Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Hearts and Minds

  1. Jun 12, 2005 #1

    Art

    User Avatar

    I saw some interesting footage on Sky News this evening re Iraq. The first clip showed British soldiers mounting a night operation to capture insurgents suspected of being the bomb makers who killed 2 British soldiers in 2 recent separate incidents. The British surrounded the target apartment block, then moved in, captured 2 of the people they were hunting and found a stash of explosives and detonators. After questioning by the British military authorities they are to be handed over to the Iraqi police to be dealt with by them. The second clip showed an apartment block which US forces suspected was being used by Iraqi insurgents. All that was left of it and the surrounding area, were piles of rubble after being hit by several 500 lb bombs. US forces claimed 40 suspected insurgents had been killed.
    The contrast in how the two situations were handled was very striking. Is this perhaps part of the reason why the US military are finding it so hard to win the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people?
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 12, 2005 #2

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We don't have anywhere near enough information to think that the circumstances were even vaguely similar, so I'm going to have to object to this.
     
  4. Jun 12, 2005 #3

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I agree, you have to furnish valid links.
     
  5. Jun 12, 2005 #4

    Art

    User Avatar

    Sky News screened the 2 clips one immediately after another so they were obviously quite deliberately inviting viewers to draw comparisons.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  6. Jun 12, 2005 #5

    Art

    User Avatar

  7. Jun 12, 2005 #6

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, we all know how video clips can be made to represent just about anything you want. It may be valid, but why aren't other international news agencies reporting this? We would have to see the whole thing, of both occurences in order to decide.
     
  8. Jun 12, 2005 #7

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The first step to resisting propaganda techniques is recognizing them.
     
  9. Jun 12, 2005 #8

    Art

    User Avatar

    Sky is owned by Rupert Murdoch who also owns Fox news. Generally if there is a bias it is pro Bush administration. I've edited out the remark 'seemingly parallel'. It now reflects exactly the info contained n the link I provided.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  10. Jun 12, 2005 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  11. Jun 12, 2005 #10

    Art

    User Avatar

    Here's the article. There is a video too. I didn't realise there would be restrictions on US viewing....
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2005
  12. Jun 12, 2005 #11

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I believe you Art, but without seeing it, or another valid newsource it's hard to say what you've seen or what the circumstances were.
     
  13. Jun 12, 2005 #12

    Art

    User Avatar

    So bye bye thread :cry:
     
  14. Jun 12, 2005 #13
    Different approaches

    During World War Ii the British and American forces had different ways of handling things. If you go to your state library and get the Time/ Life books on World War II there is one on D-Day. You see on the cover British solders getting off a boat like it's a vacation. Now the reason why they didn't have the same problems as the American's was due to a series of Tanks. Now it's been a few years since I read this so please excuse the fact that I don't have the exact name of the general of the tanks of the exact names of the tanks. Basically they were different Sherman tanks. One had removable flaps and a propeller so it could move in the ocean. incidently this is the only kind the American's accepted to take on their beaches. Then there was another that rolled out (bamboo?) poles with a matterial made out of coconut fiber. This was so heavy equipment could go on this tarp without sinking in the sand. Then they had another in which a tank could lay a small type of bridge over the walls. Then they had another in which a triagle shape basken was shot out of it's special cannon for clearing pill boxes. Then they had a flame throwing tank. They had a mind weeper tank and one that was like a tow truck tank. Basically they uysed thier heads. The Americans refused it and got alot of people killed.

    The British S A S comando's have a saying "He who dares...Wins!"
    The problem with the war in Iraq is we don't send Special Forces in large numbers. We got a whole bunch of people who want to join the Special Forces, and these schools are not accepting everyone. Instead of having a Battalion of Special Forces, we are sending grandfathers over in the National Guard to drive a truck in a street full of mines. These people have got two years to go in their reitirement and they get killed, because they were trained to put a bridge in, not drive a truck in a mine filled road. So yeah, I don't know what happened in the video. I do know that we sent the wrong types of troops in who are not like the Commando's the British have in full force. And before anyone says: " That's because our Special forces are fighting the Tailban on the other side of Iran!" I know the point is we are turning people away from joing the special forces while paying corporations millions of Dollars to rip off the government. Someitmes the Billions. Know Again excuse my lack of exact facts but I think it was in a Newsweek article from April 5th or around there. I'm not even sure because it was something I was reading in a Doctors waiting room.
     
