Iraqi and American views on the various problems in Iraq.

WarMachine

Active member
I found this interesting article on the Christian Science Monitor about how Iraqi people view the war in Iraq, and how Americans view it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0831/p09s01-coop.html

How to bridge two views of success in Iraq
By Janessa Gans

WASHINGTON – In November 2003 as the insurgency in Iraq blossomed, I - as a US official in Iraq - tried to sort out the various actors, groups, and causes behind it. But in a meeting with top Sunni political leaders, it became abundantly clear to me that the American view and the Iraqi view about the causes were completely divergent. And that if we were ever going to help develop a sustainable democracy in Iraq, it was imperative that we analyze and understand the Iraqis' perspective and include that in any future solutions for the insurgency or the burgeoning sectarian conflict.
The following shows the divergent Iraqi and American views. Below, ways to reconcile them ...

In the Monitor
Thursday, 08/31/06



1.
(Iraq) The US toppled Saddam Hussein, but its troops humiliate us. Look at Abu Ghraib.

(US) We got rid of their brutal dictator, and they respond by attacking and killing us.

2.
(Iraq) After Saddam left, chaos - looting and terror - claimed the streets of Baghdad.

(US) The people were reacting to newfound freedom after 35 years of dictatorship.

3.
(Iraq) We have been told there are billions of dollars being spent on improving our lives, but we have yet to see it.

(US) We spend billions of our money to improve their country and reconstruct it. They are so ungrateful.

4.
(Iraq) The world's most powerful army can't keep my neighborhood safe? This must be a conspiracy to keep Iraq embroiled in turmoil so they can stay and steal our oil.

(US) Suicide bombers are nearly impossible to detect and prevent. We're dealing with a savage method of warfare that we are ill-suited to fight.

5.
(Iraq) The world's richest country does not fix the electricity grid or provide generators to alleviate our desperate plight. Yet, the Green Zone is lit up like a Christmas tree.

(US) We try practical projects, like rebuilding parts of the pipelines and electricity grid, and the insurgents continue to bomb them.

6.
(Iraq) Iraq is a sovereign nation, but we believe the US still controls the reins and is holding us back. Look how the US Embassy occupies Saddam's presidential palace.

(US) Iraq has been a sovereign nation for more than two years. Why hasn't it accomplished anything? Why are the politicians so incompetent?

7.
(Iraq) The only US presence we see is its heavily armed convoys careening through our streets, causing traffic jams and smashing or shooting anything that gets in its way.

(US) We are targeted wherever we go. Iraqis who cooperate with Americans are frequently targeted and killed by insurgents.

8.
(Iraq) Sectarian politics and the ensuing strife is partly the Americans' fault for bringing religious parties to power when the Coalition Provisional Authority ran the country.

(US) We are the ones preventing a civil war by pressuring for a unity government and increased Sunni participation.

9.
(Iraq) They speak constantly of democracy but no one has explained what it means and how it can work in our culture.

(US) The Arabs are not ready for democracy, as evidenced by their politics that are mostly based on sect rather than competence.

A better course

What if US policymakers realized that many Iraqis blame us for the current Islamist dominance of Iraqi politics and the worsening sectarian conflict? The Iraqis say that the US first empowered Islamist clerics and created a strict sectarian model for governance on the initial Governing Council, created by the Coalition Provisional Authority in July 2003. The subsequent Iraqi elections and governments have merely continued that precedent.

If we realized the sectarian model was a recent fabrication, not the way Iraq has always been, this would not seem to be a civil war that was destined to happen. The conflict between Sunnis and Shiites would be seen as something that could have been - and perhaps still could be - prevented.

Understanding the issues and problems from the local point of view has never been the forte of Americans, but it is especially difficult in Iraq, where security and the language barrier offer unique challenges. Travel outside the Green Zone is dangerous and limited. Moreover, practically none of our diplomats stationed in Iraq today speak Arabic and most consort primarily with top-level Iraqi officials who are isolated and unfamiliar with "ground truth."

