 'Speel', as you've just proven, sticks out much more in your mind than 'spell' does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
All I got out of the article was some good, hard Nihilism - "Morality and Conventionalism are for subordinates".
“No one would let their children and wives be starved for a lost cause, unless they were determined to let them die in the first place.” Except if they believe the cause is worth of the lost. Of course, there are historical examples, one of them being the siege of La Rochelle. After 14 months of siege (August 1627 to October 1628) the city, whose population had dropped from 18,000 to 5,000, the city surrendered… Are you ready for it? In front of CNN and other big Media?
“Think of how much bloodshed could have been avoided in Fallujah if the Marines would have simply surrounded the place, and waited the enemy out?” Exactly what Karadic and Mladic did for Sarajevo… They were bombed by NATO and they are now on the waiting list for the International Tribunal for War Crimes…
I don’t have any idea how the US will go out of a self building hell. But to just think adding more troops in the cauldron will help is just a bad dream. It was how it started in Vietnam, first Green Berets then Marines and finished with GI’s. More you add troops, more you increase the opportunities for clashes and tensions.
The mistakes accumulated by the US from the beginning and even before are hard to rectify.
You HAD the hearts and minds of most of the population and stupidly lost them.
To regain them you will need more schools, more doctors, more nurses, more firemen and more teachers. All that knowing that these people will be targeted by the assassins and the insurgents will try to blow all you will try…
Treat the country not like a battlefield but like a crime scene. More intelligence, infiltration of the different enemies. Don’t fool yourself in trying to make internal war between different factions. The French Resistance was made from Anti-Republican, Monarchist to Anarchists but all united in the idea to kick the Germans out. The Civil war started AFTER the liberation.
It took around 10 years to the French Army in Algeria to “pacify” Algeria to be able to withdraw with a minimum of dignity (except the abandon of their native soldiers, the Harkis, followed by their slaughter by the FLN and the first Ethnic Cleansing of the European Algerians) after a Referendum for Independence. US army has to adapt. Send Special Forces to kill the money, to destroy the weapons factories, the infrastructures of the insurgents. It was used in Vietnam by the French (a commando named after the commander Adjudant Vandenberg). He didn’t attack the military structure but the guys providing water, food, money… He recruited former Vietminh, and in their black pyjamas he infiltrated the jungle, using the Vietminh methods. He did work until his assassination… One of his soldiers was an enemy agent and killed him. BUT it is still valid.
The very difference is that France was in Vietnam before and had some knowledge. But the US still can gain support from the population if they stop to think they can win in burning every village…
“It is the first rule of tribal warfare” I afraid I disagree with this qualification. You mixed fear and respect. Iraq is not Gaul. The insurgents use very sophisticate warfare, adapted to their enemy and their strategy.
Well, the Green Berets made a great job until they were replaced by Southern Korean troops who completely messed it all up...:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
You don't need to provide a personnal apology, the responsibility lies with the people writing the SOPs and Regs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorgun
I thought I had provided some examples but I'll try again.
1. Stop using tanks and planes, they're inaccurate and they're wholy offensive, they almost always cause unnecessary civilian casualties.
2. Break down the aggressive attitude of the American soldier, I'm not talking about individuals, I'm sure you all hate it as much as anyone else but the "shoot first" attitude has to be shelved during Peace Keeping.
3. You are not at war. Iraq is a Police Action, granted it continues to be a very violent one but America doesn't seem to make the distinction.
4. You aren't going to win with force, American operations have done a lot to destroy the goodwill of the Iraqi people, something you did have in 2003.
5. When you respond to the insurgants use appropriate force, usually that means nothing above rifle fire, if your soldiers can't kill a stationary target every time, then send them to the firing range.
6. Lots of little things, for example, checkpoints; if someone runs one it probably is because they're scared, if you don't have a good reason and your life isn't in danger don't shoot, let them go. If they're insurangts you've a couple get away. If they're not and you shoot you've just made all their fathers and brothers into enemies and their sisters aren't ever going to tell you anything.
