Is the US Military Losing the Battle for Hearts and Minds in Iraq?

[Art]

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?

 

[Hurkyl]

two seemingly parallel situations

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

I agree, you have to furnish valid links.

 

[Art]

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.

Sky News screened the 2 clips one immediately after another so they were obviously quite deliberately inviting viewers to draw comparisons.

 

[Art]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13369272,00.html

 

[Evo]

Sky News screened the 2 clips one after immediately after another so they were obviously quite deliberately inviting viewers to draw comparisons.

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

The first step to resisting propaganda techniques is recognizing them.

 

[Art]

The first step to resisting propaganda techniques is recognizing them.

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.

 

[Evo]

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-13369272,00.html

That doesn't allow people in the US to view it.

It also doesn't mention a video of the US incident. Do you have a video of the US incident?

 

[Art]

DAWN RAID ON INSURGENTS

Iraqi insurgents suspected of carrying out roadside bomb attacks which killed two British soldiers have been arrested in dawn raids.

The Ministry of Defence has said troops from the Staffordshire regiment made the arrests in the early hours, detaining "less than five suspects".


The operations, carried out by Task Force Maysan, were reported to have recovered 130 detonators and other bomb-making equipment.

A spokesman said the raids took place in al Marjarr al Kabira, close to al Amarah, in Maysan province.

Lance Corporal Alan Brackenbury, 21, from Goole, East Yorkshire, died in al Amarah when a roadside bomb exploded on May 29.

Guardsman Anthony Wakefield, 24, of the 1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards, was also killed in the area in a blast last month.

"Those targeted were suspected of being involved in recent attacks which claimed the lives of two UK soldiers, Guardsman Wakefield and Lance Corporal Brackenbury, in May 2005," said the MOD spokesman.

He said British troops had not encountered any hostile action during the operation.

Intelligence experts are currently analysing equipment and information captured during the raids.

The MOD would not reveal exactly how many suspects had been arrested and also refused to confirm where the men were being held.

The raids come hours after US troops revealed they killed 40 suspected insurgents in air and ground strikes close to the Syrian border in western Iraq.

Here's the article. There is a video too. I didn't realize there would be restrictions on US viewing...

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Art]

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.

So bye bye thread

 

[Big Papa]

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 their heads. The Americans refused it and got a lot 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.

 

[Evo]

So bye bye thread

No, let's try to find more information.

 

[Art]

US air strikes kill 40 insurgents
05:56 AEST Sun Jun 12 2005
AP

US warplanes backed by helicopters launched air strikes that began at 11.40am and ended at 4pm "once all the targets were destroyed", the military said. About 40 insurgents were killed and there were no marine casualties.

"The coalition aircraft and fighter jets and attack helicopters from the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing attacked the insurgent compound and surrounding area targeting the armed men," the statement said. "There are no reports of civilian casualties or collateral damage."

It was unclear if there were any foreign fighters among the slain insurgents. The region is known as a haven for Islamic extremists crossing in and out of Iraq across the Syrian border to attack US and Iraqi security forces. The US military launched two major counterinsurgent offensives in the area last month that killed an estimated 140 militants.

Here's some more

 

[Big Papa]

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.

 

[Art]

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[Art]

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.

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?

At scene of Iraq air strikes, casualties unclear
12 Jun 2005 16:30:46 GMT

Source: Reuters

KARABILAH, Iraq, June 12 (Reuters) - Iraqis inspecting the damage of U.S. air strikes in western Iraq on Sunday challenged American assertions that the raids had killed 40 insurgents, saying there were no guerrillas in the area.

"There were no mujahideen (fighters) or armed men in the area. The planes attacked indiscriminately," said one man, who did not give his name, as he inspected the rubble of a house.

 

[stoned]

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.

 

[alexandra]

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.

Good point, stoned. And here's another thought: what does it matter whether you invade someone else's country 'nicely', with a smiling face, or whether you're more up-front about what you're doing? It seems much of a muchness to me - the ultimate fate of the Iraqi people is the same: their country is occupied by hostile forces who are killing them (some smile while they do it).

 

[BobG]

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 their heads. The Americans refused it and got a lot of people killed.

Your description sounds a little like Gold Beach, but that was more a good last minute decision by the British commander than design. The original plan had them launching the tanks while still out at sea. Whether the British commander had more experience with the sea or what, he was smart enough to realize that idea wasn't going to work in the conditions that day - it was pretty rough seas for a craft modified to be amphibious. Taking the landing craft all the way to beach before launching the tanks had its own risks.

If they were getting off the boat like it was vacation, it had to be after the invasion was complete. The guys on Gold Beach fared better than the troops on Omaha Beach (who only had six tanks make it to the beach), but it was still a darn heroic battle to win that beach, as well.