Putting more US officials who speak Arabic or have Middle East experience in Iraq and reducing movement restrictions for US officials are key to discerning ground truth in Iraq. Deepening the understanding that many in our government have about Iraq would mitigate damaging and ignorant mistakes in our policies and actions. Decisions on military actions and those concerning Iraqi politicians should be cleared with experts in the US Embassy to assess political ramifications. The political coordination should include those operating somewhat independently of the embassy, such as the CIA, USAID, and the military. From personal experience, this would have saved much time and energy. Several times my colleagues and I saw a relationship we had painstakingly cultivated over many months destroyed by a military mistake - a wrongful detention or shooting. Moreover, lack of coordinated financial assistance and discrepant viewpoints from government agencies also undermined US policies and decisionmaking.

It is not that admitting to past mistakes will turn the situation around in Iraq. But understanding what the US has done wrong, or is perceived to have done wrong, would have an immediate impact in Iraq in two significant ways: 1) We could at once stop committing the error and do right; 2) If our error is a misperception and not true, we can set the record straight. If the US makes no attempt to understand its mistakes, Iraqis and Americans end up moving along two parallel tracks of self-made and self-perpetuated truths that never coincide. This may be successful in convincing Americans that we are doing what it takes to succeed in Iraq, but we will never actually be successful until the Iraqis perceive us so.

• Janessa Gans served as a US official in Iraq from October 2003 to July 2005. She returned to Washington in March 2006 with the nonprofit organization she founded, The Euphrates Institute.

Obviously both sides need to work together more in order to fix this problem without delaying results any longer.
 
Last edited:
They defenetly need to comunicate with each other, they seem to be lacking in knowlage about the other part.
 
If Americans get the point only now, so unimaginable. I have a question. and please which guy can answer me?
Do Americans think their life style is perfect and want to bring the perfect life to all other countries' people only in simply way? Destroy the old and give you the new, and ok,the local people should thanks for all we do for them. If so, the thought is so simple too.
 
Do Americans think their life style is perfect and want to bring the perfect life to all other countries' people only in simply way?

Not all Americans. Most are apathetic, and some who say they care, have an agenda or ulterior motive. Don't lump every citizen of one nation into a common train of tought. That sounds sort of like commun...oh wait. j/k :D
 
If Americans get the point only now, so unimaginable. I have a question. and please which guy can answer me?
Do Americans think their life style is perfect and want to bring the perfect life to all other countries' people only in simply way? Destroy the old and give you the new, and ok,the local people should thanks for all we do for them. If so, the thought is so simple too.
Yo, your agenda is showing.

Perhaps I could ask, has China yet figured out the Uighurs don't want them controlling them and that the Tibetans still would rather have the Dalai Lama? Or has China yet figured out that after over 50 years if Taiwan really wanted to be "one country" they would have voted for it by now since they are a democracy?? Didn't think so. Damn that mirror is shiny.
:)
 
Last edited:
Oh, bulldogg, if there exists any logic, anyone can see the Iraq's problem is completely different from those such like Taiwan's.

I just try to understand the real thoughts of normal Americans.
 
HA! You argued that one country is imposing its will on another smaller country... this is no different than China and the parts of India it annexed in the 1970's, Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan... oh wait, you're right it is different, VERY different, the US allows Iraq to have its own democratically elected government. My mistake B2eeeeee.
:)
 
I'm aware of all this miscommunication. Why does it exist, though. There are Iraqis around when the US and its concerns are building infrastructure. It isn't as if engineers sneak in and build the stuff overnight. If some Iraqis can see the progress, why don't more know? It smacks of the "You killed Saddam. Now leave us alone." If that's all they wanted, a couple operators with a sniper rifle could have done it and saved us billions.
 