Its a whole mindset. It basically comes down to this, most Iraqis are civilians, Iraqi civilians are more important than American soldiers. If you lose ten men in the first month because of this strategy you'll save thirty in the next two months. You have to accept a short term bloody nose to win.
In order to defeat terrorists you have to remove their power base, like any enemy. The terrorist power base is popular support, since you're not going to terrify or murder them you have to win them over, and you do that just by showing you're human.
You're not fighting the terrorists to defeat them militarily, you're fighting them to stop tehm from disrupting the lives of ordinary Iraqis, that way the country can re-build and recover. You also have to help them with this, get the engineers out to dig wells and put in mains electricity in the villages.
At the moment America protects their own troops while killing a few terrorists and causing damage to civilian property out of all proportion. What you should be doing is putting your soldiers in danger to protect Iraqis people and their property while trying to take out the terrorists, because they threaten the ordinary Iraqis.
Its very subtle and hard to see the difference, obviously your troops are there to protect the Iraqis and just by being there they put their lives in danger, right?
You have to go a step beyond that.
Its the difference between shouting, "look out" and actually pushing someone out of the way of the bus, obviously you're not suicidal, you just put their life before yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
It's interesting to see a non-American tell an American what his culture thinks and feels...
I think you might be frightfully suprised if you spoke to the common American citizen. I'm not putting my personal opinion here for the rest of you to banter about, but it is from my observation that if the American people, by popular vote, had a choice as to how to finally finish the Iraqi mess...you would get this.
1 - Anything even remotely resembling a sunni or shiite village would be summarrily flattened and raked for survivors.
2 - The Kurds, one of the VERY FEW middle eastern people besides Israeli's that America currently view as rational, intelligent people would be excluded from the massacre. (The others being turks and kuwaitis)
3 - America would remain long enough for the Kurds to establish a secure nation and turn them into the new Israel. (Establish an American sponsored state strong enough to repel a potential hostile invasion from Iran, then withdraw.)
4 - Finish the deal by lobbing a nuke into Iran's nuclear processing facility, Tehran, and the next 4 most populous of it's cities.
The rest of the world should be glad the American people elect representatives to do their work. Funny thing is, though America flaunts itself as the democratic protector of the world. Americans hate their own nation. They hate how our power is kept in check by half-witted, cowardly, short-sighted politicians.
This is the real face of America...I can't say I agree or disagree with all or parts of it, but that's how the people here feel.
I sure hope that's not the case, i.e. that there are only few people who believe that.
Although, to be honest, I wouldn't be _extremely_ surprised if it were the case. It is easy to wish war upon others, with all that it entails, when you never had one in your own fields, to actually see what it means. And America never did - not on its own turf; no, the civil war does not count. It's bad enough when your soldiers die in some forsaken jungle/desert in some foreign country, but it's 100000 times worse when they die defending their homes, and when together with them die their mothers, sisters, children, ...
You only really learn not to play with fire until _you_ get burnt, regardless that the others tell you not to play with it. America never had a war on its own territory, and should be grateful for that. So it's understandable that some people, never having experienced the full horrors of war, real war, on your own land, are quick to wish it upon others. However, as understandable as it is, it is no less a mistake, and sometimes it is profitable to learn from the mistakes of others, if you yourself have none to learn from.
edit: Moreover, such radical measures are completely non-sensical: you don't fix something you broken by razing it to the ground... The Iraqi are not a threat, so why "kill 'em all" ? It doesn't make sense. You went there to "pacify" the region and to give them democracy (right ? GWB's words), it makes absolutely no sense to raze the place to the ground. I'm not addressing this to you, Lucjan, I'm just talking in general, showing how absurd it is, and reiterating my hope that the ones who hold these beliefs are indeed a small minority.
If you're going to take this course, please give us a warning so we can get our troops out first (we're already suffering from the invasion and the spillover of the ****up in the north). Then perhaps we can end this "special relationship" with a nation whose worldview differs so vastly from ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Well if thats America Then we are a useless country and we should be nuked. I feel repulsed to love a country that as you say belives in things like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
Blodrast and Pannonian. I understand you're both just making generalised comments and not directing anything towards me, I just wanted to say again that I never said that what I wrote was the right or correct thing to do. I only said that from my conversations with friends, neighbors, family, strangers, co-workers...this is the common opinion.
