Decision ‘08

Winning Hearts And Minds

We got a lot - A LOT - of things wrong in Vietnam, but one thing we didn’t was the idea that we had to try to win the hearts and minds of the people we’re trying to help. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq, we’re not winning that part of the war at the moment:

About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds.

The Iraqis also have negative views of Osama bin Laden, according to the early September poll of 1,150.

The poll, done for University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes, found:

_Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents.

_About 61 percent approved of the attacks — up from 47 percent in January. A solid majority of Shiite and Sunni Arabs approved of the attacks, according to the poll. The increase came mostly among Shiite Iraqis.

It’s not all bad, though, as the Iraqis clearly don’t approve of terrorism on a broad scale:

_An overwhelmingly negative opinion of terror chief bin Laden and more than half, 57 percent, disapproving of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…

_A majority of Iraqis, 72 percent, say they think Iraq will be one state five years from now. Shiite Iraqis were most likely to feel that way, though a majority of Sunnis and Kurds also believed that would be the case.

What’s the solution? More contact with regular Iraqis, more money on reconstruction and outreach and work, work, work!…

41 Responses to “Winning Hearts And Minds”

1 lm644 Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 8:20 am
More money on reconstruction?! Wouldn’t you like to look first on how the previous sixty-eight billions were spent? And what exactly those sixty-eight billions have bought? This information is not that difficult to find… The whole reconstruction effort, so far, was nothing but an easy way to transfer tax money out of the budget into the private companies’ pockets, meaning, more nice houses for consultants, more skiing trips for executive, etc. You want to spend even more on that?!
2 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 8:35 am
Check the board of advisors:

Anthony Lake- Clinton’s nsa guy from 93-97.
Gloria Duffy-Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Defense (under Clinton)
Alan Kay- Commissioner of the Global Commission to Fund the United Nations (organized October, 1994).

This is like using a poll from greenpeace on public attitudes about global warming…you get numbers that confirm the beliefs of those running the poll.

Guess when this thing was done…Sept 1-4. You mean to tell me that they sat on the results for almost a month? Timing is everything, and this is about the ‘democratic pushback’, which clinton feebly tried to initiate with wallace.
3 Mark Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Im644, you have a better solution? I’m all ears…
4 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:01 am
My favorite number?

98% of Sunnis approve of attacks on US forces.

Surprised the reported number wasn’t 100%…but give this thing context. I have no doubt that the survey was conducted by an Iraqi, who was given the questions and sent out of the green zone.

Now pretend you are a Sunni, living in an area extremely sympathetic to insurgents. You don’t know who to trust, you fear retaliation for approving of the US forces, or disapporving of attacks on them. You have heard rumors of insurgents intercepting call in tips, and killing the informers.

Suddenly, an Iraqi shows up at your door, and asks you what you think of the US military. If you answer ‘correctly’ no one bothers you. If you answer as you believe, your family could be killed.

Iraqi attitudes are shaped not out of belief, but fear and survival instinct. Seeing as the Iraqi govt has been on the job for less than 3 months, I am inclined to give it more time. The situation remains fluid, and I do not infer it to mean our days are numbered.
5 lm644 Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:03 am
At this point - no, I don’t. Neither do you, I suspect. A year ago it would make sense to give the contracts for reconstruction to local (Iraq and neighboring countries) companies: they would have completed all those schools and hospitals for a fraction of the money and in a fraction of time. Now those unfinished construction sites and leaky pipes in operating rooms are a monument to cynicism and corruption. I am not sure there is a way to overcome that impression - not any time soon, anyway.
6 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:06 am
“The whole reconstruction effort, so far, was nothing but an easy way to transfer tax money out of the budget into the private companies’ pockets, meaning, more nice houses for consultants, more skiing trips for executive, etc. You want to spend even more on that?!”

Now take this little kernel of a thought and apply it to the UN.
7 lm644 Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:15 am
“Now take this little kernel of a thought and apply it to the UN.” Sure, why not? Does it help to solve a problem at hand or is it just to make you feel better?
8 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Let me help you on some of the money that has ‘mysteriously’ disappeared.

It is basically the equivalent of ‘walk around’ money in american politics. Notice how there hasn’t been any large reporting of oil pipelines being destroyed?

