Hearts and Minds? Naaah!

D

Del Boy

Active member
news
Idea of winning hearts and minds in Iraq is 'almost ridiculous' warns Army commander

By MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author » Last updated at 01:13am on 12th March 2008

The goal of "winning hearts and minds" among local people in Iraq and Afghanistan is unrealistic and "almost ridiculous", a senior British Army commander said last night.
In a stark assessment - which appears to contradict directly the mantra of the armed forces and politicians - former SAS officer Lieutenant General Graeme Lamb said it was dangerous for Western nations to imagine that they could earn the lasting affection of locals in Muslim countries which they occupy.
"To suggest that good intentions will cross fundamental cultural, social and religious differences and win over a damaged population is at best dangerous and wishful thinking.
"The image of winning a heart or a mind is almost ridiculous," he told an international security conference in Stockholm.

Lt Gen Lamb is a hugely-respected officer of 35 years experience - renowned for his straight-talking - who has twice led UK forces in Iraq and is now commander of Britain's field army.

His latest blunt remarks - on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion - will be widely seen as a reality check for politicians inclined to give overly optimistic assessments of the effects British operations are having in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

**
(Well Hello - obviously he backs the American forces' attitude to wards the project.)
 
Last edited:
I, personally think it's a good tactic. That's the only difficulty with today's wars, it's harder to get spies on the inside. In World War Two, it was a bit easier in the European theatre because we were fighting an enemy that was the same skin color. Now we have to attempt to use civilians which may have their own personal agendas and sometimes can actually give us false intel. But then again, the current state of the War on Terror isn't an actual war, it's more like police work, and just like an officer has to win over some of the locals around his patrol area, we have to win the hearts and minds of the locals in Iraq.
 
I believe that in full detail he said that the best we could hope for was an acceptance of our presence through the useful supply of utilities etc.

Could it be that the best pointer to his take is that he an SAS man, policing may not be his strong point?
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone who invaded my country and bombed it - careful to avoid civilians or not - would EVER be winning my heart or mind. Maybe some bullets, but that's about it.
 
Seriously though, how the hell else are we going to deal with the locals? If we are too aggressive, we get burned by the media/sheeple/pundits/etc. If we are too wishy-washy and timid, the indigs walk all over us and the mission becomes easily compromised. Notice in the acronym for decision making METT-TC (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops available, Time, Civilian considerations), the C comes LAST, while the Mission comes FIRST. I remember something about always putting the mission first...
 
What a great question -right on the button. So come guys, and sheeple and pundits - tell the man. He wants to know.
 
We lost any chance in the battle for Hearts and Minds the day we invaded their country, and about the only worthwhile thing that we have achieved was the removal of the Baathists http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20041226/ai_n12573978

But now we are there, what other choice do we have. We are already viewed as invaders and even worse, occupiers. We have shot ourselves in the foot.
What do we do?

(a) Claim we have trained enough locals to take over, so that we can weasel out the back door (A la Vietnam) and let the whole place go to Hell in a hat box, A scenario that will probably require our intervention again and again in the not too far distant future.
(b) Stay and attempt to clean up the mess we created?

It's pretty much a no brainer,... we stay. But if we stay, what policy do we adopt. Try to get the locals onside, even if only in small numbers, or just forget it and just let their dislike of us fester into even greater open enmity? As the article above points out, we admit that our enemy is winning the battle for hearts and minds, are we just going to ignore it at our peril.

It's all very well to say that this policy won't work, however, thankfully most of those in positions of power realise that to abandon it would be far worse.
 
Maytime, being too hard on the locals isn't just an issue with the press. You actually create more real enemies and the enemies use it to gather support.
 
Red neck -nice one, but I think Maytime was looking for a little more than that.

And he sure wasn't asking for even more political hoo-hah, he wanted to know what he should do, in practical terms. He don't want to know where to put his vote? We can skip more of the same old, same old. We know it off pat, everybody knows it, even if they don't swallow it whole.

He surely has come to right place for his question. Soldiers and vets - can you help?


Geo W. said yesterday that the Iraqis respect the stronger horse, and that Al Quaeda is now the weaker horse, through American efforts and Iraqui intervention. He claims that Al Quaeda have been ousted and to a great degree have lost Iraq.

Could it be time for a little pride here. The morale of Brit troops in Helmand province seems high, militarily.
 
Last edited:
You win over hearts and minds by giving them results
1) Give them stability and make sure they know the government IS in control.
2) Give them jobs. An economy worth half a damn. Only possible when there's stability
3) Then give them the opportunity to vote and the interim government can make way for the voted ones.
THIS is how you win hearts and minds. You don't win it by dicking around with candy and jugs of water.
 
Right Redneck. Watched an interesting news report last night, with John Simpson in the dread city of Fallujah, where now the folk have come to terms with the Americans, who can patrol the streets in fairly relaxed fashion, even in crowded market areas, talking to kids etc. They then got an iraqi cameraman to ask Iraqis what they thought of things (without soldiers etc. nearby) and all the responses were favourable. They liked having the soldiers now settled inside the city centre because they had stability and protection. Which was what the extra troops were sent to do in the surge - protect the Iraqi civilians. In that city the message has come home - maybe on both sides. John Simpson strolled the streets also.
 
It pretty much comes down to this. "If we haven't won their hearts and minds we are going to be fighting the insurgency until we kill damn near every person in Iraq. Those that are left will hate us just as much, but be too cunning to say anything until after we've gone.
 
The problem actually is to prevent them from killing each other, which is precisely why the troops should not be withdrawn too soon. If Obama or Hilary did that as promised, disaster would follow.
 
To say that retreat is even on the table gives the enemy hope and people over there that depend on our guys a sense of hopelessness.
 
Del Boy said:
Red neck -nice one, but I think Maytime was looking for a little more than that.
Click to expand...

Well, I meant it as more of a rhetorical question, since I already knew the answer and was trying to convey the confusing nature of dealing with civilians on the battlefield. I believe the surge strategy worked better than expected, since it got more of us living side by side with the people, instead of sitting in one great big FOB only to come out when there was a mission. The flow of intel skyrocketed once the civilians and local cops had a chance to get to know the servicemen and women on the ground.

Before, when units were conglomerated in a large-scale base (battalion level and higher), the only side of the soldier the locals saw was his or her game face. Our game face is different than how we are when not on a mission. It is aggressive, alert, and cautious. When they started to live with the indigenous personnel, buying their food, goods, and services, you have a population much more willing to cooperate with the hand that feeds them.

Redneck had a good point with the jobs and the voting, and especially the candy analogy. Even though random acts of kindness like giving a child candy is all good, it won't restore the infrastructure (roads, power, water, etc) that we take for granted every day.
 
Maytime - your report on the effects of the surge tally with the reports i have heard, even from Iraqis. I believe that is progress, and US military should be given a sound pat on the back.
 
The USASF guys are good at the winning the hearts and minds. Send in an ODA and a Civil Affairs attachment. Set up the areas infrastructure provide med and food and protection until the locals can take over.Then stay on and advise.

Thing is that they mainly work in the areas outside the major population centers and live in the communities. They become trusted by the populace.

It's harder in an urban enviroment. The larger the population the easier it is for the bad guys to blend in. The easier it is for them to put the general population at risk when they decide to go hot. And when there's causlities it don't matter who started the fire fight the occupiers are always gonna get the blame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top