Or maybe it was Sword Beach and you were just fooled by the sight of the guys playing bagpipes. That doesn't mean it was easy, you just don't understand the power of bagpipes:

On the sun-beaten badlands in northwest India during the late 19th century, a ragged platoon of Highlanders seeks cover from sun small arms fire. Their young English officer, Webley revolver in one hand and a broadsword in the other, assesses the situation crouched behind a boulder. A few feet away lies his Sergeant Major. Both are keenly aware of the intended goal. A well-defended enemy fortification constructed of granite-hard, sun baked mud, a scant 400 yards distant must be taken. The young officer rubs his eyes free of grit, and addresses his NCO: "Good God Sergeant Major! How can we seize that position with only 12 riflemen and a single piper?" The grizzled Sergeant Major, veteran of countless battles, unsheaths his bayonet and deftly locks it into place with a barely audible click. In an assuring voice he answers, "Och! Dinna worry yoursel' sir. Corporal MacDonnell's a verra good piper.".

 

[Art]

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.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide the source for your troop numbers. :rofl: :rofl:

 

[Art]

Good point, stoned. And here's another thought: what does it matter whether you invade someone else's country 'nicely', with a smiling face, or whether you're more up-front about what you're doing? It seems much of a muchness to me - the ultimate fate of the Iraqi people is the same: their country is occupied by hostile forces who are killing them (some smile while they do it).

As I said on another thread I think Tony Blair agreeing to help the Americans to remove Saddam was well intentioned based on a lot of false 'facts' he was fed. The way I summed it up was "Blair did the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons"

 

[Smurf]

As I said on another thread I think Tony Blair agreeing to help the Americans to remove Saddam was well intentioned based on a lot of false 'facts' he was fed. The way I summed it up was "Blair did the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons"

keep fooling yourself. It's ok, you suffer from the same symptoms the americans do.

 

[brewnog]

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.

The reason for the public uproar was nothing to do with how the Iraqis would feel towards the British troops. It was because most of the British public (especially the troops' families) disagreed with the way the action was being carried out, and particularly that British soldiers were being put under direct control of the US.

brits are the same as americans, the thing is british have only 1000 soldiers while americans 200,000.

Where are these numbers coming from?

 

[Rev Prez]

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?

What do you mean "finding it hard" to win the battle for "hearts and minds?" According to the http://brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf , put out by the center-left Brookings Institution, 67 percent of Iraqis believe their country is moving in the right direction. Only residents in the Sunni areas report a majority dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.

Rev Prez

 

[faust9]

What do you mean "finding it hard" to win the battle for "hearts and minds?" According to the http://brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf , put out by the center-left Brookings Institution, 67 percent of Iraqis believe their country is moving in the right direction. Only residents in the Sunni areas report a majority dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.

Rev Prez

Just a little FYI, the stat you've presented is not from the Brookings institute. Brookings is presenting it but the statistic itself came from the International republican Institute.

http://www.iri.org/

The IRI (formerly the National Republican Institute for International Affairs) is akin to radio free in that it's purpose since founding is to foister the "Amerian" ideal of good governance on the rest of the world by hell or high water if need be.

 

[klusener]

lol.. good call faust, that's hilarious and enlightening stuff...

 

[Rev Prez]

Just a little FYI, the stat you've presented is not from the Brookings institute. Brookings is presenting it but the statistic itself came from the International republican Institute.

Can you identify a problem in the methodology?

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

What do you mean "finding it hard" to win the battle for "hearts and minds?" According to the http://brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf , put out by the center-left Brookings Institution, 67 percent of Iraqis believe their country is moving in the right direction. Only residents in the Sunni areas report a majority dissatisfaction with the direction of the country.

Rev Prez

Ref earlier analogy with N. Ireland the British gov't also commanded a 66% approval rating (from the unionist majority) in N.I. but this didn't help win over the hearts and minds of the people they were actually fighting.
The report you cited also shows that the number of active insurgents has risen from an estimated 5000 in Nov 2003 to 16,000 in April 2005 despite many being killed/captured in the same time frame. To me this suggests the situation is deteriorating with new people becoming alienated at a faster rate than the American forces can kill or capture them. For those who would claim (such as Bush) the numbers have swollen due to an influx of foreign fighters the report also says their number has risen from 500 - 1000 in this same period and so are not a significant factor.
As I intimated earlier insurgents need a massive support infrastructure to operate effectively and so unless the US gov't changes tack and trys to win over the majority of the Sunnis to bring them back into the middle ground and so deny the extremists their support mechanism I suspect things will continue to get worse.

 

[Art]

The reason for the public uproar was nothing to do with how the Iraqis would feel towards the British troops. It was because most of the British public (especially the troops' families) disagreed with the way the action was being carried out, and particularly that British soldiers were being put under direct control of the US.

