Best Powerpoint Evar: Army Captain's "How to Win in Anbar"

[lars573]

I thought that presentation was a hoot. But I thought conservative muslims favored beards over mustaches. Didn't the Taliban require all men to grow a beard?

There is a directive in the Koran about men having to have facial hair. Fundie Muslims take this a you must have a full beard that hangs down a few cm from your chin. Moderate Muslims settle for a moustache.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's what I use it for anyway.

Though I suspect it's just another 4chan relic, moar!

Well, the first time I saw it was on the natural selection forums years ago, though using the word 'hover'. Some quake kiddy was posting ways to make NS better and said they needed a 'scorpion that hovars without flapping'.

Redleg, do you know the reasoning behind the 'no beards' policy?

CR

[Redleg]

Redleg, do you know the reasoning behind the 'no beards' policy?

CR

I was once told it was because with sideburns and beards the protective mask would not seal correctly. I suspect however that it also had to do with fieldcraft and keeping people healthy when they are in the field.

[GoreBag]

Redleg, do you know the reasoning behind the 'no beards' policy?

It's also an old British army policy. Leftover? Maybe.

The trouble is that if you're sending some warlord's armed goons off for police training and equipping, they usually are still the warlord's armed goons when they come back- now just trained and outfitted on the government's dime who can go arrest and murder their enemies under the guise of being police.

I guess the real problem is finding which warlords and goons that you can trust to work in your interest and training them.

This is true. The key is to have precautions in place in order to strictly monitor and reprimand 'unsavoury' behaviour in order for the policing to be effective, which is the case basically everywhere.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Re: beards. I don't think it was a leftover British policy - by the American Civil War weren't beards and mustaches in style and worn by soldiers of both sides?

//Sorry for OT.

[doc_bean]

This is true. The key is to have precautions in place in order to strictly monitor and reprimand 'unsavoury' behaviour in order for the policing to be effective, which is the case basically everywhere.

Well, if the police get rid of the insurgents you now have only one group of thugs to worry about. I guess that's part of the reasoning. It's important that they concentrate on getting rid of the insurgents first before starting the in fighting though.

That's one thing they always seem to get wrong in the middle east, you destroy the mutual enemy BEFORE you start the in fighting (see also: Palestine). If they ever discover this principle than God/Allah help us all...

[Grey_Fox]

Thing is a lot of the Sheiks are NOT merely armed thugs, they merely want to have some power (even if it is only symbolic). If you look at how the British did things in Basra at the very start of the occupation, they got all the Sheiks together and sat them round to figure out what to do, and they didn't cause very much if any problems. If you get the Sheiks on your side they will not bite the hand that feeds them.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thing is a lot of the Sheiks are NOT merely armed thugs, they merely want to have some power (even if it is only symbolic). If you look at how the British did things in Basra at the very start of the occupation, they got all the Sheiks together and sat them round to figure out what to do, and they didn't cause very much if any problems. If you get the Sheiks on your side they will not bite the hand that feeds them.

Agreed, but none of these solutions built around local warlords - whilst pragmatic - further the stated aim of the regime change: i.e. to introduce a stable western-style democracy into the Middle East as a catalyst for others.

If all that happens now is a retreat into Saudi-style authoritarism in return for "favours", we might as well have left Saddam alone and bought him off.

Would have been a damn sight cheaper.

[doc_bean]

Agreed, but none of these solutions built around local warlords - whilst pragmatic - further the stated aim of the regime change: i.e. to introduce a stable western-style democracy into the Middle East as a catalyst for others.

If all that happens now is a retreat into Saudi-style authoritarism in return for "favours", we might as well have left Saddam alone and bought him off.

Would have been a damn sight cheaper.

The idea that you can just plant a western style democracy somewhere in the middle east seemed always quite laughable to me. These people were not raised in such a democracy and will have difficulty understanding how it works. Hell, most people in the west have no idea of what it takes for a democracy to work, if you'd ask random people I bet for a lot of them it will be about 'majority rule' or 'equal rights' (which are both complementary and opposite, in a way). A form of government has to evolve, you can't just change it overnight, expect a few years of anarchy and then for everything to go fine. This isn't Civ.

What could have been done, and probably should have been done, was creating a 'higher house', 'house of lords' or 'senate' where people like the shieks could have held real power and could have provided stability to the country.
Another big mistake was the introduction of federalism, it's just not a stable system, especially not in small countries, and it requires a heck of lot of checks and balances, and goodwill of the people and the politicians involved for it to actually work. The situation in Iraq met none of these criteria.

[Divinus Arma]

Didn't you guys see the picture of me when I was in the Corps?

Stache is okay, but regulated. + =

[GoreBag]

Well, if the police get rid of the insurgents you now have only one group of thugs to worry about. I guess that's part of the reasoning. It's important that they concentrate on getting rid of the insurgents first before starting the in fighting though.

Indeed. Then again, the police in the USA get away with a lot of crap, too...well, like you said, the insurgents would be taken care of.