They run thru tribal areas. We pay the heads of the various desert tribes to protect the pipeline and keep insurgents out. A soldier get hurt in their area or insurgent activity is encountered? Cash flow drops.

There is zero chance that the actual cash flow and rate is going to be published, becuase it would be creating an open competition and bargaining, along with excessive srcutiny of the deals.

you can give all the money you want to companies, but it all starts with tribal heads who own the companies. Would it be more prudent to give some money directly to the tribal heads, examine the results and their efforts to redirect the funding into their ‘vassals’, or award contracts based on urgency, with little prediction of their future efficency?
9 Polimom Says » In the eye of the storm Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:25 am
[…] Decision ‘08: Winning Hearts And Minds […]
10 lm644 Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:33 am
mtl: Exactly. So we should stop pretending that there was actually any reconstruction effort in Iraq and stop acting all surprised when they hate our guts. Oh, and thank you for protecting my children’s safety and security. Real efficient. And smart.
11 Mark Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:38 am
Im644, you want to contribute something or do you just want to smart off and let us revel in your cynicism? You come here, criticize my post, admit you have no answers, and then sarcastically ‘thank’ us for protecting your children, as if I and my readers are running the war effort in Iraq.

That’s quite a day’s work…and it’s only 9:37…
12 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Let me give you a little mentioned metric:

Iraqi GDP.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=iz&v=65

Static from 1999-2002 at a little under 60 billion.

Dropped to 38 billion in 03, an invasion year.

2004 it was at 90 billion. It grew 50% in two years. So long as cash flow into the country remains this strong, the wind is at our backs. Believe it or not, greed is not uncommon in ‘pacifists’. As people move from making decisions based out of fear, towards making decisions based on finacial gain, Iraq will trudge on. I am extremely optimistic about how this side of the story is going. The govt has been on the job for 3 freaking months. In that time you would expect the country to have made its move from dictatorship to a mild form of socialism?( i consider most 1st world countries to have a socialist quality, it is not meant as a slight)

Once there is a system in place and greed( a misunderstood word) takes over, this thing goes into a big win column for ‘w’. Still probably three years away, but expect signifcant results in the next year.
13 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Apply that kind of growth to the US.
Could you imagine if our economy grew 50% in two years?

Now factor in Iraq, that it is no longer controlled by a dictator, but by a fledgling democracy that is subject to the will of the people. The possibilites remain limitless.
14 peter Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Iraqi oil production is half of what it was before the invasion and GDP is up 50%?

Something doesn’t add up. My first guess is that American aid is included in 2004 GDP.
15 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Iraqi oil production exceeds 2002 levels.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

current production?

“2.093 million bbl/day; note - prewar production (in 2002) was 2.03 million bbl/day (2005 est.)”

Where you got the 50% less, I’d love to know.
16 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 11:26 am
in your defense, a 20 dollar increase in the cost of oil, comes to an additional 14.6 billion dollars-so the 50% increase in gdp is not totally unassailable.
17 dswarts Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Hey mtl since Iraq is such a nice place and getting better fast why don’t you move there. It’ll help the GDP and show that you stand behind the President. Or, how about we wait three more years to let the benefits of greed set in and then you can move.

How about this prediction–3 years from now Iraq will no longer exist as a cohesive unit. There will be a Kurdish enclave protecting itself from everyone else, a Shia enclave more strongly allied with Iran protecting itself, and Sunnis wandering in the desert with no oil.

I’ll be around in 3 years or 6 Friedmans to discuss this with you again.
18 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
“Hey mtl since Iraq is such a nice place and getting better fast why don’t you move there.”

Since America is going ‘fascist’ fast, why don’t you leave?

“How about this prediction–3 years from now Iraq will no longer exist as a cohesive unit.”

your implication is that it is now a ‘cohesive unit’. If that demonstrates your knowledge of the current situation, you will find similar affirmation at atrios.
19 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Your phobia of the word ‘greed’ is quite irrational.

You would leave a job for better money, you would refuse to pay too much for a product you can buy elsewhere…in basic terms you express all the qualites that ‘greed’ entails, but you simply deny that you are greedy.

No sense waiting for your three years,as you have little
chance of changing your opinion.

