How do you change the perception?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarajevo071
I base my words on stuff I read and saw in many, many testimonies, articles, and movies by veterans themselves. You are asking for proofs... If we have "proof" there wouldn't be cover-ups. What I can tell you is to remind you how Military tried to cover other cases (you heard same stories like all of us) and you know how they tried or they did cover that up.
From damaging Babylon, theft of Iraqi gold and museum artifacts, to the Tillman case, British soldier and American pilots case, Haditha case, Abu Gharib case, Samara case... There is more and I think you heard about all those killings and rapes of civilians by "mistakes" or by orders of free fire. Contractors are without any control or blame, Military is free of responsibility to the International or Iraqi courts...
Regarding "we would simply flatten this country and be done with it" I firmly believe that decade long sanctions that killed 500,000 kids, OIF I and "Highway of Death", and now this coming in frame of "flattening country" but not so obvious so more people will not fight back and with preserving territorial integrity to preserve sucking the oil out.
I am finding very noble of you that you are not one of those soldiers (and I know there are minority) since U.S. Military have long and pretty much good history of noble causes, but this war is not one of them. I agree with you that you stand up for what you believe and I didn’t want to insult you or ANY other real and decent soldier. I was trying to point out some wrong steps that can (and they did) backfire on whole idea of bringing peace and democracy in that parts of Word.
My sensitivity on civilian deaths, rapes and maimed kids toke better of me. My bad. I will try to control my words.
This post, taken from another thread, is a perfect example of a snapshot look from the point of view of the world. How do you combat that? How do you break the impression that the US Military is a secretive organization that is hellbent on covering its tracks on everything bad that happens? How do you make people understand that The US is not in Iraq for oil?
In short, what's your proposed IO campaign?
The High Price of Service
You don't and can't make people understand the points you have set forth. The hand that carries the sword will always be regarded with some degree of trepidation, even in free, advanced societies. The judicious and controled use of force is simply alien to many people and frightening to them, arousing irrational suspicions and fears. High recruiting standards, high expectations and high standards of training combined with hard but consistent discipline is the only way to maintain a steady course that keeps the undeserved suspicion, fear and antagonism at bay. There is no other way. When the criticism gets harsh, then too the discipline must get harsh and the training even harder. That's a fundamental law of physics - for every action, there is an equal, opposite reaction.
In the Post by SWJED on General MaCaffrey's report, Gen. M. makes the following statement in his report: "The American people hold that the US armed forces are the most trusted institution in our society". That translates to one and one thing only: the sole duty of career Officers and NCOs is to make their men the best they can be. When the military is needed, they are loved, when not, they viewed with distrust and even anger. We are on the backside of a war in which politicians yet again made some serious tactical blunders and the military is paying the price. Your only consolation is knowing that you and your brethren stand between We The People and some very real, lethal forces that want us, our children and our way of life dead.
Challenging IO environment
First, I don't think any NCO or officer below 3 stars has a full understanding of why we're in Iraq, we just have our opinions. We went there allegedly to find WMD, and it wasn't there. Strike one in the IO battle. We went there to sever the non-existent link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda, strike two. Then we had the normal, none the less serious, crimes and mistakes that were the result of imperfect men (all of us) in combat. Several of them were in the headlines for months (several strikes, but the game goes on).
It is hard for leaders to speak with a credible voice after they sacrificed their integrity in front of the world. Furthermore, our national leaders used securing our oil interests in speeches previously, though never stated it as the primary reason, yet the association of our VP with Halliburton and the President with the oil industry isn't helpful. It doesn't have to be true, just believable. Anyway whether our people like it or not, oil security is important to the world's economy, not just ours. However, we can't say that publicly to an audience that taught to think within a politically correct box.
Revisit your points, and then put them in perspective. First they are your opinion, not fact. Second, your opinion is competing against a number of other opinions. Unfortunately if you refer back to the first paragraph your (our) opinion isn't looking good in the best commercial contest. The others have supporting arguments that are in the headlines daily. It sort of puts us in a position where people wonder what the heck we're talking about.
How to over come it? To be frank I have by doubts that we can under the current administration, and unfortunately with the unreasonable pressure from Congress to pull out soon, our only option may be to get our credibility back under this administration.
One option we have, and to date have done a terrible job with, is making the bugger stick somewhere else. Our soldiers are not intentionally killing civilians; as a matter of FACT they are risking their lives to save Iraqi civilians. People get this, but they need to hear it more.
They also need to hear (much more often) that the a--holes we're fighting do not have a plan for Iraq, they are only seeking self power, and they are resorting to terribly vicious means to achieve it. We need to show front and center on the headlines (for weeks at a time) when a suicide bomber intentionally puts children in his car so he can by pass check points to get to a position where he can kill more children. We need the names of the children, conduct interviews with the family members, for change put the enemy on the defensive. And perhaps (just an idea) interview the suicide bomber's family (concurrently with family members of those killed) to gradually kill the social acceptance of this tactic.