The rest of the world really needs to understand that Americans ride a high horse, and you're not likely going to ever make us come down.
The only way to really understand the American psyche is to be an American. I can't expect you to understand. But this is how many of them feel. Once again, I'm not saying it's right. In most respects I think it's absolutely, 100% wrong. But it's not an easily reversable situation, and this is how many Americans feel.
If you absolutely must know my personal opinion, then the only part of that idea that I actually personally agree with is that the Kurds deserve their own nation, on the condition that should one be carved from northern Iraq, guerillas causing Turkey so many problems would cease their activities and allow the new Kurdish state to work things out diplomatically.
(And for those of you who may immediately turn around and go "what about a palestinian state". Then, I believe it's a two way street. I feel that Israel and Palestine are perfectly capable of peaceful co-existance, but the militant groups have to disband, and the Palestinian people have to start listening to rational, logical people. Not fanatics who lead their people to nothing but more misery.)
I understand what you're saying, Lucjan, and I also believe I understand why some people might think that way, as I tried to express in my post (although, admittedly, I may very well be wrong).
Don't worry, none of my post was directed at you, I read your post carefully, including the part where you said that you're just presenting your perception of how people feel, and that it is not your own personal opinion.
So, no worries, okay ? :2thumbsup:
You´re a funny guy...:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
SFTS is right.
And btw, if this is true, you´re making yourself come down soon enough...
In Germany we have a saying: "Hochmut kommt vor dem Fall." I´m going to sleep now, if nobody found a translation until tomorrow, I might try to find/make one.~;)
I read yours carefully too. Like I said I know you weren't directing anything to me, I was simply reiterating to make sure nobody else misunderstood and took it as an arguement, as something I said in a seperate thread was misunderstood because someone didn't read it correctly.
The situation right now is a shame. I think these people can live in peace, and live without ire for America...
It's just the funny thing about America, is we offer the greatest education in the world, but we don't actually want it for ourselves. The pinnacle of education is escaping ignorance, but most of my fellow Americans seem incapable of that.
I belive your view of the average American is wrong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm not really interested in or phased by the opinions of somebody who still flies the confederate flag.
And then there's typical foreign animosity. Pride coming before the fall and whatnot. But that's ok too.
I offered an unforetunate look at the opinion of people in my region, nothing more. Don't talk to me like I actually care enough about my neighbors to argue their points. Read posts more carefully, interpretation is key to understanding.
I suggest that while you are at the top of your game that you set the rules and make them nice. The Brits had a huge empire, the way they dismantled it won them friends and in the whole the Commonwealth is remarkably stable with very few groups who hate their former colonial masters more then other locals and even then it is down to a cricket match.
Its not through mass acts of violence that you are going to win asymetric/4G warfare.
You have to look at what asymetric/4G warfare is trying to achieve. The enemy is trying to create a scorched earth scenario and eject the US. The US by going for a scorched earth policy would hence be playing right into their hands. Generally it is not considered particularly brilliant to go out of your way to fulfill the enemies plans for them.
Hearts and Minds is actually a counter policy to 4G insurgents.
You need to remove the powerbase in the community which requires following the rule of law and having intimate knowledge of the community (so you have to play fair which means you need more troops on the ground in patrols as playing fair is dangerous). This would be similar to the way New York tackled crime by putting police stations in hot spots. Law and order is needed, so disarm the population, use curfews and restrict movements. Put in martial law and have the manpower to back it.
What are the aims for scorched earth? Infrastructure, to destroy everything from crops to power to communications to industry.
So to deny this you either make the infrastructure immune to destruction and/or build so quickly that the net effect is that you have the same or better levels of service. This means where possible using equipment that is easy to repair, redundancy in the system, locals able to enact repairs. So you need to create an infrastructure that acts much like a terrorist cell does... independent systems that can fullfill a mission even when not being directed by a central authourity.
