# How are we progressing with the whole "hearts and minds" thing in Iraq so far? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2003, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096 "2003-07-08T21:30:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/61 "2003-07-14T08:02:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\ ***Reflections on Having One’s Statement Challenged** > not **by Ogden Nash** > > Invective > Is effective, > But cites > Win fights. \*\* Your idiotic statement is not worth my time to refute. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/62 "2003-07-14T09:35:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by madmonk28 \* > For example, there are large parts of Iraq where I feel fine moving around on my own, eating in local cafes and talking to the people (if I can, I don’t speak Arabic). But the media makes it sound like the whole place is the wild west. Well, this is a good observation, however at the same time recasting this in terms of what concerns the private sector investor, it is the wild west. The main centers of population and economic activity are unsafe, private businessmen with assets have little to no security that is not secured through private guards, etc. For the reconstruction worker, of course, things look different, but to the capitalist, it’s the wild west. > [@](#): > > Here in Iraq, I think it makes sense to delay a national government for a while and try to get some local government going. This will give people a chance to build up a sense of community, understand the possibilities of democracy and its limitations. The problem is, if you speak to Iraqis, they largel want a National Gov right away. I speak the language, I don’t see much leeway on that, except by fudging the way into a national government with supervision. Delaying will only feed into the anti-American agitprop. > [@](#): > > If we establish a national government right away there is a good chance it will > A) be seen as nothing more than a tool of the US, if it is appointed, or > > B) (if it is elected) be composed of hard liners from different camps who cannot agree on any kind of agenda except that they hate each other. I think that in Bosnia, national elections were held too soon and that we ended up with people not interested in cooperating with other members of the assembly. Catch 22, don’t do it and the occupation grows less acceptable day by day. Do it and the initial Admin will be compromised. Elections I agree are short term unworkable. Bremmer has perhaps pulled the right compromise by throwing in the Exiles into the current Council. They’re dirty linen anyways, expendable fucks, so let them take some heat and allow generation 1.5 to emmerge. Regardless, initial elections, held whenever are going to pull in more Islamists of various stripes than any of the dewy eyed fantasies pimped by Perle et al anticipated. Reality of the region. > [@](#): > > I think getting some local neighborhood councils going, and plugging those councils into reconstruction efforts is the way to go. Wrong. The politics is not going to hold on the macro level. Lose the macro level you lose the game. > [@](#): > > Neighborhoods can choose their reps, these reps go to US counterparts and say “we need a stop light, or garbage pick up or whatever” Over time, some of these neighborhood reps will become skilled at taking care of constituent interests and run for regional or national office. These are good things, but don’t address the politics of the occupation, a very bad word in Arabic. Ihtelal has Israel written all over it. > [@](#): > > If the US can get some realsuccesses going, a lot of the problems will go away. The majority of people I meet want to raise their families, give their kids some kind of opportunity to have a better life, and be able to do all this without worrying about getting shot. Whether a killer is a Baathist, or a random bandit doesn’t matter, bad security is bad security. If we can create room in Iraq for people to pursue these modest goals, we can turn the corner. > > Overall, I see the US recon. effort as very uneven, in some places it is quite good, in others it is non-existent. Well that’s all for now, folks. > Madmonk I agree entirely, but from my perspective as a private investor with a network of contacts, I do not see proper resources or movement, nor the US ponying up the initial funds necessary for this to get out of its current rut. The current rut is a losing game on the macro economic and political levels. This isn’t some little howdy doody shithole to sorta-kinda get up and running again and let stagger on, this is a major political power play for a major regional actor. Howdy doody half assed efforts are not going to cut it. Bush et al need to kick in and fast. On this scale, in a country where there has been an invasion and where anti-American / anti-Western sentiment is something well enracinated, there is not much room for the CPA to maneuver, above all when the Bush Admin insists on taking all the risk on itself by hoarding responsibility. The geo-political risks here are huge – pre-made opposition and guerrilla-terror networks ready to plug into disaffection (I speak to Islamic radicals, not Sadaam’s boys), a country and region filled with an immense historical distrust and cynicism for Western efforts… As I said earlier, one already has Iraqis making unfavorable comparisons between Sadaam’s efficiency and admin capacity and the CPA’s. That goes on too long and you have a hole you don’t get out of. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/63 "2003-07-14T10:00:25Z")
Further to this issue, and I believe worthy of note for all that it is an OP Ed, is Douglas Hurd’s [sub](_Lord Hurd was foreign secretary 1989-95 and is senior adviser to Hawkpoint_)[/sub] piece in The Financial Times “The west cannot afford to fail in Iraq” 13 July 2003. Hurd observers: > [@](#): > > … We know for certain that there was no realistic plan for the peace. The brilliant military campaign had no civilian counterpart. The Pentagon, misled by exiles, persuaded itself that once Saddam Hussein was overthrown, it would inherit a functioning administrative machine. Instead the machine disintegrated. I believe we have no arguments here, except perhaps quibbling over who misled who. Hurd further notes: > [@](#): > > If pressed, US officials say they did not have time to think of everything. There were talks with the British but no decisions. Looting, sabotage and resistance against foreign occupation were predictable and predicted - but not provided against. The British government acquiesced in this neglect. It may have been its biggest mistake. The next few weeks are crucial for undoing the damage. I clearly agree. Above all on the last part. > [@](#): > > … Some services are restored, others disrupted. It is hard from outside to judge whether we make three steps forward for every two backwards, or the other way round. The Pentagon, still firmly in charge, talks as if time is on our side. But it is not clear that it is. Hurd also raises the question of how to characterize the opposition, “an intefada” like Palestine or dying gasps of a regime (or not so dying gasps), or both. His example I think is instructive: > [@](#): > > For example, is the town of Fallujah particularly hostile because it was a Ba’athist stronghold, or because during two days in May, US troops shot down at least 16 Iraqis in its streets? The two explanations are not contradictory; both are probable. Take note of the last line. Further to this: > [@](#): > > As the British learnt in Kenya and Cyprus, and the French in Algeria, resistance can start in a small way. Most people at that stage just want a quiet life; but security sweeps, large-scale arrests and pre-emptive shootings can steadily undermine the order that they are designed to ensure. I believe it is appropriate that esp. in re Algeria, I have constantly made this point, to little effect until recently. Of course now the usual suspects begin to convert. Before the war they poopooed the idea of guerrilla war and famously in my review of Black Hawk Down, rejected the analogies I drew there, which in effect are the observation above. Hurd also notes > [@](#): > > The German and Japanese parallels from 1945 are an illusion. However many troops we pile into Iraq we cannot now realistically look forward to two or three years of peaceful military occupation while we reconstruct the country. After some discussion of the importance, as I have noted above, he argues the solutions are > [@](#): > > … swallow pride and spread the load internationally. We cannot afford to let arguments about the past wreck co-operation for the future. It is good that other governments are being persuaded to send troops, albeit in small numbers. _ **In Congress, which a few weeks ago was enjoying talk of punishing the French, there are now suggestions that French troops be invited into Iraq so that more Americans can come home. So quickly does the wheel turn.** _ Any countries that contribute substantial numbers of troops for the first time are likely to ask for a clearer mandate and a greater say in policy than did the British at the outset. May I be so uncharitable as to point out this has been precisely my argumentation as well, and in regards to the emphasis added, I note and agree – as well as uncharitably note as usual I was right on this point back when the jingos were crowing childishingly about punishment. He further discusses a NATO role, although again this will require climb downs on responsibility. Further to this, on the IRaqi government: > [@](#): > > There are bound to be experiments and errors in choosing the right Iraqis to rebuild the country and in gradually transferring that choice to the Iraqis themselves, locally and nationally. … We should not complain if these choices from time to time go wrong. The fatal error would be to go slow on the task because it is difficult. One obstacle is likely to be a shortage of funds while the occupying armies cope with the sabotage that still holds up the flow of oil. Again, my argument to the T. Hurd also notes > [@](#): > > It would be hard to imagine a successful international donor conference in October with an American sitting at the table in the place marked for Iraq. We need not be perfectionists. **We do not have to insist on model democrats devoted to the doctrines of The Wall Street Journal.** … The overall point is pragmatism and not doctrinaire purism should reign, and pragmatic climb downs rather than wanting a pure ideological game to “make an example” as Rumsfeld wants to run the game, is an error. