Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: Do We Hate America? The Arab Response

  1. #21
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    I think we're ignoring a key point; althought this is a problem for the U.S., one of the big sources is Arab nations using anti-U.S. sentiments to distract attention away from their own corruption. It gives frustrated young men an outlet that is not perceived as a threat to the internal status quo, and helps the governments avoid detaining/killing/torturing these young men en masse (as they scream for the death of Zionism, crusaders etc, rather than for the death of their own prime minister, president, etc), which would only make internal tensions worse.

    The countermove is fairly obvious, but wouldn't fly well in the media; diplomatic sanctions and loss of economic support to nations that spout anti-U.S./West venom from state-run media, and distribute free radios pretuned to the regional VOA and BBC freqs. And the carrot; diplomatic and economic considerations for nations that have free media or even-handed state run media. The real key to the carrot and the stick is making them rapidly adaptable, so changes in a nations actions (good or bad) don't go unrecognized.

    Of course, the mainstream media would scream that this is interfering in freedom of press, a propaganda program, yada yada.

  2. #22
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    I think we're ignoring a key point; althought this is a problem for the U.S., one of the big sources is Arab nations using anti-U.S. sentiments to distract attention away from their own corruption. It gives frustrated young men an outlet that is not perceived as a threat to the internal status quo, and helps the governments avoid detaining/killing/torturing these young men en masse (as they scream for the death of Zionism, crusaders etc, rather than for the death of their own prime minister, president, etc), which would only make internal tensions worse.

    The countermove is fairly obvious, but wouldn't fly well in the media; diplomatic sanctions and loss of economic support to nations that spout anti-U.S./West venom from state-run media, and distribute free radios pretuned to the regional VOA and BBC freqs. And the carrot; diplomatic and economic considerations for nations that have free media or even-handed state run media. The real key to the carrot and the stick is making them rapidly adaptable, so changes in a nations actions (good or bad) don't go unrecognized.

    Of course, the mainstream media would scream that this is interfering in freedom of press, a propaganda program, yada yada.
    I think you're falling into a number of traps here that fail to address some of the genuine differences that need to be addressed honestly.

    1) I think you are overestimating the impact of state-run media on Arab perceptions of both Arab regimes and the West, especially given the rise of semi-independent and privately run media in the past 15 years, al-Jazeera leading the way.

    2) You are seriously overestimating the potential positive impact of saturating the Arab world with Western media outlets. Again, the "if we could only get our strategic communications right, everything would be okay!" trap. You assume that our message is selling something that the Arabs want to buy.

    The United States has spent billions in the past six years spreading its Arabic-language message through outlets like al-Hurra and Radio Sawa. Yet negative perceptions of the United States have skyrocketed in the past six years. Has it occurred to you that no matter how well packaged, the invasion and occupation of Iraq is just not going to be popular with Arabs, and thus negatively affect how they perceive the United States?

    Promoting a free media in the Arab world is a worthy U.S. goal. However, a truly "free" media will also be one that is "free" of U.S. messaging control. The best example of this is, of course, al-Jazeera, which is accused by most Western governments and militaries as being militantly anti-Western, despite the fact that it is the only Arab sat channel which routinely covers American and Israeli politics and which grants airtime to Israeli government spokesmen.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
    I think we're ignoring a key point; althought this is a problem for the U.S., one of the big sources is Arab nations using anti-U.S. sentiments to distract attention away from their own corruption. It gives frustrated young men an outlet that is not perceived as a threat to the internal status quo, and helps the governments avoid detaining/killing/torturing these young men en masse (as they scream for the death of Zionism, crusaders etc, rather than for the death of their own prime minister, president, etc), which would only make internal tensions worse.
    I'm not sure which Arab countries you're thinking of. In most of them, there is almost no officially-promoted anti-Americanism... indeed, regimes tend to play down strong, open, official criticism of Washington (even when they differ sharply on policy issues) because they are well aware of the difficulties of being allied to the US at a time when their populations are overwhelmingly critical of US policies. There are exceptions--Syria, for example--but these are regimes that are at loggerheads with the US, and over which Washington has little leverage.

    There is strong criticism of the US from the opposition press--both Islamist (of all varieties) and liberal-democratic. There is also considerable criticism in the free (satellite) TV channels, notably al-Jazeera--generally reflecting, rather than leading, popular attitudes.

    Some of this hostility is rooted in misperception, sterotypes, etc. US public diplomacy has often been very weak.