So more localised infrastructure looked after by locals. Local responsibility will have a many fold effect. The obvious one being that the locals won't like having their infrastructure destroyed if they are the ones who have to rebuild it, Personal pride in being able to look after it, Sense of ownership over the infrastructure, ability to react and build on the infrastructure quicker etc.
Where possible and once the law situation has stabilised the infrastructure can be networked. But it should be first networked to increase the stability of the infrastructure. Essentially avoid having all the eggs in one basket, use smaller generators/power stations, local medical centers rather then massive hospitals, wells and small water plants rather then massive dams and long pipelines.
I understand what you did and I think you are wrong. I belive the averge Joe knows there are normal people in Iraq and Iran. I think they know nuking Iran and kill innocents and I dont think we are angry at our dove goverment. I think the Average joe is a bit misguided but he deserves more credit than what you give him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucjan
And while we're at it let's not forget that what motivates the assorted native People's Front of Mesopotamias is different from what motivates the late and not terribly lamented al-Zarqawi's AQ boys. The former might at least in theory actually be intimidated if threatened with sufficiently massive and brutal reprisals, since they do after all have assorted local clan and family loyalties (probably among the primary reasons they're fighting in the first place, too).
The AQ crew are chiefly foreigners and career jihadists who've dedicated themselves to their Cause - I understand these guys pull most of the suicide-bomb stunts. Guess how impressed these fine fellows (whom even the local insurgents dislike) are going to be if you start going Godzilla as a response to their sheningangs ? Especially as they happen to be Sunni fanatics and won't exactly shed tears if the Shias get stepped on in the process ?
At least they're the minority of the militants...
Actually sfts you changed my mind, I made it into a siggy! That makes me smile. :2thumbsup: I'll agree to disagree with you any day, your neighbors can be your way, mine will be mine.
@ Wigferth Ironwall,
I will give your ideas some thought, as I have to get ready for work tommorow. It is difficult to imagine that the Sunnis will ever appreciate our presence there no matter how we behave, and we have done many of the things you recommend along the lines of infrastructure rebuilding. I agree that it is not enough, but I have heard many stories of how appreciative the Shiia, and the Kurds are for what help we have given them. The Sunnis, who were in power, much as the Nazis were by the use of fear, just do not want to relenquish their hold on Iraq. They know what is coming once the Shiite majority is left to there own devices. I'm afraid it will make our few war crimes look like playtime at Romper-Room. They are merely waiting for us to leave, as I have said before.
Have you seen the thread about how the current Iraqi ministers are gloomy over the prospects of a civil war? They are even considering that Iraq should be divided along Tribal/Ethnic lines, which was something I advocated to many in 2003. I was scoffed at by many a staunch Republican for even thinking such things, but there you have it. I say to let the divisions begin. Maybe if we can seperate these peoples, then we can begin to sort things out in a proper manner, instead of in a state of all this confusion. The fact is that these people hate each other worse than the coalition soldiers. If the Sunnis don't want to play, then let them go to Hades as far as I'm concerned, for they will have certainly earned their trip there.
PS: I bid you all goodnight.
I believe that the Sunnis would have been on our side if we hadn't dismantled Saddams army. Right now the Sunnis know that won't have near the politcal power they used to have because they are such a minority. If they had at least something like the the old Army to protect them from the Shitte militias it would help a little. If the US said to the Kurds and Shittes to disband their militias or we put Saddam back in power the Sunnis would be a bit more friendly. Banning the Baath party didn't help either. This just meant that all the competant Sunni politicians were taken out of the process of forming a government. The Baathists weren't Nazis by a long shot, they should still have been able to hold office.
Take note that most of the violence happens within the Sunni triangle. While most of the potshots and IEDs against the Americans are probably from Sunnis all the VBIEDs (carbombs) and anti Iraqi violence is for the most part from the Shias and of course the foreign insurgents.
Remember the first few months after the invasion when things were going relatively smoothly. That's the opportunity the US had to make things stabilize. The US disbanding the Iraqi army was a horrible move. Our slowness to take over where Saddams army left off was what created such window of opportunity for resistance to take hold. Back then a unified peaceful Iraq was possible but that opportunity was squandered and the US made many mistakes. Also even with the troops number we had we should have done a lot more to secure Baghdad. A single army division is not enough to secure a populace of millions.