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/64 "2003-07-14T10:22:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **That was implicit. By winning the war and removing Saddam from power, we have neutralized the possibility that his regime will develop WMDs and use them to threaten other countries, or make them available to terrorists.** Well now **december** , I must say I felt rather silly after reading that. By such logic, it could be extended to justifying the USA attacking Iceland for example, for no other reason that _one day_, they might choose to embark upon a WMD program which _one day_ might fall into the hands of nefarious no-gooders. Nah… sorry… you can’t move the goal posts like that and not expect someone like myself to notice. History will show that the USA Administration consciously embarked upon a making a case for military invasion of Iraq based on the known presence of an existing pool of WMD’s, and an existing pool of WMD programs, and an existing policy WITHIN Iraq of moving said programs to avoid detection by the outside world. History will also show that said case was ultimately proven to be false. Was it still wrong to invade Iraq nonetheless? In my opinion, no… but it should have been cast however as a move similar to invading Cambodia at the height of the Pol Pot regime. To have gone about it the way that the USA has gone about it has invited such overwhelming global damnation that incredible amounts of latent goodwill towards the USA has been eroded. This can’t be a good thing. It was a silly strategy with hindsight. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > **Collounsbury indulged in simlar spin when he compared power and water to pre war levels, rather than to what can reasonably be expected only a few months after the end of the war.** Call it spin, call it whatever. What can’t be argued is that the people who count, (and that’s neither you nor I **december** ) but to the people who **really** count - namely your average Iraqi who is currently TOTALLY PISSED OFF ABOUT THE SITUATION - well, they’re not happy about how things have panned out. And indeed, to merely equate the entire imbroglio to being nothing more than a sideshow as to how things are going to pan out in future US Presidential elections smacks to this particular Australian of dreadful insensitivity to be honest. ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/65 "2003-07-14T12:09:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Actually I remember anti-war and anti-Bush people misrepresenting his position this way. But, I remember Bush talking more about the long-term problem of Iraq seeking WMDs. How about providing cites that the Bush administration actually said “WMD in immediate need of disabling”. \*\* What’s the problem here? Are you suggesting that no-one ever said Saddam had WMD, just that he was “seeking WMD” ? Or is it that the WMD he supposedly did have weren’t made an issue of? Directly out of GWB’s mouth: > [@](#): > > “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” > > “Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.” > > “Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors.” > > “The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world.” Not the words: “grave danger”, “direct threat”, “possess” (not “seeking” to posses) and _also_ “long-term safety”. You can squirm around the words all you want, but these speeches make clear that Bush wished Saddam to be seen as an immediate threat, not just a “long-term problem” of “seeking” WMD. Can you not also appreciate that as long as the claims about _existing_ WMD vanish from sight, the additional claims of possible, future nuclear weapon WMD can only be regarded as fantasies with an equal lack of substance? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/66 "2003-07-14T13:46:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Futile Gesture \* > Note the words: “grave danger”, “direct threat”, “possess” (not “seeking” to posses) and _also_ “long-term safety”. You have a point. Bush may have exaggerated the imminence of Iraqi nukes. OTOH virtually everyone agreed that Saddam almost surely had chemical and biological weapons, including Hans Blix. > [@](#): > > You can squirm around the words all you want, but these speeches make clear that Bush wished Saddam to be seen as an immediate threat, not just a “long-term problem” of “seeking” WMD. My understanding, which I stated on these boards, was that the biggest risk was that Saddam might develop nuclear weapons. It now appears that he was farther from doing so than we feared. In my view, the US was not have the ability to attack Iraq whenever we felt like it. It took a combination of political, economic, military, and diplomatic steps that would have been hard to duplicate in the future. Bush felt that the time was ripe for attack, and he made the best possible case > [@](#): > > Can you not also appreciate that as long as the claims about _existing_ WMD vanish from sight, the additional claims of possible, future nuclear weapon WMD can only be regarded as fantasies with an equal lack of substance? Well, no. First of all, Saddam had been seeking nukes for decades. He would have had them a long time ago, if the work hadn’t been stopped by Israel’s courageous action in bombing his reactor and then by the First Gulf War. We know from the recent discovery of buried nuke-related equipment and papers that there was an effort to maintain the nuclear progress in hidden locations. It is conceivable that for one reason or another Saddam had totally changed his stripes. Maybe he no longer wanted WMDs. It’s possible that there was no potetntial threat to the US and our allies. Maybe we merely overthrew a fascistic regime that had killed and tortured millions of people and which supported terrorism. IMHO that would be a high class failure. **Boo Boo Foo** , preemptive war not a question of logic. It requires a judgment about the pros and cons. You are free to opine that the reasons weren’t good enough at the time or in retrospect. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/67 "2003-07-14T14:03:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > You have a point. Bush may have exaggerated the imminence of Iraqi nukes. May have? May have? Insofar as the only out of international control nuclear materials found to date have been a piece of equipment that spent ten years buried in a back yard, I think anyone who thinks about this carefully can admit we can forgo the “may.” By the way, World Eater provided these quotes which help remind us of the actual run up: > [@](#): > > “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.” > Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003 > > "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. " > George W. Bush > January 28, 2003 > > "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. " > Colin Powell > February 5, 2003 > > "We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons – the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have. " > George W. Bush > February 8, 2003 > > "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. " > George W. Bush > March 17, 2003 > > "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. " > Ari Fleisher > March 21, 2003 > > "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them. " > Gen. Tommy Franks > March 22, 2003 > > "One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. " > Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark > March 22, 2003 > > "We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. " > Donald Rumsfeld > March 30, 2003 > > "I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. " > Ari Fleischer > April 10, 2003 > > "We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of time to do so. " > George W. Bush > May 3, 2003 > > "I’m absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now. " > Colin Powell > May 4, 2003 > > "I’m not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein – because he had a weapons program. " > George W. Bush > May 6, 2003 > [@](#): > > OTOH virtually everyone agreed that Saddam almost surely had chemical and biological weapons, including Hans Blix. Yes, but the critics thought they were just remainders, the remenants of programs, a vestige. Indeed Ritter, who you so aggresively slandered as unreliable, etc etc, proved **spot on** in his estimations of what would be found, per data to date. > [@](#): > > My understanding, which I stated on these boards, was that the biggest risk was that Saddam might develop nuclear weapons. It now appears that he was farther from doing so than we feared. Appears… farther… Well that rather understates the degree to which you were wrong, no doesn’t it? > [@](#): > > In my view, the US was not have the ability to attack Iraq whenever we felt like it. It took a combination of political, economic, military, and diplomatic steps that would have been hard to duplicate in the future. This… this is almost beautiful in its nonsensicalness. I suppose it would be hard to duplicate the sheer incompetence that marked the diplomatic efforts running up to the war. Economic? Well, I suppose we might try to generate a weaker economy to work off of, but this makes little sense. Military, well I am hard pressed to see anything particularly special in that, wind up, wind down, wind up when ready again. No, the real conext is the political-diplomatic, and to claim there was some special constellation strikes me as transparently ludicrous. Unless one means that there is some fear that some degree of rational thought might accidentally have pervaded the Administration and they might have decided, well this crock of shit doesn’t actually add up, now does it? > [@](#): > > Bush felt that the time was ripe for attack, and he made the best possible case He fabricated the moment and the case. > [@](#): > > We know from the recent discovery of buried nuke-related equipment and papers that there was an effort to maintain the nuclear progress in hidden locations. Ah yes, the Mulberry Tree Device (cyclotron as I recall, yes?), dangerously hidden burried under a tree for a decade, now that’s some fucking threat, eh? Extraordinary. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/68 "2003-07-14T14:08:14Z")