Once you assasinate saddam then his son would just take his place and nothing would actually change. You don't get rid of a regime that cemented itself for over 2 decades in iraq by killing their head honcho. It would be similar to when stalin died and then krushchev taking over while making adjustments to stalin's system but not a major overhaul.
 
I was trying to make more of a general point. If all they really wanted was a change in government then (A) they could have done that without us and (B) we could have done that without a full-scale invasion of the country. It isn't as if the US hasn't shuffled the leadership of a few third world nations over the years.

I know it's all hindsight at this point. I'm fully aware that we, the folks who foot the bill, will never know the complete truth. It just seems that the Coalition, and the US specifically, has a tiger by the tail. We're going to take our lumps whether we let go or not. Perhaps we can learn from this instance for the future when we have to deal with Iran or North Korea.

...nah. What am I thinking?!
 
HA! You argued that one country is imposing its will on another smaller country... this is no different than China and the parts of India it annexed in the 1970's, Tibet, Xinjiang or Taiwan... oh wait, you're right it is different, VERY different, the US allows Iraq to have its own democratically elected government. My mistake B2eeeeee.
:)

Hehe, dear bulldogg, only one small leaf can cover your eyes completely. After the US has already controlled the Iraq's oil completely, giving some sanctimonious so-called democracy changes nothing. If Iraq becomes unresistant,compliable and stable through democracy,it is not bad to American's plan in middle-east.

Democracy iteself is not bad,but it is really bad to do something in the name of democracy.

Oh,one more patch is needed here I feel. I don't mean the normal Americans have the thought like that. Sometimes,it is the national behave, not related with individual person.
 
Last edited:
Psst. Don't look now, but he's falling for the old "the US is out for Iraqi oil" gag. Heh. That one always seems to get them. :rolleyes:
 
Hehe, dear bulldogg, only one small leaf can cover your eyes completely. After the US has already controlled the Iraq's oil completely, giving some sanctimonious so-called democracy changes nothing. If Iraq becomes unresistant,compliable and stable through democracy,it is not bad to American's plan in middle-east.

Democracy iteself is not bad,but it is really bad to do something in the name of democracy.

Oh,one more patch is needed here I feel. I don't mean the normal Americans have the thought like that. Sometimes,it is the national behave, not related with individual person.

It's not that Democracy is a perfect system, it's just that it is the best system that has ever been tried. Look at the great economic and military powers of the world. The United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, dare I say, France. What do they all have in common? They are democracies. Democracy isn't perfect, but it apparently works quite well. History shows this.
 
Damien435, I agree with you completely. The US is one of most stable nations in the world,which profits much from its advanced democracy mechanism.China should learn much from the US.

Psst. Don't look now, but he's falling for the old "the US is out for Iraqi oil" gag. Heh. That one always seems to get them. :rolleyes:

Hehe, moving0target, what else you want to talk with me? I will listen to you with respectful attention.
 
i would have to say that most americans do believe that there lifestyle is the best. and i would have to agree, citing the countries with the worlds highest standards of living(finland, sweden, japan etc.) are all democracies. the problem is democracy doesnt work in every situation(look at russia, iraq). the people have to be willing to abide by the elected government.
 
In Iraq's case i think the problem was the way we tried to change their country. You don't spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. All the authoritarian regimes in the past like the USSR and Nazi germany were either brought in or consolidated with force. That's the surest way to have problems with the people and government. I don't think democracy in iraq will be much different unless there's a stern effort to stop the fighting...somehow.
 
Your ignorance is showing. Violence, civil war to be exact, is the womb of democracy. Name me one, just one, country that is a democracy today that did not get said democracy through a bloody violent revolution wherein countryman slayed countryman?
 
WarMachine,I have the similar feeling. I ever talked with an American guy in my Germany's stay,he told me that it is impenetrable that why many other world's people don't like the US. He thinks the US is helping other countries to set up the best life just like their own's. For me,so strange thought.
 
Back
Top