AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: What Ever Happened To Winning Their Hearts And Minds?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Iraqis are finding their lives more hopeful but give the United States little credit for the improvement, an international media poll finds.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080317/ap_o...IZnmFvaA8F

Quote:WASHINGTON - Iraqis are finding their lives more hopeful but give the United States little credit for the improvement, an international media poll finds.

Instead, poll respondents credited the Iraqi government, police and army.

The poll, released Monday to observe this week's fifth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, was commissioned by ABC News in conjunction with the British Broadcasting Corp., ARD German TV and the Japanese broadcaster NHK.

The Bush administration has credited an increase of 30,000 troops for a decrease in violence, which it says has improved the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

In the poll, however, more than half the Iraqis, 53 percent, felt that the rapid buildup of U.S. troops in Anbar province and in Baghdad has made overall security worse, not better. Even those negative findings, however, were a sharp improvement since a similar poll last August. Then, 70 percent said the American buildup had made matters worse in the areas it had emphasized. Only 18 percent said it had improved their conditions then, compared with 36 percent now.

The nationwide poll found the Iraqis' negative assessment of the rapid troop buildup came from all categories of respondents. Still, the poll responses reflected the overall improved assessment of conditions now as opposed to August, the month after the buildup was fully in place.

Regarding security, political dialogue, ability of the Iraqi government and economic development, 42 percent to 53 percent of the respondents found the situation worse. Those findings were down by 17 points to 27 points from the same questions eight months ago.

Poll organizers said such ratings reflect lingering negative feelings toward the March 2003 invasion.

"Direct ratings of the surge likely reflect the United States' general unpopularity," the poll's writers said. When "viewed through the filter of general antipathy toward the United States," they wrote, the drop in negative sentiment is notable.

In line with that, the poll's findings on "views of the U.S. presence" in Iraq were the highest since the invasion. Asked whether the "invasion was right," 49 percent said it was. The previous high had been 48 percent in the first poll of the series, by ABC News in February 2004, a virtual tie with the current level due to the poll's 2.5 percent error margin.

In August, 57 percent of Iraqis had replied that it was "acceptable" to attack U.S. forces. The poll released Monday found that number had dropped to 42 percent.

Likewise, 47 percent said last August that the foreign coalition's forces should leave Iraq. In the new poll, that had dropped to 38 percent.

The poll showed that Iraq's sectarian problems remain huge. Asked to evaluate their own lives, the country's current condition and whether they expect better lives for their children, the mood of the Sunni Muslim minority was bleaker than that of either the non-Arab Kurdish minority or the Shiite Arab majority.

More than eight in 10 Sunni Arabs said the condition of the country was bad; just over half of the Kurds, most of whom are Sunni, also felt that the things were going badly. Of the Shiites, who are 60 percent of the population and control the government, fewer than four in 10 found things were going badly.

Despite improvements, overall security remained the country's main problem in the minds of most Iraqis.

At the same time, most reported that their own lives were going well. In August, fewer than four in 10 said that; in the new poll, 55 percent said it. More than six in 10 said local security was good, 19 percentage points higher than in August.

Looking ahead, however, fewer than half expect their country to be better in a year's time. Still, that number, 46 percent, is twice the percentage of last August, when only 23 percent expected a better year ahead.

The poll was conducted Feb. 12-20 through interviews with a random sample of 2,228 Iraqi adults, including oversamples in Anbar province and in Baghdad and other major cities. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
We've done as much "being nice and helping" them as humanly possible. The way to win hearts and minds is like Dwight David Eisenhower's method.

A)Knock the hell out of their hearts and minds

B)Forgive them and help them back on their feet with the understanding we can repeat this anytime you want it.

This study indicates as much from Harvard(contained within the larger article),but anyone with a brain knew this in advance,wiinning wars is the way to change peoples,not losing wars. Had Germany won WWII,I doubt Germany would be such a nice group of folks today:



HERE

In fact,had Germany won the war,Germany today would be a nation of Islam state with enlightened policies like their Islamic heroes have:

HERE
I noticed Quad never had a response as he knows I'm right on this and Israelis might do well to learn the lesson,too,look at the increase in anti Israeli attacks from Gaza since the Israelis abandoned it to the criminal Palestinian culture:

HERE
You're right Palladin, but here's the thing: you can't wage that kind of war unless you have the support of your own citizens. And you can't have the support of your own citizens unless they feel morally justified in pounding the offending country into oblivion.