“cohesive” now that’s a word. It must mean that since cohesion is the best of all states, and the US is far better off than Iraq, we are indeed a more ‘cohesive’ country than Iraq.

Must mean we are cohesive on economy, domestic policy, foriegn policy, detainee rights…etc. A pic is worth a thousand words, but last I checked a word is just a word. Trying to define Iraq as good/bad would suggest that you start with a word and are going backwards in your argument. You are examing this by reading reading reflections of light on a cave wall, clinging to what you wish to be tangible and assuming everything else.

You want to argue facts…fire away. You have zero understanding of human nature, so to bring you up to speed would be a waste.
20 peter Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Peak oil production in Iraq is 3.5 million barrels per day — 2005 production was 1.4 million bbl/day and 2006 is projected to be the same –

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/ap/world/mainD8H969Q00.shtml
21 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
You failed to mention that peak production number was from 1990.

You might also want to consider that the methods used to achieve previous levels would include breaking every existing environmental ethic and that they current sytem is decrepit.

Some disappointment over the cia’s numbers, but they will never be the same after losing plame. The silver lining in the bad news is that there growth in gdp will only be spurred on further when the market achieves full potential. If it sucks this bad for oil, and their gdp is still growing in spite of it, they have a solid chance to have one of the highest per capitas in the ME in the next 3-5 years.
22 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Actually, I stand by my earlier numbers.

‘Production’ IS above 2002 levels. your 1.4 million bbl/day is ‘exports’. I would venture to say that the country has increased their consumption, substantially.
23 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
while the article had no byline, it would appear to be foreign born.

Never heard of Outpu’s’t…an american editor would have caught it.
24 lm644 Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Mark, sorry, didn’t mean to offend you personally; you don’t run the war effort. Let’s be constructive and start with being accurate.

mtl, In 2004 Iraq’s GDP was not 90 bln but close to 25.5 bln (estimate); in 2003 - 12.6, in 2002 - 18.4. So, there was growth in GDP, but if you look at GNI per capita (which is more relevant), it’s 942 in 2004 against 721 in pre-war 2002.
By the way, crude oil per day was in 2004 exactly at 2002 level - 2.014 mln barrel per day.
25 Mark Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Nah, you didn’t offend me personally. It’s hard to run a blog and not get prickly sometimes, so forgive me for the snark. You’re always welcome here (even some of the regulars get a little cross at times - the nature of the beast)…
26 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
I gave the link to their gdp, if you have a better one, let’s see it.
27 mtl Says:
September 28th, 2006 at 10:13 pm
While you are at that, explain to me why reenlistment goals are continually being met…seems that the people who are there believe in what they are doing.
28 lm644 Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 9:04 am
Mark, thak you for your “welcome”; we will see about your “always” :))

mtl, I have no doubt that people believe in what they are doing; do they know what they are doing and are they capable of doing it is a totally different story.
29 mtl Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
“I have no doubt that people believe in what they are doing; do they know what they are doing and are they capable of doing it is a totally different story.”

Everytime I go to icasualties.org, I ask myself the same question-is it worth it. It would seem though, that the introspection you are calling for is not very prevalent in the examination of this conflict, from EITHER side.

If a feasible alternative existed, the dems would have won in 04.
30 mtl Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I would love to begin a draw down, and a scheduled redeployment, but I cannot support it in the terms the progressives would wish. They are publicly expressing the sentiment that we are losing based solely on casualties.

The only true gauge of success is the establishment of a government, miltary, and police force. These are what will define our success. We have had tremendous success and failures along the way but my perception is that the progressives are not holding it on a scale to weigh it, or compare it between the two.

They have adopted an absolutist policy, ignoring our success, ignoring the long term cost of failure, ignoring the possiblities that remain, and the ingnoring the potential for significant world change-to appease their base and get out the vote. Bush may be in a ‘qugmire’ in Iraq, but the dems are in a quagmire in regards to actually addressing it as a complex issue, trying to capitalize on emotion and avoiding reason.
31 mtl Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
I offerred an earlier litmus test…

reenlistment goals are easily being met.

I am pumping this thru a prism of the fact that first time recruitment is down and that 85% of the media voted for Kerry.