    However, a great deal is rooted in US policies too--and there's only so much you can do to sell an unpopular toothpaste by just changing the packaging...

  4. #24
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    y U.S. goal. However, a truly "free" media will also be one that is "free" of U.S. messaging control. The best example of this is, of course, al-Jazeera, which is accused by most Western governments and militaries as being militantly anti-Western, despite the fact that it is the only Arab sat channel which routinely covers American and Israeli politics and which grants airtime to Israeli government spokesmen.
    Agree completely. I think we Americans have this deeply naively belief that the only reason people would fear and dislike us is because they misunderstand us. We have this belief in the benevolence of the free press and democracy, then are aghast when al Jazeera criticizes us or Hamas wins and election.

    I believe we have two and only options in the Islamic world: 1) get used to being hated (and hence invent a different counterterrorism strategy that is NOT based on winning hearts and minds); or 2) abandon Israel and support to dictators like Mubarak, the Sauds, and Musharraf.

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default

    option 2 is out - the ME would light up fast and like never before and since large swatches of our population are mostly interested in upgrading their cell phones to include 40 different ring tones and sales at Wal-Mart, we will have to just live with the hatred. Civil liberties and the wide breadth and latitude of Constitutional interpretation might convulse over inventing a new approach to counterterrorism. In short, we have probably reached our apex as a civilization.

  6. #26
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    Re: the anti west state media in the middle east-

    The one that loomed largest in my mind is Saudi. Recently returning folks from the contractor community there go on at length about the difference between what is said in english and what is said in arabic...

    Re; Strategic Comm- Yes, it won't fix everything, but yes, we absolutely must improve it now. It does not garantee success, but it is neccessary for success. Getting our voice, or at least something resembling a free media is a step in the right direction, and there is no reason not to use economic and diplomatic tools in support of information operations.

    SteveMetz said:
    I believe we have two and only options in the Islamic world: 1) get used to being hated (and hence invent a different counterterrorism strategy that is NOT based on winning hearts and minds); or 2) abandon Israel and support to dictators like Mubarak, the Sauds, and Musharraf.
    Get used to being hated? The media would love it, and sell many papers and much air time; this would be good for our economy

    Abandon Israel; now there's a strategy that can't be sold in the U.S. I won't even start on the similarities between Israeli policies and Stalinist Russia, but it is disturbing that pointing out that Israeli interests are not automatically U.S. interests ensures that one will be labelled an anti-semetic.

    Look at the distribution of wealth and the distribution of religous fundamentalists. Throughout Judeo-Christian-Islamic history poverty is often equated to piety. Kind of makes sense, poor folks can't store up material wealth, so invest themselves into their faith. This suggests that we need a Marshall plan for the Middle East in order to reduce poverty, and reduce the conditions that create the desparation that inspires terrorist leaders, and etch away at the religious fundamentalism that is the common thread of much of our challenges there. The choke point for increasing the wealth of the common people in the Arab world is the dictators and their governments. Corruption is so endemic that private economic development is almost impossible. Allowing a significant middle class to emerge is not on their agenda as this would be a threat to political power. At best, supporting dictators is only a stop gap measure for a strategic solution, the better answer is applying influence to allow a middle class to emerge. But that is a very long term solution.

    And if you had told me in 1990 that I would be pitching equitable distribution of wealth as a means to strategic success, I would have laughed in your face...

    The best strategic solution is to arrange for the Arab and Persian world to be irrelevant, placing it firmly in the same category as Tibet, an issue, but not one worth significant expenditure of resources. The path there: break our dependence one foreign oil. The ideal endstate is one where we can afford to not care if they love us or hate us.

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Regarding Steve's option, I think its potentially a little misleading to cast the alternatives as starkly as "abandon Israel."

    To my mind, promoting a stable two-state solution the Palestinian-Israeli conflict along the lines suggested by the Clinton Parameters (2000), Beirut Arab League summit resolution (2002), and Geneva Accord (2003) is hardly "abandoning Israel." Rather, it is rejecting the extremism of both the Israeli settler lobby and Palestinian hardliners to emphasize the center ground in the conflict. Indeed, I believe it to be in the interest of a great majority of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the international community.

    On supporting Arab dictators, I think there's a trade-off here between short and long terms. In the short term, authoritarian Arab regimes are useful CT allies. In the long term, the West's support for them is a major source of local grievances, and strengthens the appeal of radical and anti-Western groups, thereby aggravating the CT challenge.