You're right, too, when you say that America suffers from a lack of will. Yet the cause for our lack of will is not weakness, as you think. Its the simple fact that its kind of hard to justify beating the crap out of the civilians of another country when they're not the aggressors.

With Japan and Germany, there was the sense that the Japanese and German people themselves had chosen to attack us(and in large measure they had - less so in Japan's case, though they had bought into attacking their neighboring Asian countries). So it was easy to support bombing them.

We don't suffer from weakness. Rather, the Americans, correctly, suffer from lack of moral confidence.
Well...

Before the war, it was said that the war was needed because:

1. Saddam possessed WMD:s
2. Saddam was a tyrant and need to be removed
3. Democracy should be spread in the region

Now, after 5 years, it is evident that there were no WMD:s in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Saddam might have been considered a tyrant by some but not by others. With the help from the US and the coalition, shia dominance replaced the earlier sunni dominance.

From the standpoint of US interests it might have been a loss to put shias in power since that increased the Iranian influence in the region. But that was not realized by the strategists in the White House 5 years ago.

As of now, it seems that US forces will stay in Iraq for a long time to come. The new US policy elaborated by Gen. Petraeus to involve the sunnis more in Iraqi domestic politics has been successful. It has also led to that Al Qaeda, who swarmed into Iraq after the invasion, has lost grip of Iraq because even the Sunnis don't want them.

Iraq has been costly to the US taxpayer and the question is if it was worth it.

/track_snake
Track,

If you cannot see the value of our moving Iraq from anti to pro America and America having permanent bases on Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria's borders at the invite of the elected iraqi government,you're stupid.

I assume you are not stupid,rather arrogant and cannot admit these radical positive changes are good for America. Because you opposed the war as I did,you simply cannot bring yourself to see the extremely positive value it has bequeathed America in the GWOT.

Anon,

You are as blind as hell. You see us beating up Muslim civilians like your advisor Bin Laden sees it,but it is Islamic nuts that do the civilian beating,that's the truth,maybe someday you'll consider it. Why an atheist like you gives credence to a neanderthal idiot is beyond me.

Maybe someday a lot of Americans will get some objectivity and stop kissing Osama's as.s metaphorically(by extension Islam) and realize,the MORE confident we are and the more forceful we are,the weaker he and his evil Islamic religion get.

Take a second to read how weak they are and how vulnerable they are,simply persisting in making fun of Mohammad and Islam is THE answer to destroying not only jihad concepts,but the hateful religion itself. As Reagan persisted in stating communism and Moscow were evil and they were(and are),it assisted to remove any concept of it as good,so it will be with Islam. Far from being a true religion,it's nihilism wrapped around an entirely false concept of the creator of the universe,worse than communism.

The more we openly say Islam is murder,the less Muslims can accept it isn't,the idol will have been toppled.



HERE
Palladin Wrote:Track,

If you cannot see the value of our moving Iraq from anti to pro America and America having permanent bases on Iran and Saudi Arabia and Syria's borders at the invite of the elected iraqi government,you're stupid.

I assume you are not stupid,rather arrogant and cannot admit these radical positive changes are good for America. Because you opposed the war as I did,you simply cannot bring yourself to see the extremely positive value it has bequeathed America in the GWOT.

Anon,

You are as blind as hell. You see us beating up Muslim civilians like your advisor Bin Laden sees it,but it is Islamic nuts that do the civilian beating,that's the truth,maybe someday you'll consider it. Why an atheist like you gives credence to a neanderthal idiot is beyond me.

Maybe someday a lot of Americans will get some objectivity and stop kissing Osama's as.s metaphorically(by extension Islam) and realize,the MORE confident we are and the more forceful we are,the weaker he and his evil Islamic religion get.

Take a second to read how weak they are and how vulnerable they are,simply persisting in making fun of Mohammad and Islam is THE answer to destroying not only jihad concepts,but the hateful religion itself. As Reagan persisted in stating communism and Moscow were evil and they were(and are),it assisted to remove any concept of it as good,so it will be with Islam. Far from being a true religion,it's nihilism wrapped around an entirely false concept of the creator of the universe,worse than communism.

The more we openly say Islam is murder,the less Muslims can accept it isn't,the idol will have been toppled.



HERE

-------------------------------
Well...

The Iraqi experience has so far been very costly to the US taxpayer and will be for a long time to come.

I question if it was worth it. Palladin, you say that the possibility to put up bases close to Syria and Iran made it worth it. But what if the new Shia pro-Iranian government in Iraq will close those bases? And it would have been possible to put up military bases in Kuwait and other places close to the Iranian border without invading Iraq. If US kept Saddam alive they might even have lured him into a third war with Iran making Iran concentrate on other things than uranium enrichment.