The biggest challenge in the IO war though is convincing the home audience that the sacrifice is worth it. With relatively very little effort we can put the bad guys on the defensive on the moral front (will we do it? I don't know), but equally important is showing we have a "viable" plan and we're making progress. If we can't show that, then it is unrealistic to expect support for continued operations, because you're then asking the American people to invest their blood and dollars into hope, not a plan.
Winning american hearts and minds
I am in pretty much agreement with Bill on the importance of getting support at home or we want get the chance to get it over there.
In that regard the latest Gallop Poll is not encouraging. Only 29 percent think the surge has improved the situation in Iraq. This is with many media reports that say things have improved. It is like the rest of the country has shut down on the subject.
There were a fare number who claimed that things were worse and they are definitely not persuadable. They are in the group who seriously want to lose so that we will be inhibited from using force in the future. There is a good size groups of "independents" who are still in the middle on the surge and that is were a good IO operation might do some good. The willfully ignorant on the left are probably not going to change their mind even with an enemy surrender agreement.
The polls still do not ask the key question, "Do you want to lose?" The answer to that question would give a better idea of how persuadable people are.
Fighting in support of policy objectives
One of the real issues of the war in the post nuclear world (and one made again recently by Doug MacGregor) is that the idea of fighting until total victory is defunct. The lack of achievable or morally acceptable total victory and the dynamics of global media, econonmics and morality demand that fighting and negotiation occur simultaneously with the aim of achieving the preferred political outcome through increments.
Now before everyone jumps all over me about 'you can't negotiate with AQ or terrorists because they are......' I agree - but remember it was us (Rummy esp) who declared all opponents of the occupation terrorists thus making it very hard to tell the difference between AQinI, the local Baath Officials, the local tribe or the local version of Don Corleone. It was us that forced them to the common tactical objective of killing our troops despite their divergent Strategic and operational objectives because we weren't capable of negotiation only intimidation and force. We weren't capable intially of knowing there was a difference. It was also us that told Iraq and Syria 'you bastards are next' making their only choice to be to bring us down by stealth -what choice did we leave them - if Iraq had been easy the neo-cons would be now neck deep in Iran.
Thankfully Gen Petraeus and his blue eyed boys have finaly begun to fight and negotiate in an attempt to identify, split and isolate the groups so that the real problems can be destroyed and the real stakeholders can be bought into the fold. This is the only way to stregthen and grow your local support base while draining away the support for the real enemy it is also the only way to get accurate targeting information, and it looks like it may be working.
Unfortunatley it is probably to late - our strategic base at home is collapsing and through the ham fisted approaches of 2003-2006 we have now made some irreconcilable enemies out of people intially predisposed to us. These guys will now simply wait us out until the politics caves us in. We are also now going to have to make much more significant concessions to some groups than we would have had to in 2004/5 because we are in a much weaker postion. Such is missed opportunity.
While I hate sporting analogies the real problem has been the American style of operational theory - we run plays and when they fail expect it to be 2nd and 10 or 3rd and ten, when in this business failure always makes it 2nd and 20 or third and 40 and as everyone knows only fools don't punt on 4th and fifty - but we are going to run it out of the end zone with the 1st round draft pick as QB but with the same offensive line which is getting pretty tired.
You fight and negotiate - negotiate and fight doing so with the outcome firmly in mind or you will end up taking what you can or end up with fields of salt.
231 Years and Counting.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sarajevo071
Oh, my, what did I start now!? :eek: Am I supposed to say something on all this or it’s better to stay silent on my end!? I don’t want any hate mails… :o
I would imagine when the Pilgrims landed word quickly spread that they were there to take slaves, burn crops and roast babies for lunch. I look at the plethora of responses, input, ideas, thoughts, strategies, hunches, professional and amateur assessment on this thread and all I really see is something that is somehow proactively unified, that did not disintegrate despite a strong continuum of dichotomous input - kind of like a rolling ball with alot of strings sort of sticking out that just keeps moving on despite the obstacles in its path.
Leaders need to make this video the norm...
Great discussion. Not sure having a General in charge of IO would be the ultimate difference maker. Osama and/or Zawahiri aren't in charge of Al Qaeda's IO campaign. They certainly provide guidance every now and then and add to it, but ultimately it's a bottom-up process. We can learn a lot from the way our enemies approach IO. Just think about what the Iranians have done with the British sailors. Release the female sailor, show them all eating, clean, happy. While most in the U.K. and U.S. are pissed about this incident, the Iranians hit a jackpot with the Muslim world (and probably many other audiences as well) by how they've handled the British sailors.
Have posted comments below elsewhere and would appreciate any feedback. Here goes...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e6b_1175160756
Please view link above (not a fan of the title, but the video itself is great).
It's all too common for us in uniform, myself included, to get frustrated with the mass media for rarely showing anything but the negative and/or kinetic side of the Iraq war (i.e., firefights, IED attacks, burning cars, etc.). Unfortunately, we normally don't help ourselves in this regard. If you click on the Iraq icon at liveleak.com, 99% of the videos are either ones posted by someone that wears a US military uniform showing a fight of some kind or by the insurgents and/or terrorists doing the same.