**december** may I reiterate that deposing Saddam Hussein was no small thing of which to be to be proud of. The guy was/is a cunt. No other way to call it. However, even before the first missile was fired, I stated in **Sam Stone’s** predictions thread that President Bush had done a dreadful job of explaining the merits behind the policy. My concern, in the context of the posts which you yourself tend to write, is that the whole shebang was/is merely a sideshow to the future of US politics - and there are many of us around the world who feel that such a position lacks a sense of caring towards those poor Iraqi souls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time through no fault of their own - other than being officers and enlisted men in an army which was destined to be decimated by the infinitely superior US Army. To argue that Gulf War Three (remember that Gulf War One was actually the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-88) was caused by the WMD issue, and ONLY the WMD issue is profoundly a distortion of the truth. The truth, as it seems to me, had nothing to do with oil - nor WMD’s or WMD programs. The truth (as it seems to me) is that Gulf War III was (and remains) a desire by the US Administration to force Iraq into a new era - an era which enshrines Western values of good behaviour at the nation state level. This is something which I personally condone - I simply don’t condone the political exploitation which goes along with it. And many of your posts and threads **december** are guilty of equating Gulf War III as being little more than a re-election strategy on the part of President Bush. I accept that my perception here is a profoundly personal (and doubtless flawed) perception - but it’s worth noting that not just a few of us non Americans are somewhat offended by the efforts of some Americans to paint Gulf War III as little more than another blip on the radar in the far more (seemingly) important game of US politics. ---
**Author:** ![amarone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e0b2c6/32.png) [@amarone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amarone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/69 "2003-07-14T14:46:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > \*\*To argue that Gulf War Three (remember that Gulf War One was actually the Iran/Iraq war of 1980-88) was caused by the WMD issue, and ONLY the WMD issue is profoundly a distortion of the truth. \*\* That’s right - it was also because of Iraq’s involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/70 "2003-07-14T21:37:10Z")
I think if George W. Bush were to confess on national teevee that he lied all about Iraq’s WMD stockpiles just to start a war, **december** would have a thread in Great Debates explaining why George didn’t say what he just said within ten minutes of the event. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/71 "2003-07-14T21:48:23Z")
> [@](#): > > December: > In my view, the US was not have the ability to attack Iraq whenever we felt like it. It took a combination of political, economic, military, and diplomatic steps that would have been hard to duplicate in the future. Bush felt that the time was ripe for attack, and he made the best possible case Are you serious? It seems he could not have picked a worse time. Politically he had huge opposition from a large segment of the American people, diplomatically it was a disaster, . . . I mean, come on! ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2003, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/72 "2003-07-16T21:08:20Z")
Hearts and minds: > [@](#): > > [http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/16/otsc.whitbeck/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/16/otsc.whitbeck/index.html) > > One soldier was killed and three were wounded when the convoy they were traveling in, on Highway 1, west of Baghdad, was hit by an explosive device > > When that explosion was heard, a group of Iraqi civilians, who were nearby, gathered at the site of the aftermath [and] were watching what was going on. > > And when they apparently realized that this was an attack on a U.S. military force, they erupted in cheers. And that cheering went on for several minutes. Not promising. ---
**Author:** ![shelbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@shelbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shelbo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/73 "2003-07-17T00:55:39Z")
> [@](#): > > sailor > > > [@](#): > > > > December: > > > > In my view, the US was not have the ability to attack Iraq whenever we felt like it. It took a combination of political, economic, military, and diplomatic steps that would have been hard to duplicate in the future. Bush felt that the time was ripe for attack, and he made the best possible case > > Are you serious? It seems he could not have picked a worse time. Politically he had huge opposition from a large segment of the American people, diplomatically it was a disaster, . . . I mean, come on! You are both operating under the assumption that the administration cared about whether it was a bad time or a good time to go to war. They could not have cared less. They had the invasion timed well over a year in advance. Remember the satellite photos of the Qatar air-field? See [this archived link](http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/goto/?getPage=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eglobalsecurity%2Eorg%2Forg%2Fnews%2F2002%2F020806%2Diraq1%2Ehtm&return=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edrudgereportarchives%2Ecom%2Fdsp%2Fsearch%2Ehtm%3Ffrompage%3D1%26StartRow%3D49%26maxrows%3D12%26searchFor%3Dsatellite) which shows that by August '02 the US had completed 6 months of work to make the Qatar air field war ready. That work started in February '02. Add on the time for plans, contracts, materials acquisition, etc., and it is clear that the Iraq invasion was planned concurrently with