Would it be fair to take the ‘objective’ truth that things are going better in Iraq than reported? or should I assume that the media is objective and the soldiers who are actually fighting are biased?
32 mtl Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
When is the last time you saw an actual interview with a soldier played on the news?

How would you present their interview?

Would it be fair to have one who favors our effort and one who does not? or would it be more fair to have 4 soldiers who favor the conflict and one who does not to reflect the actual demographics?

The single greatest source of information should be our soldiers and yet they have zero representationin the media. I get a lot of discussion about Rumsfeld’s ‘low’ approval rating in the US. When is the last time you saw a poll about his approval rating among active soldiers? Which is more important? Take a guess what bush’s approval rating is among the people who are putting their lives on the line.

Should these soldiers bear the same resentment the left heaps on those who support Bush because of our Iraq policy?
the implication that the left is skirting is that the troops are greedy and stupid.
33 mtl Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
Doubt me about the left’s concern for our troops and their opinions?

Find a dem discussing troop morale in the news. It is the most important guage of our success and the obligation of every representative to consider in every decision.

Why is it still high? What brings it down? If you take time to actually talk to a soldier, you might be in for a surprise. You could counter that there is a slew of anti-war soldiers running for office as democrats, but they represent the minority of actual troop sentiment.

I doubt you know anyone there, which suggests that you really have no insight to base your opinions on.
34 jim Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 6:32 pm
Any plan for Iraq that does not begun with immediately firing Rumsfeld is doomed to spectacular failure.

If you’re concerned about troop morale, think about that. This guy is so bad that retired generals, life-long Republican voters all, are begging the President to fire him.

Oh, and you might consider the effect that it has on troop morale when contractors are paid several times as much *taxpayer* money to do the exact same job as the soldiers.

Oh, and the fact that US soldiers are being forbidden from even wearing the best armor they can get, even if they pay for it out of their own pocket.

How’s all that for morale?
35 Andy Says:
September 29th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Jim, the reason some of these life-long Republicans are coming out against Rumsfield has more to do with the “transformation’ of the armed services, and not that Rumsfeld is incompetent. Keep that in mind whenever you see GI Joe coming out against Rummy.

There are 2, 3 major factions within the military and when the boss takes a position on one of the factions, the others get upset. Generally not to the point of insubordination, but they will vent once they’ve been put to pasture. Doesn’t matter if POTUS is dem or gop, it always happens.

One of my colleagues ‘hates’ Rummy. Why? The guy came out of Armored/Artillery and Rummy had the ‘gall’ to cut a lot of their toys. Me, I’m more of a tactical combat guy and was ‘pissed’ that thru the 90s, the brass didn’t think much of, hence, underfunded up-armored vehicles, urban/asymetrical tactics and UAVs.

Given our disparate viewpoints, we both agreed that Shinseki was out of his mind with the vapid eye-candy such as the beret, “Army of One” etc.

In a nutshell, if military life was a big game of chess, you’ll have some who ‘live and die’ by the Rooks, Bishops, Knights, Queen or even Pawns. And you’ll find many others who like a well rounded campaign. So generally, if you hear retired generals bitching, it’s because their POV was considered and discarded.

That’s just the way it is. We pay and train our soldiers to think critically, not in lockstep. So it is inevitable that when there are opposing viewpoints, someone is going to be ‘invalidated’ or even fired. Just ask Hap Arnold, Jimmy Doolittle, Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Wesley ‘Weasly‘ Clark, Powell, to name a few. Then again, history has proven some, not all to be correct or even ahead of their time.

As for your canards about troop morale, they are just that. I’d rather go with MTL’s metrics of 80% / 20%. Although in my experience, it’s probably better than 90/10 (good morale vs bad morale).

Where did you ever come up with “US soldiers are being forbidden from even wearing the best armor they can get, even if they pay for it out of their own pocket“? Truth is, some would rather not wear armor than be told they have to from some nanny JAG/Safety Officer.
36 Andy Says:
September 30th, 2006 at 2:05 am
Jim, P. I missed this earlier, but is too good to pass up.

From Jay Nordlinger’s
Impromtus:

Donald Rumsfeld received a rare and prized endorsement on Wednesday when Jimmy Carter said, “I think he’s one of the worst secretaries of defense we’ve ever had.” That must be a relief to Rumsfeld. For, as they say, “consider the source.”