    In the medium term, its just plain messy. I'm inclined to believe--hopeless romantic that I am--that, when in doubt, its not a bad idea to do the (morally) right thing, which probably doesn't involve supporting repressive regimes.

  8. #28
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Regarding Steve's option, I think its potentially a little misleading to cast the alternatives as starkly as "abandon Israel."

    To my mind, promoting a stable two-state solution the Palestinian-Israeli conflict along the lines suggested by the Clinton Parameters (2000), Beirut Arab League summit resolution (2002), and Geneva Accord (2003) is hardly "abandoning Israel." Rather, it is rejecting the extremism of both the Israeli settler lobby and Palestinian hardliners to emphasize the center ground in the conflict. Indeed, I believe it to be in the interest of a great majority of Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the international community.

    On supporting Arab dictators, I think there's a trade-off here between short and long terms. In the short term, authoritarian Arab regimes are useful CT allies. In the long term, the West's support for them is a major source of local grievances, and strengthens the appeal of radical and anti-Western groups, thereby aggravating the CT challenge.

    In the medium term, its just plain messy. I'm inclined to believe--hopeless romantic that I am--that, when in doubt, its not a bad idea to do the (morally) right thing, which probably doesn't involve supporting repressive regimes.
    I think there are enough militants in the Islamic world who will settle for only the full destruction of Israel to sustain the conflict. I thought all along that the Bush strategy of winning "hearts and minds" through democratization was fundamentally flawed. Unlike traditional Maoists, modern terrorist networks don't really need a willing "sea" to swim in. All they need are a few sugar daddies and a few hundred psychopaths. A two state solution in Palestine isn't going to totally cut off the supply of either sugar daddies or psychopaths.

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    I think there are enough militants in the Islamic world who will settle for only the full destruction of Israel to sustain the conflict. I thought all along that the Bush strategy of winning "hearts and minds" through democratization was fundamentally flawed. Unlike traditional Maoists, modern terrorist networks don't really need a willing "sea" to swim in. All they need are a few sugar daddies and a few hundred psychopaths. A two state solution in Palestine isn't going to totally cut off the supply of either sugar daddies or psychopaths.
    It depends, of course, which militant Islamists we're talking about. Some (Hizbullah, Hamas) are indeed mass movements. Others (AQ, PIJ) are small networks of cadres.

    I agree that many of the latter won't change their orientation if ME peace breaks out and Arab authoritarianism begins to succumb to third-wave democratization. However, I do think there would be significantly fewer of them, and the challenge would be much more manageable.

    (For the record, I don't think either regional change--peace or democracy--is likely soon, nor did I ever think that the Bush administration had a coherent or feasible democratization strategy of any sort whatsoever.)

  10. #30
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    It depends, of course, which militant Islamists we're talking about. Some (Hizbullah, Hamas) are indeed mass movements. Others (AQ, PIJ) are small networks of cadres.

    I agree that many of the latter won't change their orientation if ME peace breaks out and Arab authoritarianism begins to succumb to third-wave democratization. However, I do think there would be significantly fewer of them, and the challenge would be much more manageable.

    (For the record, I don't think either regional change--peace or democracy--is likely soon, nor did I ever think that the Bush administration had a coherent or feasible democratization strategy of any sort whatsoever.)
    I think it's pretty significant that the former category has only attacked us on their home turf, while the latter have struck us here.

    On the democratization idea, the way I'm playing that in my book is that it was based on a complete misunderstanding of the Reagan administration. I y believe Bush badly wanted to be another Reagan. He saw the wave of democratization that took place in the former Soviet bloc in the 1980s and 1990s and concluded, "Gee, this is easy." In other words, he totally misunderstood the cultural and historical differences between Eastern Europe and the Arab world. I can write that off to his inexperience. But I will never for the life of me understand why brilliant people like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Muravchik, etc. couldn't see this.

  11. #31
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    On the democratization idea, the way I'm playing that in my book is that it was based on a complete misunderstanding of the Reagan administration. I y believe Bush badly wanted to be another Reagan. He saw the wave of democratization that took place in the former Soviet bloc in the 1980s and 1990s and concluded, "Gee, this is easy." In other words, he totally misunderstood the cultural and historical differences between Eastern Europe and the Arab world. I can write that off to his inexperience. But I will never for the life of me understand why brilliant people like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Muravchik, etc. couldn't see this.
    For most of them, I think, it hardly went beyond the notion of a "grand idea," the primary vehicle for which would be regime change in Baghdad and the ensuing domino effect. In this sense, yes, it was modeled on the sudden, rapid changes in Eastern Europe, and not on the much more contingent and difficult changes elsewhere.