Extracts from linked article detailing quotes from members of the Black Watch

But while the officers retain undiminished faith in their men's ability, they are worried that the atmosphere created by the more aggressive tactics of the American troops will leave the British soldiers with a difficult task in picking up the pieces.

"We have heard a lot about the triangle of death, which makes everyone nervous because it seems much worse up there than it has been down here. We have controlled the situation down here while the Americans seem to have ruined it up there."

The revelation that the Black Watch was to be sent to the area around Iskanderiyah provoked great controversy, with critics saying that the difference between British and American tactics was bound to cause problems.

"The one thing the Jocks are good at is winning hearts and minds," a former Black Watch officer said. "They are the perfect combination of a fighting regiment that also understands the need to win over the local population. The first 48 to 72 hours are going to be pretty tough. But I do think that after a while the Iraqis will realize that these are the good guys."

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2420

 

[Rev Prez]

Ref earlier analogy with N. Ireland the British gov't also commanded a 66% approval rating (from the unionist majority) in N.I. but this didn't help win over the hearts and minds of the people they were actually fighting.

You mean PIRA? I guess not. But then you'd have to show the value of trying to win over their hearts and minds versus capturing or killing them.

The report you cited also shows that the number of active insurgents has risen from an estimated 5000 in Nov 2003 to 16,000 in April 2005 despite many being killed/captured in the same time frame.

It shows that estimates of the strength of the insurgency have risen, not something unexpected as the enemy organizes itself. Either way, we outnumber the enemy 7 to 1, and those right track/wrong track numbers can't be denied.

To me this suggests the situation is deteriorating with new people becoming alienated at a faster rate than the American forces can kill or capture them.

You'd have to believe that new people were alienated, which is ridiculous. You're suggesting all but 2000 of the several hundred thousand Iraqi forces that caved in March and April 2003 were all for the American invasion. That's ten times less the size of Hussein's Republican Guard and personal paramilitary units.

For those who would claim (such as Bush)...

Chapter and verse please. Otherwise, let's skip this strawman and move on.

...the numbers have swollen due to an influx of foreign fighters the report also says their number has risen from 500 - 1000 in this same period and so are not a significant factor.

Almost all of the suicide attacks are committed by foreign fighters. Their imprint is far larger than their representation in the insurgency would suggest.

As I intimated earlier insurgents need a massive support infrastructure to operate effectively...

Bull****. If you know where to get explosives and ammunition, and you know how to use telephones, what else do you need except an occasional pick up between cities and a place to eat and sleep? Don't make claims you can't even back up qualitatively, let alone quantitatively.

Rev Prez

 

[Art]

You mean PIRA? I guess not. But then you'd have to show the value of trying to win over their hearts and minds versus capturing or killing them.

As I previously stated the British tried the kill and capture approach for 25 years. It did not work.

It shows that estimates of the strength of the insurgency have risen, not something unexpected as the enemy organizes itself. Either way, we outnumber the enemy 7 to 1, and those right track/wrong track numbers can't be denied.

Not sure what your ratio is supposed to mean?? As for the right track figures I've already answered that.

You'd have to believe that new people were alienated, which is ridiculous. You're suggesting all but 2000 of the several hundred thousand Iraqi forces that caved in March and April 2003 were all for the American invasion. That's ten times less the size of Hussein's Republican Guard and personal paramilitary units.

What are you raving about? You provided the reference, not me, I'm merely quoting from it. Are you disputing your own source?

Chapter and verse please. Otherwise, let's skip this strawman and move on.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5657
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/17072/
I could go on...

Almost all of the suicide attacks are committed by foreign fighters. Their imprint is far larger than their representation in the insurgency would suggest.

Now where did you hear that? Oh yes Bush said it :rofl: Which directly contradicts your stance in the previous paragraph. Please at least make an effort to be consistant in your arguments.

Bull****. If you know where to get explosives and ammunition, and you know how to use telephones, what else do you need except an occasional pick up between cities and a place to eat and sleep? Don't make claims you can't even back up qualitatively, let alone quantitatively.

Apart from those requirements you listed, the one thing the insurgents need above all others is the acquiesence of the communities in which they live. For example if your next door neighbour went out regularly at night to shoot policemen you would probably report your suspicians to the police but if you detested those same policemen you may decide to keep quiet.

 

[Yonoz]

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 their heads. The Americans refused it and got a lot of people killed.

Not at all accurate, but since you brought WW2 up, and the US military is again being depicted as a bunch of irresponsible Yahoos with 500lb bombs, let me just remind you that while all others (including the British) performed night-time raids on population centres because it was too difficult to accurately target the smaller plants and bases with the AA capabilities during daytime, it was only the 8th airforce that performed daytime raids, specifically targeting infrastructure and airbases, and the Americans paid dearly for that.
How quickly they forget.