And for my recent interview with Rumsfeld — on a variety of topics, including, of course, the most pressing ones — please . . .

As they say, “Match. Set. Game.” Or was that, “The fat lady has sung”?
37 mtl Says:
September 30th, 2006 at 11:43 am
90/10? maybe for some divisions.

82nd airborne has a 97% reenlistment rate.

Best source, that I have seen,of troop sentiment is robert(?) kagan. Very hard to reconcile low US opinion, with the actually beliefs of the people who are risking their lives.

But then the dems did try to have all military votes lacking post stamps invalidated in Florida 2000.

It seems very clear that the libs hate the military. They clearly have no wish to give their voice any forum, if it does not coincide with theirs.
38 Andy Says:
September 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
That rate will only get better.

Once upon a time, the lower numbers could reasonably be attributed to the type that joined for the college bennies, never really expecting that they’d get called up.

It’s been 3 years now, going on 4. Most of those “in-it-just-for-the money” are being attritioned out.

Anyone joining in the last couple had to have gone in with their eyes wide open. Semantics aside over the brass’s execution of the war. Their support is extremely high for doing something, anything, to protect America, as opposed to wailing and knashing teeth and ranting silly pseudo-pacifist slogans like “Bush lied, People Died”… So the numbers only steadily get better — kinda funny when you think of the leftist ‘chickenhawk’ challenge. Um yeah, 97% of the troops put their money where their mouth were and continue to re-up and serve.

On the flip side, if, big IF, Kerry were to win it in 08, watch the scramble for the exits and sinking morale for those stuck in some stop-loss trap or another. I’m willing to bet on 60/40, or worse.
39 Joan Russow Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 10:59 am
The “Winning hearts and minds stategy” or perhaps more aptly describes as the “bomb and bribe” tactic.
If the US wants to counter widespread international anti Americanism (Anti-USism) the US should promote common security – peace, environment, human rights and social justice within a framework of international law - not contribute to global insecurity. The US administration has squandered the international good will that followed the attack on the towers.
After the Attack on the twin tours, many were asking “why do they hate us”. Rather than really answering this question, and promoting “common security”; the US administration proceeded to give additional reasons for anti-USism around the world. Some of the many reasons could be (i) maintaining the over 750 military bases around the world; (ii) the circulation and berthing of nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessels in other states; (iii) the hypocritical attitude towards the development of nuclear arms; increasing its arsenal and condoning Israeli possession of nuclear arms. (iv) the misconstruing of art 51 –self defense- in the Charter of the United, the Nations to justify the invasion of Afghanistan; (v) the adoption of a policy of pre-emptive agressive attack; (vi) the violation of the Convention Against Torture; (vii) the institution of ballistic Missile defense and the use of space for military purposes, in violation of the Outer Space Treaty etc.(from the 52 plus two jokers ways the US contributes to global insecurity). The US is a rogue state and until the US starts to respect the rule of International law, sadly the citizens of the United States will be experiencing animosity from around the world. The US administration has squandered the international good will that followed the attack on the towers.
40 Mark Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Thank you, Noam Chomsky…
41 Joan Russow Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Thank you Mark.

I presume that you would like me to expand further of what constitutes “common security”. I could also send you the Pack of cards dedicated to US contribution to Global insecurity.

True security is not human security or a so-called “responsibility to protect” which has been used to support substantial increases in the military budget and to legitimize past, present and future military expeditions wrapped in the guise of humanitarian interventions

True security is common security – a concept initiated by Olaf Palme, a former president of Sweden, and has been extended to embody the following objectives:

• to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses

• to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including civil and political rights, and the right to be free from discrimination on any grounds

• to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice; labour rights, social and cultural rights- right to food, right to housing, right to universally accessible not for profit health care system, right to education

• to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, respect the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose reduce the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of overconsumptive development.

• to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;

To further Common security, the member states of the United Nations have incurred obligations through conventions, treaties and covenants, made commitments through Conference Action plans, and created expectations through UN General Assembly resolutions, and declarations member states of the United Nations have incurred obligations, made commitments and created expectations

The blue print is there; the issue is compliance and implementation.