the Afghanistan war plan. They picked the date a year and a half in advance, and the rest was just posturing. (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al. had been dreaming about this day for _years_.) After the date was picked, they set Colin Powell loose – if he could get the UN to go along, great, but the fact was that they didn’t really care. WMDs, Saddam Hussein’s brutality, UN resolutions, and all the rest was just . . . bluster. So, **december** is wrong in one respect – the US could have invaded Iraq at any time. There was no need to get the approval of the UN (as **sailor** points out, by the time the date arrived, the diplomatic efforts had become a disaster). Even Britan’s cooperation was unnecessary (as Rumsfeld so elegantly mentioned on the eve of the war). There was, however, a “combination of political, economic, military, and diplomatic” occurrences that made the invasion possible. Those were (i) the election of George W. Bush, (ii) the appointment of Rumsfeld as SecDef, and (iii) Sept. 11, which gave Rumsfeld a plausible story to convince Bush that the invasion was necessary. (All of which makes it all the more maddening to hear quotes from Pentagon planners that “there wasn’t time to do everything” in regard to the shoddy planning re: the post war occupation. They had all the time in the world. The reason the planning was shoddy was because the Pentagon, and Rumsfeld et al., believed their own bullshit. Anyone that objected was a fool or a traitor.) ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/74 "2003-07-17T07:48:09Z")
I further note the report of the missile fired at a CPA military craft incoming to Baghdad. I believe this is now the fourth such event, first time in the press, however. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/75 "2003-07-17T07:57:50Z")
Further to the above mention: Iraq’s Highway of Constant Hazard Attackers Leave Trail of Casualties on Baghdad Airport Road [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2880-2003Jul16.html?nav=hptop\_ts](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2880-2003Jul16.html?nav=hptop_ts) > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, a surface-to-air missile was fired at a C-130 military transport plane landing at Baghdad’s airport, military officials said. > > … the missile attack was the second such incident at the airport. “We had an incident last week where two missiles were fired at a similar aircraft,” Fitzgibbons told Reuters Television, “and in this instance as well, no missiles hit the aircraft.” Also note other attacks I reported from international security monitoring elsewhere. Now, as to getting things going: > [@](#): > > The airport, closed to commercial traffic since the war, houses the offices of the U.S. military’s top commanders, who often travel down the road to Baghdad for meetings with the U.S. civilians overseeing the occupation of Iraq. When the airport reopens to commercial flights, the road will be a vital link in the rebuilding of Iraq; its safety will be crucial for merchants, contractors, diplomats, humanitarian relief officials and others. > > … “It’s a very important route,” he said. “Given the amount of military traffic on the road, it’s an obvious target.” And it’s not safe. > [@](#): > > … This morning, a few minutes before the Humvee blast, soldiers from the 1457th were removing debris from a Saddam Hussein-era guardhouse they had just demolished. During Hussein’s rule, the road was heavily guarded by soldiers in numerous cinder-block posts set among the palms in the median strip. > > … the vulnerability of [the] position was obvious. In the area where he and the others were working, the highway is separated from a residential area by a high wall perhaps 100 yards from the roadside. > > Snipers have fired AK-47 assault rifles from behind such walls or from rooftops, then disappeared into neighborhoods. Others have detonated remote-controlled bombs from similar vantage points. Three of the soldiers killed on the road recently were the victims of such attacks. > > … > > About 30 minutes later, Lt. Eric Taylor of the 1457th was escorting a dump truck carrying a load of guard shack debris about a mile down the road when he heard a boom. A few seconds later, he came upon the smashed Humvee, which had struck a mine off the side of the road. > > Taylor said no one knew for sure whether the mine was planted to kill U.S. soldiers or left over from Iraq’s decades of war and dictatorship. But he said it was a reminder to all soldiers working on the airport road. > > “It’s hit or miss,” he said. “You work out here every day and nothing happens to you, and it’s easy to get complacent. But this is a dangerous stretch of road.” > > Asked how the U.S. military hoped to bring security to all of Iraq when it had been unable to secure a six-mile stretch of highway, Taylor said … Army engineers had been clearing debris and cleaning up war damage not just along the highway, but in many Baghdad neighborhoods. … > > Sgt. James Thomas was more skeptical. At the site of Monday’s fatal rocket-propelled grenade attack on a road leading to the airport road, Thomas, of the 82nd Airborne Division, stood guard in a uniform still stained with a wounded soldier’s blood. > > Thomas said he and other soldiers had been fired upon by snipers on the roof of a house, in what he called a coordinated attack with those who fired the grenades. Not very pretty circumstances. Enough resources? I don’t think so, I have a hard time getting through to CPA-I, and I should be doing so. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/76 "2003-07-17T10:01:46Z")