If Iraq is to be split up then it needs to be formally. If it's left to be decided by a civil war then it certainly won't be divided properly but by the people with the most power (Shiites). Isreal has shown that split capitals don't work well at all and Baghdad won't be any exception. I'd be all for dividing up Iraq right now if it wasn't for the Kurds. While the Kurds are almost their own nation right now an actual Kurdistan might just create more violence in Turkish Kurdistan by seperatists. While that's fine for the US there's no need to let our mistake become an even bigger problem for our NATO allies who might by need invade Kurdistan to combat Kurdish terrorist like they have threatened to do now although for the current situation they only did it for political reasons.
The first significant moment in the failed battle for hearts and minds, perhaps even the decisive moment, was 28th April 2003, when the 82nd airborne fired on the protestors in Fallujah. Prior to that point, the Fallujans had actually welcomed the arrival of the Americans and the passing of Saddam's authority. Now the Fallujans, almost an uncanny ghost of what would later happen elsewhere in Iraq, demonstrated to say, thanks for getting rid of Saddam, when are you going to go? The paratroopers answered, not anytime soon, as they opened fire and killed 17.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Britain managed to recover from the disaster of Bloody Sunday to impose its will on the Northern Ireland conflict. They did so by overcoming all the basic instincts of aggressive assault troops and training its armies and population in the mindset necessary for politically oriented conflict management. EG. one of the main recruiting points in adverts was the chance to become a peacekeeper and see the world without necessarily killing people, and use human skills to defuse situations without resorting to violence. Of course, the British army was still one of the foremost institutions in the world in producing efficient killers, but their primary culture was now restraint and strict adherence to the mission, however much risk it placed them in without response.
This refashioned tool allowed the British government to pursue strategies that would eventually lead to the satisfactory end of conflict.
Unfortunately for the Americans, they had long encouraged a disdain of peacekeeping, whose softly softly approach didn't fit their macho culture, and whose complex nature reflected all the moral ambiguities classical isolationists despised. There was some success in the early days, such as the 101st airborne in Mosul, whose general was a devotee of 4gw, but the damage done elsewhere by other units, particularly the 82nd airborne, plus the horrendous political decisions taken by the neocons such as the dismantling of the Iraqi state, swamped any bright points there were.
The best the US can hope for now is probably a clean slate to play with, a clean break with all its previous mistakes. "Losing" the war to the Iraqis may help to counter America's reputation for arrogance and impeturbability, Bush and his team falling on their swords with an apology to the Iraqis and a fresh team put in place. This may give US strategists a window of opportunity in which to put these classical 4gw methods into practice. If the mighty US army has been decisively humbled by the Iraqi people, they may stop being targets long enough for them to hurry and build enough infrastructure to make further conflict of any kind undesirable.
Would this be palatable to proud America?
I think the 3nd Infantry division had more to do with creating of bad blood than the 82nd. Their policy of shoot first ask questions later made matters much worse than they needed to be. I wonder if any of them realized why last year they had to go back to Iraq relative to what they did right after the invasion.
With the Brits on board for the invasion I thought the US was going to use the British experitise in this type of warfare to take charge. Looking at the British record with the commonwealth, how it defeated the Maoists in Malaysia and then of course Ireland not to mention their past history with Iraq already. I was really worried when the Brits were given such a small part of the country, I wish they had been given a larger portion and had some US units attached to them, you know to teach the Americans how to properly secure a country.
Another liberal into the falmes of the backroom War. Into the fight! Welcome Lucjan. I hope you enjoy your stay. I would recommend doing a little reading of the backroom archives so you do not contribute to the merry-go-round politics that we tend to have back here. It always helps to go over new ground, rather than hash out the old stuff over and over. :2thumbsup:
Does genocide of the Muslims as suggested cover new ground, or is it part of the old merry-go-round? Over here, the conservatives would be hurriedly distancing themselves from such views instead of welcoming them into their bosom. Perhaps it's different over the Atlantic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eclectic