The war for ‘hearts and minds’ in Iraq is lost?

[Circlebreaker]

This report comes from the Defense Science Board task Force, so it's objectivity is beyond reproach.



THE Pentagon has admitted that the war on terror and the invasion and occupation of Iraq have increased support for al-Qaeda, made ordinary Muslims hate the US and caused a global backlash against America because of the “self-serving hypocrisy” of George W Bush’s administration over the Middle East.

The mea culpa is contained in a shockingly frank “strategic communications” report, written this autumn by the Defence Science Board for Pentagon supremo Donald Rumsfeld.

On “the war of ideas or the struggle for hearts and minds”, the report says, “American efforts have not only failed, they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended”.

You can find the article here: Sunday Herald (http://www.sundayherald.com/46389)

And the full 100+ pages report here: Strategic Communications (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf) (You'll need Acrobat Reader)

Discuss...

[Gaim Mastr]

The re-election of Bush is an affirmation to most people that Americans really only care about Americans, and couldn't give a rat's backside about anyone else, anywhere else. It's an unfortunate sentiment by non-Americans, but not entirely unjustified.

I also see it as a sort of a "don't know, don't care" attitude by many Americans when it comes to events and people outside of their sheltered little world in the states. And of course anti-US sentiments are only going to continue to increase and worsen over the coming years. Rumsfeld knows it, Powell knows it, and all of the CIA agents who've quit recently know it as well. As an American myself, about all I can do is try to ride out the next four years and hope that the realities of the world outside of our boarders eventually sinks into the heads those who believe that Bush's policies and leadership has been the best way to go.

[Nyghtfall]

I was watching an interview with the author of a new book, "Banking on Baghdad", on MSNBC the other day. The anchorwoman asked him if there was anything at all that the Bush Administration can do to help secure peace in Iraq and bring about a stable, Democratic government. I couldn't help applauding his response:

"Of course not. The people in that region have been killing each other for the last seven thousand years. They don't need a permission slip from the U.S. to establish and maintain peace. If they wanted peace and a democratic government, they would've done it themselves by now."

[night]

ya, you see they're not getting a "permission slip". they came over here and killed 3500 people, completely unprovoked, thus, in order to keep them from believing that they can just kick us and get away with it we went over there and ripped them apart. are we justified? heck yeah! we gave that genocidal fraud 24 hours! we told him in 24 hours we will come over you're border in force, and take your country from you, at this point you have two options
1: allow UN weapons inspectors to inspect this list of sites and if they find anything, allow it to be destroyed.
2: we go to war with you and instate a democratic government in place of your utterly depraved tyranny.
we gave him his chance. he didn't take it. France tells us we're oh-so-awful guess who got 1.2 billion as part of the oil for food scam? FRANCE. and they're not the only ones who got a hell of a lot of money, a lot of countries recieved "donations". hmm still unjustified are we?

[mandrake]

"Of course not. The people in that region have been killing each other for the last seven thousand years. They don't need a permission slip from the U.S. to establish and maintain peace. If they wanted peace and a democratic government, they would've done it themselves by now."

So because they've been infighting with each other for years we shouldn't make effort to remove a genocidal madman from power? Because people in Europe will be mad at us?

Wish we'd of thought about that in 1941. Then we could have just attacked only the country that attacked us and Britons and Frenchmen could all set around over a nice cold bowl of kraut while we would have saved our soldiers lives by not deploying them in Europe. :thumbup:

[Circlebreaker]

A couple of things...

"Of course not. The people in that region have been killing each other for the last seven thousand years. They don't need a permission slip from the U.S. to establish and maintain peace. If they wanted peace and a democratic government, they would've done it themselves by now."

While I understand the sentiment, the guy is most definitely wrong. Throughout most of history, the people in the Middle-East got along a whole lot better than -say- the Europeans. From the fall of the West-Roman Empire (+/- 5th century) until the 16th century the Middle East and Eastern world were the developed, advanced nations, while Europe was some border region where the barbarians were constantly fighting amongst themselves. The Islam empire pretty much invented such novel principles as free trade, banking, globalism, etc.

It's only with the discovery of the American continent and the massive flow of capital Europe received that way that we could take over a dominating position on the world map. So throughout most of history they've had a peaceful government, and although it wasn't entirely democratic, it was closer to democracy as what we in Europe had at the time.