Further color commentary: > [@](#): > > General Abizaid also said that anti-American forces had fired two surface-to-air missiles at American aircraft within the last two weeks; one of them was today. Those attacks on C-130 cargo planes also indicate an escalation in the weapons used against allied forces, beyond automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. > > “Matter of fact, I was on the deck of a C-130 the other day, and we had a missile warning,” General Abizaid said. “And the guy made a hard right bank. And we fired off all of our flares and, you know, we looked out there. And these were guys from the Oklahoma National Guard, and they actually thought it was fun. I was terrified.” Well, good thing the SAM didn’t take out our top Arabic speaking general. That would really be nice, wouldn’t it? Now I wonder if december would like to restart his drumbeat about the “liberals” exagerating conditions in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/77 "2003-07-17T10:03:32Z")
Further color commentary: > **[AFTER THE WAR: MILITARY; U.S. COMMANDER IN IRAQ SAYS YEARLONG TOURS ARE...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/world/after-war-military-us-commander-iraq-says-yearlong-tours-are-option-combat.html)** > > Gen John P Abizaid, new commander of allied forces in Iraq, says American troops there are under attack from 'classical guerrilla-type campaign' run by increasingly organized fighters drawn from Saddam Hussein's most unyielding loyalists and foreign... > [@](#): > > General Abizaid also said that anti-American forces had fired two surface-to-air missiles at American aircraft within the last two weeks; one of them was today. Those attacks on C-130 cargo planes also indicate an escalation in the weapons used against allied forces, beyond automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. > > “Matter of fact, I was on the deck of a C-130 the other day, and we had a missile warning,” General Abizaid said. “And the guy made a hard right bank. And we fired off all of our flares and, you know, we looked out there. And these were guys from the Oklahoma National Guard, and they actually thought it was fun. I was terrified.” Well, good thing the SAM didn’t take out our top Arabic speaking general. That would really be nice, wouldn’t it? Now I wonder if december would like to restart his drumbeat about the “liberals” exagerating conditions in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/78 "2003-07-17T10:11:53Z")
Also further to the issue of progress: “Just a Dribble of Oil Exports as Iraq Struggles” > **[THE MARKETS: COMMODITIES; Just a Dribble Of Oil Exports As Iraq Struggles...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/17/business/the-markets-commodities-just-a-dribble-of-oil-exports-as-iraq-struggles.html)** > > Iraq plans to export only eight million barrels of oil in July, small fraction of its prewar output; unexpectedly slow revival of pillar of Iraqi economy has helped keep oil prices around $30 a barrel on world markets for weeks; American officials... > [@](#): > > In a further indication of the troubles facing its once mighty oil industry, Iraq plans to export only eight million barrels of oil this month, industry officials here said, a small fraction of its prewar output. It rather appears as if the Admin. assumptions re Iraqi oil paying for efforts is, as appears now to be habitual, badly off. > [@](#): > > The unexpectedly slow revival of this pillar of the Iraqi economy, which has been plagued by looting and sabotage, has helped keep oil prices hovering around $30 a barrel on world markets for weeks. The industry’s difficulties may also derail some of the plans of the allied authority here, whose budget for the year assumes sizable oil revenues. > > **"Certainly for this year and most of next year, the vast majority will come from oil," L. Paul Bremer III, the American occupation administrator in Iraq, said of budget revenues at a news conference last week. "That is a fact of life we cannot get away from."** > > American officials said recently that Iraq’s budget for the rest of 2003 would be $6 billion to $7 billion. Half or somewhat more — about $3.5 billion — would come from oil exports, they said. > > That is far below the $15 billion to $20 billion in annual Iraqi oil revenue that the Bush administration had projected before the war. > > At $20 a barrel — the price that the allies are using, despite the much higher average price of oil this year — Iraq would need to export about 800,000 barrels a day to deliver such revenues to the budget, said Raad Alkadiri, an expert on Iraqi oil and a director of PFC Energy, a Washington consulting group. > > The eight million barrels to be exported this month amounts to only 258,000 barrels a day. Before the war Iraq exported, legally and otherwise, about two million barrels a day. Rather clearly this is not going to be self financing as the Administration seems to be betting on. As I have warned and predicted since April, betting on the oil to jump start things is a bad, bad bet, although this situation is far worse than anyone thought might be, ex blowing the wells. As for Bremer, I have sympathy for him as his efforts are being starved for resources. Fact of life… only because some people back in Washington do not wish to face up to the real costs as Election year rolls up. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/79 "2003-07-17T10:24:01Z")