    The operational challenges of the agenda--how one balances off CT cooperation and pressuring authoritarian regimes, how one configures aid programs/MEPI, etc. were never thought through at all, but rather replaced with a lot of wishful thinking.

    It was also relatively late in the game that some actors began to engage the broader research and analytical community with expertise in these areas (DoS did some, the NIC and others had a brief flurry of doing it, and USAID had a longer history of doing it, but was already locked in a private sector growth/civil society empowerment/gender equity model that was of limited effectiveness).

    The turning point, I think was Egypt in 2005. US pressure undoubtedly played a key role in both competitive presidential elections, and the parliamentary elections. However, when the regime responded to the Muslim Brotherhood's success in the latter, Washington shifted back to pre-9/11 strategy and essentially acquiesced in authoritarian measures.

  12. #32
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    On the democratization idea, the way I'm playing that in my book is that it was based on a complete misunderstanding of the Reagan administration. I y believe Bush badly wanted to be another Reagan. He saw the wave of democratization that took place in the former Soviet bloc in the 1980s and 1990s and concluded, "Gee, this is easy." In other words, he totally misunderstood the cultural and historical differences between Eastern Europe and the Arab world. I can write that off to his inexperience. But I will never for the life of me understand why brilliant people like Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Muravchik, etc. couldn't see this.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    The operational challenges of the agenda--how one balances off CT cooperation and pressuring authoritarian regimes, how one configures aid programs/MEPI, etc. were never thought through at all, but rather replaced with a lot of wishful thinking.
    I think both enter into it. Misunderstanding cultural and historical differences goes back to the '60s, when Walt Rostow came up with the notion of transitional societies - basically nations evolving into modern nation-states with Western style parliamentary democracies. If I recall the theory correctly, all a western country (e.g. the U.S.) had to do was provide sufficient force to prop up the government and the society would "naturally" transform into a mini-US.

    [Sarc]In systems engineering, that "natural" term is defined as "then a miracle occurs."[/Sarc]

    The big problem is that it blinds people to those elements of a culture that would allow a representative government to emerge based on organic cultures and traditions. In addition, Iraq was never a nation. It was a state the British Empire carved out of three different nations: Kurds, tribal Arab, and settled Arab. All of this resulted in the wishfull thinking Rex points out. (Think of the difference it made in Anbar when we started working with the tribal elders, trusting them to work out their own differences.)
    Last edited by J Wolfsberger; 10-25-2007 at 12:43 AM. Reason: Clarify
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    This is a theme I've been building in my book: the United States tends to be successful operating intra-culture (e.g. Atlanticism). We encounter problems when we operate cross-culturally (Vietnam, Iraq). And the rub is that the current global security system puts us in a position of frequently operating cross culturally. And I don't think increased "cultural sensitivity" is going to fix that.

    That's why I take issue with the well meaning Americans who argue that if we just had a better organization for "strategic communications," the problem would be solved. While our organization is sub-optimal, I don't think it's the root of the problem.
    Do you think that we were capable of operating cross-culturally in the first half of the 20th century, such as the Phillipines (1899-1902) and Japan (1945)? If so, would it be reasonable to assert that we changed as a nation sometime in between the late 40's and early 60's (with Korea being a toss-up in the 1950s), leading to the poor performance that you mentioned in Vietnam (1960s) and Iraq (1991 - present)?

  14. #34
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Several people in this thread who are likely older, wiser, and have done more research than I, made several comments and/or assumptions that strike me as being way off the mark...

    - Arabs will never like us, therefore a strategy of winning hearts and minds is misguided
    - Arabs believe the typical or modal American is one who is anti-Muslim and/or anti-Arab
    - There is a growing number of Americans who confuse Muslim and terrorist or just simply dislike Muslims

    In regard to the first one, I presume we all agree that "hearts and minds" does not equate to "they love us."

    In regard to Arab perceptions of us, I suppose that this is not much of a rebuttal since it is purely anecdotal, but I've expended nearly 3 years of my life in Iraq. Recognizing that most Arabs are masters at telling you what you want to hear and there is much lost in translation, I nonetheless find it difficult to believe that even a significant minority of them (aside from armed jihadists and JAM SG) strongly dislike us or hold a view of the typical American as one who is anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. My impression is that they simply view us as bumbling fools who are too quick to drop bombs, though this impression improves when they interact with us directly.