  15. Jun 12, 2005 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :biggrin: No, let's try to find more information.
     
  16. Jun 12, 2005 #15

    Art

    User Avatar

    Here's some more
     
  17. Jun 12, 2005 #16
    I have to admitte this is reason why I stopped watching t.v. a year ago. I am glad that this info is right up to date on the site. The point I was trying to make is how the British have a different approach at things than the Americans. I'm not saying that the Americans are worst at fighting, but when I read the newspapers, I have yet to read how the British called in an Air Strike when ground forces could be used in certain situations.
     
  18. Jun 13, 2005 #17

    Art

    User Avatar

    I agree, When Britain first intervened militarily in N Ireland they treated it as a 'normal' war thinking a demonstration of vastly superior military might would quickly quell any rebellion. The strategy backfired spectacularly serving only to polarize even the moderate majority and resulted in a 25 year war of attrition with each side seeking an all encompassing military victory. Finally reason prevailed and the British government recognized that the war was unwinnable. This led to a hearts and minds campaign where the British worked hard to breakdown the polarization of the population and so bring the vast majority of moderates back to the middle ground thus isolating the extremists on both sides of the conflict. Without popular support the underground organizations prosecuting the war could no longer function with the impunity they formally had and were forced to rethink their own tactics which in turn lead to peaceful political dialogue. I believe the British have taken this experience they gained in N Ireland with them to Iraq and have benefitted accordingly by forging a good relationship with the general populace in the areas under their control.
    I suspect the American forces are making the same fundamental error that Britain made 30 years ago in thinking that massive superior firepower will result in a definitive military victory and I believe the consequences will be the same as in the British experience.
    An example of the restraint Britain has shown in Iraq was when 6 of their Military Police were killed by a mob. Rather than retaliate with a massive strike they spoke to the town's representatives established what had caused the unrest (which turned out to be overzealous house to house searches by a particular British unit) and ensured that such behaviour by British troops did not happen again. I'm sure the gut reaction of the local British military commanders must have been to launch a massive retaliatory strike against the town to avenge their comrades deaths but that small piece of instant gratification would have led to numerous deaths further along the road. By exercising restraint they now have an excellent relationship with the people of that area who actively assist the British in tracking down the insurgents operating in that locale.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2005
  19. Jun 16, 2005 #18

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It looks pretty straightforward to me: the American attack killed ~40 insurgents and the British raid captured 2. You don't have to be a mathematician (sorry Hurkyl - had to) to see how vastly different the scenarios are.
     
  20. Jun 16, 2005 #19

    Art

    User Avatar

    In Britain there is a shared belief amongst all broadcasters that the US adopt a too heavy handed approach in Iraq and so ferment unrest. This came to the fore when British troops (the Black Watch regiment) were redeployed near to Baghdad late last year in support of US forces for their attack on Fallujah. There was public uproar in Britain as it was feared by acting in close concert with US forces, they would be tarred with the same brush by the Iraqi people. But who are we europeans to suggest to omnipotent beings such as yourself Russ that there just might be a better way of doing things. It's obvious to everybody you have the situation in the American sectors of Iraq fully in control :rofl:
    BTW Did you not think it was incredibly obliging of the insurgents to all live together in the one apartment block and to exclude all civilians and also unbelievably fortuitous that these 40 insurgents so generously offered themselves for target practice only a couple of days after 7 US marines were killed near the town?
     
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2005
  21. Jun 16, 2005 #20
    brits are the same as americans, the thing is british have only 1000 soldiers while americans 200,000.
    from history we all know the destruction of dresden and carpet bombings of german cities by british/usa planes.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?