Yes indeed. As I’ve stated elsewhere… and probably in this thread too - but the historical consensus I’m told is that an occupying military needs to ideally have a 1 to 15 ratio of infantrymen to civilians to thoroughly route out latent guerilla activities. The problem, it seems to me, is that the Coalition forces basically don’t seem to have any real friends within Iraq, and further, their current numbers are only 170,000 soldiers to a population base of 22 million people - which is only a miniscule ratio of 1 to 129 - which obviously, is much, much less than what history would show is ideal. Hence, the lack of quality infantrymen on the ground looms as a real problem for the USA. They are far too few to expedite all of the political ideals which were originally outlined for Iraq, and as you’ve noted **Coll** - people such as yourself and other foreign investment folks are simply incapable of attempting to do business due to the dreadful security problems. Obviously, I’m sailing close to repeating myself like some sort of broken record here, but you know **Coll** , it’s eerie how true your assertions of 3 months ago are ringing now. The USA either has to cut a deal with the major Clerics in the region and attempt to get an Islamic Democracy in place as soon as possible, OR, Plan (B) is to go back to the UN with cap in hand and somehow get other countries to commit a further 800,000 infantrymen with a view of raising the ratio of soldiers to civilians up to at least 1 in 22. Personally, I rather think the USA has found herself in a wholly unenviable position - her goals are probably (on balance) quite noble actually - but what’s the point if the ability of saboteurs to ruin any chance of success is so high? I’d love to know what sort of deal the US could cut with the Clerics of Iraq. I have a hunch that if the Clerics were assured of forming an Islamic Democracy, then certain nationwide orders would go out to start “informing” on the saboteurs. The problem remains however that the Coalition forces are inarguably perceived as occupiers, not as liberators. Moreover, they’re also inarguably perceived as the enemy, and the total lack of friends WITHIN Iraq allows the saboteurs (guerilla fighters, call them whatever) to currently move through Iraqi society with impugnity. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2003, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096/80 "2003-07-17T10:36:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Boo Boo Foo \* > The problem, it seems to me, is that the Coalition forces basically don’t seem to have any real friends within Iraq, Well, the Kurds are more or less ‘real friends’ so long as they think they’re not getting screwed. The Shiites are fair weather friends in a sense,not perhaps unhappy Americans are getting whacked, but not desiring to join in. Indeed they may like it just as it is, gives them leverage. That leaves the Sunni Arabs and the Turkmens, ah and the Arab Xians of various flavors as looking like real enemies unless bribed. > [@](#): > > Obviously, I’m sailing close to repeating myself like some sort of broken record here, but you know **Coll** , it’s eerie how true your assertions of 3 months ago are ringing now. I am paid a lot of fucking money to do this, you all get it for free. Assuming that the market for regional analysts and investment specialists is reasonably efficient, you can draw your conclusions. > [@](#): > > The USA either has to cut a deal with the major Clerics in the region and attempt to get an Islamic Democracy in place as soon as possible, OR, Plan (B) is to go back to the UN with cap in hand and somehow get other countries to commit a further 800,000 infantrymen with a view of raising the ratio of soldiers to civilians up to at least 1 in 22. I rather prefer plan B, do a climb down and get the UN involved. Otherwise no one significant is going to pony up forces or aid. I noted in one of the articles that Hundary promised a truck regiment. Transport. Turns out in the end they decided they would just offer the drivers. No trucks. No equipment, no nothing, just the drivers. > [@](#): > > Personally, I rather think the USA has found herself in a wholly unenviable position - her goals are probably (on balance) quite noble actually - but what’s the point if the ability of saboteurs to ruin any chance of success is so high? I warned back in the pit after the war that the risk had not been properly priced - I recall Scylla thought I was wrong. Well, as usual, I was right on the money. We bit off a huge amount of risk thinking it was only moderate. Now reality is in, and worse now instead of having been magnimonious back in April and May when we looked like the shit, and having gotten others in on the deal, we have to come back with hat in hand with a clearly impaired asset. So much for ‘revenge’ and the French ‘paying the price’- like I said at the time _childish and short sighted_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-are-we-progressing-with-the-whole-hearts-and-minds-thing-in-iraq-so-far/187096.md?page=5)