No, the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. It cost the US taxpayer too much, it did not bring real democracy to the region and it only strengthened the radical Shia elements.

/track_snake
Track,

Neither of us are prophets,but it stands to reason that IF Iraq ends up being neutral or better towards Islamic terrorism and IF Iraq desires a positive long term relationship with the USA,then the invasion was good.

If we fail there,we know neither will be true,if we stick with it until they can handle it alone,it's hard to understand why they would not desire both those goals.

I remind you,simply because Iranians are shiites and some Arabs are does NOT equal the Arabs being willing to serve the Iranians,that makes no more sense than I am willing to serve the interests Argentina above America because both states predominantly believe Jesus is The Son of God. The thought is w/o logic. IF the Iraqi shia were under Sunni hegemony,then I could see that being a possibility.
Palladin Wrote:Track,

Neither of us are prophets,but it stands to reason that IF Iraq ends up being neutral or better towards Islamic terrorism and IF Iraq desires a positive long term relationship with the USA,then the invasion was good.

If we fail there,we know neither will be true,if we stick with it until they can handle it alone,it's hard to understand why they would not desire both those goals.

I remind you,simply because Iranians are shiites and some Arabs are does NOT equal the Arabs being willing to serve the Iranians,that makes no more sense than I am willing to serve the interests Argentina above America because both states predominantly believe Jesus is The Son of God. The thought is w/o logic. IF the Iraqi shia were under Sunni hegemony,then I could see that being a possibility.
-------------------
Well...

It is counterproductive to discuss right now if the war in Iraq was motivated or not. I doubt it and I think the US taxpayers money could have been spent better on other things. It was also unfair to execute the leader of a sovereign country.

But now we are there and the question is what to do now. I foresee that US troops will be in Iraq for a long time to come still. There has been considerable improvements of the situation lately under Gen. Petraeus with the establishment of the Sunni Awakening Councils. But it should not be handled like this:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/22/news/Iraq.php

I hope this incident where 6 Awakening Council members were killed is really investigated.

/track_snake
track_snake Wrote:Well...

It is counterproductive to discuss right now if the war in Iraq was motivated or not. I doubt it and I think the US taxpayers money could have been spent better on other things. It was also unfair to execute the leader of a sovereign country.
/track_snake

I'll bet you say the same thing about Pol Pot too. Wink1
John L Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:Well...

It is counterproductive to discuss right now if the war in Iraq was motivated or not. I doubt it and I think the US taxpayers money could have been spent better on other things. It was also unfair to execute the leader of a sovereign country.
/track_snake

I'll bet you say the same thing about Pol Pot too. Wink1
-------------------------------------
Well...

Pol Pot and Saddam are not comparable. Say Mubarak and Saddam or Assad and Saddam so are you maybe on the same wavelength.

Pol Pot carried out a genocide against his own people. Saddam had a few conflicts with Shia muslims and the Kurds.

/track_snake
track_snake Wrote:
John L Wrote:
track_snake Wrote:Well...

It is counterproductive to discuss right now if the war in Iraq was motivated or not. I doubt it and I think the US taxpayers money could have been spent better on other things. It was also unfair to execute the leader of a sovereign country.
/track_snake

I'll bet you say the same thing about Pol Pot too. Wink1
-------------------------------------
Well...

Pol Pot and Saddam are not comparable. Say Mubarak and Saddam or Assad and Saddam so are you maybe on the same wavelength.

Pol Pot carried out a genocide against his own people. Saddam had a few conflicts with Shia muslims and the Kurds.

/track_snake

Some folks will go to the greatest lenghs to justify their position, when shown their lack of consistency.

T_S you could not have made my point more clearly. Wink1
Whether or not Saddam was as bad as Pol Pot etc. is beside the point. The point is: we had no business invading Iraq, even if Saddam was a genocidal maniac.
Anonymous24 Wrote:Whether or not Saddam was as bad as Pol Pot etc. is beside the point. The point is: we had no business invading Iraq, even if Saddam was a genocidal maniac.

Remember, we were still at war with him, because the cease fire in 1991, was just that,..........a cease fire only. And he violated the terms repeatedly, by firing on our aircraft, and refusing to allow weapons inspectors in to inspect. The legal cause was there Curtis, you just refuse ot recognize it.
Quote:The legal cause was there

So? That doesn't mean it was a good idea, and it certainly doesn't mean it was moral.
Anonymous24 Wrote:
Quote:The legal cause was there

So? That doesn't mean it was a good idea, and it certainly doesn't mean it was moral.