Also, getting a democratic system in Iraq now will likely cause disaster for the country. It'll put Iraq in the list of other 'democratic' third world countries like some African (Congo, Rwanda,...) or South-East Asian countries (Myanmar, Vietnam, Cambodia), while they have the means and education to quickly build up the infrastructure to become a decently developed nation. You need a strong middle-class to make democracy work, and decent infrastructure, safety and unity. The way Iraq is divided now and without infrastructure it'll fall into a feudalistic form of 'warlordism', where the elected leaders reward only the people of their own group for electing them, and ignore or even outright discriminate against all the others. Those others will then form their own groups, elect their own leaders, and soon you have a bunch of warlords constantly feuding among each other. Just look at the situation in Afghanistan or Congo.

they came over here and killed 3500 people, completely unprovoked, thus, in order to keep them from believing that they can just kick us and get away with it we went over there and ripped them apart. are we justified? heck yeah! we gave that genocidal fraud 24 hours! we told him in 24 hours we will come over you're border in force, and take your country from you, at this point you have two options
1: allow UN weapons inspectors to inspect this list of sites and if they find anything, allow it to be destroyed.

While this reply shouldn't really get more than a :rolleyes:, I'll still point out to you where you're wrong. The Iraqi's didn't have anything to do with 9/11. They were just an easy scapegoat to get the attention of the American people away from the failures of the intelligence agencies and the fact that Bin Laden wasn't captured yet. It was also an easy way to increase the US influence in the Middle East (something the ultra-right wing neocons in Bush's administration already wanted to do for a long time) and a pursuit of a Neocon Utopia (http://www.nologo.org/newsite/detaild.php?ID=415)

After 9/11 the pressure on Iraq was increased dramatically. Despite the fact that the UN weapons inspectors said that there weren't any WMD's in Iraq, the US kept claiming that there were, and that they had evidence (which they didn't want to show :rolleyes:). The inspectors just had to look harder. When the inspectors still didn't find anything, it was just proof that Saddam hid his weapons too well, and that he didn't want to cooperate. It wasn't evidence that maybe he really didn't have WMD's. So the US invaded a country that didn't have anything to do with 9/11 for fabricated reasons, unsanctioned by the UN.

Wish we'd of thought about that in 1941. Then we could have just attacked only the country that attacked us and Britons and Frenchmen could all set around over a nice cold bowl of kraut while we would have saved our soldiers lives by not deploying them in Europe.

This’ll take me off-topic here, but I’m on a roll. :lol: It wasn’t quite that simple in 1941. First of all, Germany, Italy and Japan had made extensive agreements that if one country declared war on someone the others would join in. So by attacking the US, Japan automatically made sure that both Italy and Germany would declare war on the US too.

Besides, by that time German U-boots had been sinking American convoy’s to the UK for quite some time, so the US were more than eager to join the war.

The Germans on their side most definitely wouldn’t have left the US alone. Imagine what would happen if the US didn’t intervene and support the UK by attacking Germany. The Germans would’ve eventually taken the UK. Their missile and nuclear research was in a much further state than the American’s research (or at least, that’s what the US thought at the time, little did they know that the German nuclear research took a wrong turn somewhere and was put in the fridge). So if the US hadn’t stepped up, the Germans would’ve had the UK from where they could rain down nuclear missiles on the US cities without fear of repercussion because there’s no way the US could launch an invasion over the Atlantic ocean.

The US really didn’t have any other choice, and it certainly wasn’t out of benevolence that they liberated us. Or at least, not only out of benevolence.

[Gaim Mastr]

ya, you see they're not getting a "permission slip". they came over here and killed 3500 people, completely unprovoked...

Anyone questioning wheather or not the Bush administration has been trying to confuse and convince the American public that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 need only reflect on night's statement above. :p:

[night]

uh huh, confused and misled and all that crap. guess who is attacking US soldiers in Iraq? I'll give you a hint, it's not the pillsbury dough boy, yes! that's right! terrorists! and whom was Saddam Hussien paying thousands of dollars to so they would go blow themselves up in Israel? yes! that's right! terrorists! and who did Bush say he was going attack? countries who supported terrorists! yeah! so I guess there really WAS justification to go to Iraq! because Saddam Hussein supported terrorism now if we hadn't gone to Iraq THEN Bush would have been lying, because like I said before the Iraqi government supported terrorism, Bush stated in a public speech that America would hunt down terrorists wherever they hid "and all those who support them".

[SupaTroopa]

Bush stated in a public speech that America would hunt down terrorists wherever they hid "and all those who support them".

Israel? Are they part of the U.S.?

So I suppose, according to that statement, we should be invading just about every third world country on the face of the earth soon?

Are we going to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, Palestine, etc..., too?

Can't wait.

Don't be so naive, Bush invaded Iraq for a personal vendetta that Saddam had against his father. Iraq posed no domestic terrorism threat to us at all. Yet we are spending billions and billions and thousands of US soldiers are dying because of a personal war for oil and revenge.