The link above shows the exact opposite: pictures of Marines, Sailors and Soldiers doing their best to bring hope for a better life to the Iraqi people. If the media's not going to tell our side--or the positive side--of the war then we had better do so if we don't want the will of the American people to collapse on us, especially now that we're seeing many positive developments throughout the country (for example, see "Good News in Al Anbar?" in the April Marine Corps Gazette).
During my time in Iraq, I would have never thought of videotaping events such as: my Marines helping to re-build a school, medical clinic, vet clinic; playing soccer with kids and adults; riding around on donkeys and bicycles; being invited to eat with tribal leaders as well as many average families; MEDCAPs; DENTCAPs; etc. Yet, this is exactly what I should have done (it would have been great if I had the ability to hide Iraqis' faces on request though). I remember writing home about all the good in Iraq and my family having a hard time believing me because of what they read and saw on the "news". Even during the high-intensity fighting in Najaf, my platoon still had friendly interactions with thousands of Iraqis. Knowing that most of us are visual learners, I should have known better. At the very least I should have thought to videotape these interactions and send them home. I failed to understand my role then as a "strategic" lieutenant.
All this said, in former CIA Director, William Colby's book Lost Victory, he frequently mentions his frustration with the media for not writing about the success of the pacification efforts in Vietnam. In one part he talks about how pleasantly surprised he was when a reporter, after touring the Delta region with him in 1969, wrote a story titled "They Just Might Make It" about how the South Vietnamese had taken significant strides since Tet in eliminating the Communist insurgency. In the next paragraph, Colby expresses his frustration with another reporter, who instead of writing a similar story after a tour with Colby, said there wasn't anything dramatic (i.e., rocket or mortar attacks) to write about. Colby responded to this by asking why not write a story about all the families in the village that a year earlier had no home, were separated from loved ones, starving, unemployed, and under constant insurgent threat. The reporter acknowledged the point but still didn't write a "positive" story about it because of lack of “dramatics.”
Here's what I don't understand though: in the 21st Century IO War, the media and the insurgents and the terrorists have a critical vulnerability that we can easily exploit. This vulnerability is that, unlike in Vietnam in 1969, almost every platoon in Iraq has access to the internet, a digital camera and a video camera. Imagine what would happen if instead of or in addition to Marines/Soldiers posting stories about IED attacks and firefights, liveleak.com, youtube.com and similar websites were flooded with postings of the hundreds of "positive" interactions that American squads/platoons have with the Iraqi people on a daily basis.
It's time for us to embrace the Information Age and to get into the fight for the will of the American people and that of the rest of the world.
Leaders need to make this happen.
Time to climb out on a limb...
Hi 120mm,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
120mm
Perhaps (probably) we are doing this Small Wars thing the wrong way. Perhaps we need to approach it like the political parties approach a political campaign. Do we need a "McCarville-esque" "general" running the operation?
One of the biggest problems that Western Civilization has is that we have lost what Mao called the idea of "the People's War". To be more accurate, it has become "secularized" in he sense that we "fight" our "People's Wars" in the political arena and eschew them when it comes close to non-internal, non-"political" violence. Basically, in the modern West, and especially in Canada and the US, our "People's Wars" are what the Sociologists call "Social Movements".
This really shouldn't surprise anyone who looks at their historical development since the 1960's. Most of the New Left movement that dominated the social movements scene from the mid-'60's on was organized along Maoist principles, as were many of the groups in the Women's movement (e.g. the Consciousness Raising groups of the late 1960's were based on the Maoist idea of "Speaking Anger"). Radical organizers such as Saul Alinski frequently drew their tactics from Mao as well as other left wing organizers (e.g. Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.).
In general, the only other group that has adopted a "People's War" strategy at the political level has been the neo-con movement. Fortunately, at least from my point of view, the neo-cons didn't bother to read any of the theoretical work on the subject, so they were really creating their tactics on an ad hoc basis. And, this time speaking from personal experience in the Canadian political scene, some of the early the neo-cons here were so ill-read that they thought that quotes from Mao were actually made by Hitler! (okay, that was a sidebar rant.....)
Back to your question, 120mm - and my answer is "yes and no". In both Canada and the US, I think that we need to redeploy the concept of a People's War as Social Movement but, this time, in support of our basic core values including informed discussion. Trying to organize along the lines of political parties is probably a bad idea, both here and in the US. In Canada, we have enough parties already, although I really wish the Rhinoceros Party would start again. In the US, it is too expensive to try to go up against the two entrenched parties - better to play SF with a social movement strategy and let a new party develop on its own (probably a centrist coalition party).
Marc
We could learn a great deal from this Dr..
I offer my finest example of the logic currently being employed against Uncle "Sam."
http://boe.berk.k12.wv.us/217/dr.htm
What exactly is there not to like with us? We want something we already know is good for someone who does not. :D