Some day in the future, you may marry and have children. When your child acts contrary to what he/she is supposed to do, and you have warned your child about the consequences, consider what will happen should you do nothing but allow the actions and not take action. Then try to relate it to other facets of life.
We warned SAddam if he didn't let the weapons inspectors in, we would invade. He did let the weapons inspectors in, and they (accurately) reported that he had no weapons.
Gosh,I just don't see how an American can be for us being a global power and NOT have destroyed the Hussein government honestly. Now,ME,I'm an isolationist and will be cool with never having another foreign war,but if you are for us to hold hegemony over the global system,how long could you let him rule with impunity:

1) while he armed and cashiered many Islamic terror groups,inlcuding Egyptian Islamic Jihad(Zawahiri's group pre matching up with Osama)

2)Gave safe haven to many we had pursued since the early 1980s,one of whom we caught and imprisoned in Baghdad in 2003 wanted since 1982.

3)Shot at our aircraft weekly(yea,ineffectively,so what?)

4) His nation had been both wasting away due to our sanctions,his oil wealth was not being exploited to the benefit of Iraq or the global economy and they had become so weak as a national entity he had to fake having WMD to prevent an invasion by Iran according to his explicit testimony to our Arabic agent.

5)Imagine Iran invading in retribution for the 1980s and succeeding,which is easy to imagine after watching their Army. The Iraqi Shiites,it seems logical to me,were in a position to be traitorous(they did conduct themselves as traitors when we invaded largely to our benefit) advantage to Iran,today,the Shiites rule the nation and are much less questionable in loyalty,opposite of the drumbeat mantra here,IMO.

6)You had 9-11,we've surely had enough evidence that this Muslim extremism will bite our as.ses by now guys,you cannot play the conventional deterrence game with these idiotic humans. Forget this "Iran did n't do 9-11 or Iraq didn't". NO NATION DID,but several nations protect,cashier and provide sustenance to this transnational phenomenon.

Iran and Syria are the remaining 2 major ones,Yemen and Saudi Arabia(mainly via cash contributions) to the lesser open extent.

While I'm an isolationist,I am a realist and our status on earth is seen currently as the enemy of Islam,PERIOD. We just cannot sit back and hope and pray guys. The deal is done,we don't have the luxury of walking away from this challenge.

Look at a map,Iraq is absolutely PERFECT geographically for us. Yes,we'll be there for probably 100 years unless we collapse as a supwer power and we NEED to stay there so long as Islamic extremism is not discredited,to be prepared for any eventuality within 1 day of the capital of all Islamic states who may want to get some later.

If we had not invaded Iraq,we would have simply moved the government of Afghanistan literally 75 miles east and all these jihadists who are murdering 99% fellow Muslims would be gearing up for same in Canada,USA and Europe,they would NOT have been working for the salvation Army.

Now,they are doing 2 great strategic things for us w/o us firing shots:

1) Killing their suicide volunteers like crazy

2)Murdering tons of innocent Muslims who are learning jihad really is a terrible concept,THAT is the strategic way of victory guys! It cannot happen if we weren't in Iraq.

Plus,we're just slaughtering a lot of their guys ourselves,which is unreported and we're perfectly positioned for the future IF we have to make another forceful/coercive move.

If you don't support this Iraq thing,I would think at the very least you would want to return(as I do desperately after victory) to a pre WWII foreign view,namely minding our own business. In my lifetime,I've never seen a more effective strategic move. Not tactically executed well early on,now we're really on their trail bad relentlessly,we know so much more than then and so many of their people have turned.
Quote:3)Shot at our aircraft weekly(yea,ineffectively,so what?)

North Korean soldiers have fired at U.S. soldiers. Is that justification to invade N. KOrea?

In 1993, Somalis killed 19 U.S. soldiers and injured dozens more. Should we invade Somalia?

Hezbollah killed hundreds of Marines in the 1980s. Should we invade Lebanon?
Anon,

If it was a once a year event,NO. It was constant and there are WAY more reasons than that. Consider the possibilities had we not. We're close to helpless right now if Iran had invaded Iraq,right now we're in excellent position vis a vis them,Syria or even Saudi Arabia and don't forget that extremist could topple SA or Syria as well.

I just think it's an obvious no brainer IF you support USA global hegemony. And you do,so why suggest we should act passively after 9-11?
Pages: 1 2