    Again, not much of a rebuttal, but I simply do not see the growing sentiment of Americans who are becoming more ignorant and more distrustful of Muslims in general. I am as cynical about the intellect and education of the average schmoe as anyone else, but I think that Americans are becoming more aware that most Arabs - most notably the Iraqi people - are more concerned with living their lives in their way, in their land, than in coming here to attack us. The greatest catalyst to this education is our current effort in Iraq. I think that people are increasingly beginning to realize that we are risking our lives in Iraq, working side-by-side with Iraq Security Forces, reconciling with former insurgents, and helping the Iraqi people because they are worth working with and worth helping - that they are not a bunch of crazed jihadists. Most Americans respect Soldiers and are slowly beginning to realize that if we think the Iraqis are worth helping, then maybe the Iraqis - and other Arabs - are not the inherently anti-American suicidal nutjobs that many perhaps once assumed.

  15. #35
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    169

    Default

    I'm not saying there's a growing sentiment of racism, I'm only saying it's there and been there and I don't see much change since 9-11. I get perplexed at those who say they support OIF, yet in the next sentence, say Islam is evil. My "rebuttal" to them is "You are aware a majority of the Iraqis are Muslims, right?" I don't only see this attitude with the Christians, I see it with anyone who mostly listens to (and believes) Glen Beck or right-wing radio/TV. And let's not forget, Beck and FOX said an Islamic terorist started the fires in California. WTF?!?

    The average American (myself included) does not know or understand the different sects of Islam and that, IMO, is the biggest problem.
    Maybe I'm just being naive or have false hope in the fact that people actually learn from history, but the argument that Muslims have been fighting each other since they began and won't/can't change doesn't fly with me. Never been there, but from what I hear and read from good sources, that's just not true.

  16. #36
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Do you think that we were capable of operating cross-culturally in the first half of the 20th century, such as the Phillipines (1899-1902) and Japan (1945)? If so, would it be reasonable to assert that we changed as a nation sometime in between the late 40's and early 60's (with Korea being a toss-up in the 1950s), leading to the poor performance that you mentioned in Vietnam (1960s) and Iraq (1991 - present)?
    The ability to work cross-culturally is not the sole determinant of success in insurgencies. The Filipino insurgents were divided, lacked modern weaponry, and had no means of foreign support or refuge --- factors that were critical to the success of the Vietnamese. The occupation also benefited from officers like MacArthur and Otis who operated very much in the model of the Progressive movement back home with the "policy of attraction", which proved key in coopting Filipino support --- though this was not necessarily "cross-cultural" in nature. In Japan we benefited from a preexisting and largely intact bureaucratic structure combined with a massive occupation army and uncontested legitimacy due to the Emperor's unconditional surrender. South Korea under Hodge was a near-run disaster, however, that had much in common with postwar Iraq 2003-2004. Thankfully the Korean Communists overplayed their hand in 1946 and 1948, and geography prevented sufficient infiltration of arms and reinforcements to create a truly dangerous insurgency.

    I don't only see this attitude with the Christians, I see it with anyone who mostly listens to (and believes) Glen Beck or right-wing radio/TV. And let's not forget, Beck and FOX said an Islamic terorist started the fires in California. WTF?!?
    Remember, however, that Beck is one of the lowest rated TV show hosts out there, and even FOX News (1-2m viewers), while highly rated for a cable network, still commands a small audience compared to the major network news (upwards of 25m viewers).
    Last edited by tequila; 10-25-2007 at 09:49 AM.

  17. #37
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Do you think that we were capable of operating cross-culturally in the first half of the 20th century, such as the Phillipines (1899-1902) and Japan (1945)? If so, would it be reasonable to assert that we changed as a nation sometime in between the late 40's and early 60's (with Korea being a toss-up in the 1950s), leading to the poor performance that you mentioned in Vietnam (1960s) and Iraq (1991 - present)?
    Interesting point but I'm not sure either of those cases disprove what I'm trying to suggest. When using the "mailed fist" or "defeat and occupy" approaches, cultural acuity is less significant. We have adopted a model of counterinsurgency--essentially the British one--which is predicated on cultural acuity. But we do not have it. That, I think, is a large part of our problem.

  18. #38
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    Several people in this thread who are likely older, wiser, and have done more research than I, made several comments and/or assumptions that strike me as being way off the mark...