We have a sick, corrupt, two faced administration and the scared US public will say, do and think anything to justify it in order to soothe their blood lust.

[mandrake]

^^
lol
Too much Michael Moore for you methinks.

[night]

he said terrorists, there is no "some terrorists" or "a few terrorists" or "every terrorist born on tuesday" he said "terrorists", there is nothing specific in that word, it means, any terrorist, anywhere, and will we attack all the third world countries? I doubt it, because invading this one country sent a very clear, and concise message:
1# they know we mean business so some of them won't support terrorists, and others who persist in supporting them will accept the terms that Saddam wouldn't, those terms being: quit supporting terrorists, and allow the weapons inspectors completely free reign or we will invade you, except now they get the picture, the picture being that Bush can, and will declare war on them
2# that we do not kowtow to the UN which has lately proven itself to be a corrupt and failed attempt at world peace due to it's jovial acceptance of bribery, and using the practice of trying to disguise it using a charity as a front.

not only all that but last I checked Israel was our ally and for those of you who don't understand the word here it is from webster

Pronunciation: 'a-"lI, &-'lI
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural allies
1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league

2 : a plant or animal linked to another by genetic or taxonomic proximity

3 : one that is associated with another as a helper

there you go.

[Beldin]

Israel? Are they part of the U.S.?
Don't be so naive, Bush invaded Iraq for a personal vendetta that Saddam had against his father.
I believe the naivete lies on your side if you think that is the true reason. :rolleyes:

[dos.Kapital]

he said terrorists, there is no "some terrorists" or "a few terrorists" or "every terrorist born on tuesday" he said "terrorists", there is nothing specific in that word, it means, any terrorist, anywhere, and will we attack all the third world countries? I doubt it, because invading this one country sent a very clear, and concise message:
1# they know we mean business so some of them won't support terrorists, and others who persist in supporting them will accept the terms that Saddam wouldn't, those terms being: quit supporting terrorists, and allow the weapons inspectors completely free reign or we will invade you, except now they get the picture, the picture being that Bush can, and will declare war on them
2# that we do not kowtow to the UN which has lately proven itself to be a corrupt and failed attempt at world peace due to it's jovial acceptance of bribery, and using the practice of trying to disguise it using a charity as a front.

not only all that but last I checked Israel was our ally and for those of you who don't understand the word here it is from webster

Pronunciation: 'a-"lI, &-'lI
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural allies
1 : a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league

2 : a plant or animal linked to another by genetic or taxonomic proximity

3 : one that is associated with another as a helper

there you go.


We're veering waaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic here. We already know(or think we know) Bush and co. reasons for going to war. The undeniable connection of September 11, 2001......Saddam's grip of power politics in the region......and Weapons of Mass Destruction. :wink:



Now! I believe the topic of THIS post is about how we are losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. This is the MOST important segment of the war. This is our WHOLE basis for our being there at this time. The common Iraqi people are who need consideration.

So, what do we do? As soon as the shaky elections take place(assuming that they do, January 30), do we systematically pull out, along with Britain and other coalition members? Do we pull out gradually, and strategically? No, we must wait until the Iraqi defense and police forces are ready and confident that they can restore order. When will that be? When the Iraqi people are ready! See the vicious circle? This is what is termed, a 'quagmire'.

Say, the police forces are ready in 4 months. Ok, what about now, Mr. President? Can we finally leave? No. We have to be sure that Iraqis are capable of maintaining order, long term. See, we ourselves, thought we had Iraq under our thumbs after we captured Saddam. Well, we know the story ever since. After every seeming obstacle that we overcome, more impending blockades come our way. When the Iraqi people see this, they realize that we aren't under control. What's more, the kidnappings and subsequent beheadings, are terrorizing to the public at large--not just American audiences. The added fact that the terrorists are killing more and more Iraqis everyday(as well, limited infrastructure-building projects are being interrupted or halted indefinitely--such as building repairs, water and sewage processing, road repair, electricity and gas, etc.) are causing more resentment against the coalition forces, especially the U.S. In almost every light, the U.S. can't seem to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

So, as some of you thump your chests and pride yourselves behind this obstinate administration, take a reality check and look at assessments of nearly every Middle-East expert politics today. All of our efforts will have been in vain if we cannot instill confidence in the people of Iraq. Even more important and long-term, we have to carefully juggle the complexities of cultural understanding, geopolitics, and direct/indirect involvement in Iraqi governmental policies in the future.

[night]

the election took place and was a serious success
despite all the death threats, the bombings, and the beheadings it worked
not only that but since the terrorists are killing civilians over there the civilians are less likely to hide them making their eventual fate sealed.

[mandrake]

the sooner the better