    - Arabs will never like us, therefore a strategy of winning hearts and minds is misguided
    - Arabs believe the typical or modal American is one who is anti-Muslim and/or anti-Arab
    - There is a growing number of Americans who confuse Muslim and terrorist or just simply dislike Muslims

    In regard to the first one, I presume we all agree that "hearts and minds" does not equate to "they love us."

    In regard to Arab perceptions of us, I suppose that this is not much of a rebuttal since it is purely anecdotal, but I've expended nearly 3 years of my life in Iraq. Recognizing that most Arabs are masters at telling you what you want to hear and there is much lost in translation, I nonetheless find it difficult to believe that even a significant minority of them (aside from armed jihadists and JAM SG) strongly dislike us or hold a view of the typical American as one who is anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. My impression is that they simply view us as bumbling fools who are too quick to drop bombs, though this impression improves when they interact with us directly.

    Again, not much of a rebuttal, but I simply do not see the growing sentiment of Americans who are becoming more ignorant and more distrustful of Muslims in general. I am as cynical about the intellect and education of the average schmoe as anyone else, but I think that Americans are becoming more aware that most Arabs - most notably the Iraqi people - are more concerned with living their lives in their way, in their land, than in coming here to attack us. The greatest catalyst to this education is our current effort in Iraq. I think that people are increasingly beginning to realize that we are risking our lives in Iraq, working side-by-side with Iraq Security Forces, reconciling with former insurgents, and helping the Iraqi people because they are worth working with and worth helping - that they are not a bunch of crazed jihadists. Most Americans respect Soldiers and are slowly beginning to realize that if we think the Iraqis are worth helping, then maybe the Iraqis - and other Arabs - are not the inherently anti-American suicidal nutjobs that many perhaps once assumed.
    Great observations but one thing bothers me. Your descriptions is almost word for word the same as things I've heard from my buddies who were in Vietnam. While on a one to one basis, most Vietnamese just wanted to get on with their lives and were pretty decent folks, in the aggregate they had a culture and a system which generated and--more importalty--tolerated organized violence. Seems that the important point is not whether the average Iraqi is an OK fellow when you're sitting sipping tea, but how he responds to violence against Americans or against other Iraqis.

    I'm not sure if this means anything or not. Perhaps it's just a brain fart.

  19. #39
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Great observations but one thing bothers me. Your descriptions is almost word for word the same as things I've heard from my buddies who were in Vietnam. While on a one to one basis, most Vietnamese just wanted to get on with their lives and were pretty decent folks, in the aggregate they had a culture and a system which generated and--more importalty--tolerated organized violence. Seems that the important point is not whether the average Iraqi is an OK fellow when you're sitting sipping tea, but how he responds to violence against Americans or against other Iraqis.

    I'm not sure if this means anything or not. Perhaps it's just a brain fart.
    All cultures and systems that I am aware of tolerate and generate organized violence, our own not least among them. Perhaps you mean tolerate and organize violence in opposition to American political goals?

  20. #40
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default At the risk of sounding like a simpleton...

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Great observations but one thing bothers me. Your descriptions is almost word for word the same as things I've heard from my buddies who were in Vietnam. While on a one to one basis, most Vietnamese just wanted to get on with their lives and were pretty decent folks, in the aggregate they had a culture and a system which generated and--more importalty--tolerated organized violence. Seems that the important point is not whether the average Iraqi is an OK fellow when you're sitting sipping tea, but how he responds to violence against Americans or against other Iraqis.

    I'm not sure if this means anything or not. Perhaps it's just a brain fart.
    (emphasis added / kw)

    I'm not sure the sentence I emphasized makes a great deal of difference. In Korea, Viet Nam, the Mid East and elsewhere it's been my observation that, as a nation (opposed to as individuals) we are politely tolerated and little more. We annoy people in other nations on many levels. If there's a war going on, we tend to annoy them even more (for several reasons...).

    Point being, the average person is not stirred to action due to that, only those who object violently become problematic and they are a fairly small percentage. We are never going to win many hearts -- and most minds, fortunately, eschew violence. The key is thus not the average local national but the unhappily disposed, a fairly small percentage. Almost by default you can woo in one way or another about half of those; the other half aren't going to play nice under most any circumstances. All you need to do with the average local is avoid hacking him or her off to the maximum extent possible.

    We don't do that too well, mostly due to this

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    "We have adopted a model of counterinsurgency -- essentially the British one -- which is predicated on cultural acuity. But we do not have it. That, I think, is a large part of our problem.
    For whatever reason, a lot of Brits do this fairly well; few Americans do.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •