PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Iraq Article



Deuterium
12-03-2003, 08:19 AM
New York Times
December 2, 2003

Boots On The Ground, Hearts On Their Sleeves

By David Brooks

Soldiers in all wars are called upon to be heroes, but our men and women in Iraq are called upon to define a new sort of heroism. First, they must endure the insanity of war, fighting off fedayeen ambushes, withstanding the suicide bombings and mortars, kicking down doors and searching homes.

But a day or an hour or a few minutes later, they are called upon to enter an opposite moral universe. They are asked to pass out textbooks, improvise sewer systems and help with budgets. Some sit in on town council meetings to help keep the discussions on track. Some act like foundation program officers, giving seed money to promising local initiatives.

Trained as trigger-pullers, many are also asked in theater to be consultants and aldermen. They are John Wayne, but also Jane Addams.

Can anybody think of another time in history when a comparable group of young people was asked to be at once so brave, fierce and relentless, while also being so sympathetic, creative and forbearing?

When you read the dispatches from Iraq, or the online diaries many soldiers keep, or the e-mail they send home, you quickly sense how hard it is to commute between these two universes. Yet the most important achievements seem to occur on the border between chaos and normalcy.

At spontaneous moments, when order threatens to break down, the soldiers, aviators and marines jump in and coach the Iraqis on the customs and habits of democracy. They try to weave that fabric of civic trust that can't be written into law, but without which freedom becomes anarchy.

For example, in a New Yorker article, George Packer describes an incident in the life of Capt. John Prior. He was inside a gas station when a commotion erupted outside. A mob of people was furiously accusing a man of butting in line and stealing gasoline. Prior established that the man was merely a government inspector checking the quality of the fuel. Frazzled and exhausted, Prior took the chance to teach the mob a broader lesson: "The problem is that you people accuse each other without proof! That's the problem!"

Another soldier, who keeps a Weblog, collects toys and passes them out to Iraqi children. He brought a pile of toys to an orphanage, but the paid staff at the place rushed the pile to grab the toys for themselves — "like sharks in a feeding frenzy," he writes. He has learned that if he stations himself with an M-16 over the toys, things go smoothly.

Another soldier writes of his dismay at seeing Iraqi parents give their kids toy guns as presents after Ramadan. He wonders, Haven't they had enough death? Don't they realize how dangerous it is for a kid to wander the street with a piece of plastic that looks like an AK-47?

When you read the diaries and the postings of the soldiers in Iraq, you see how exhausted they are. You see that their feelings about the Iraqis are as contradictory as the Iraqis' feelings about them. You see their frustration and yearning to go home.

But despite all this, their epic bouts of complaining are interrupted by bursts of idealism. Most of them seem to feel, deep down, some elemental respect for the Iraqis and sympathy for what they have endured. Far more than the population at home, the soldiers in the middle of the conflict believe in their mission and are confident they will succeed.

When you read their writings you see what thorough democrats they are. They are appalled at the thought of dominating Iraq. They want to see the Iraqis independent and governing themselves. If some president did want to create an empire, he couldn't do it with these people. Their faith in freedom governs their actions.

Most of all, you see what a challenging set of tasks they have been given, and how short-staffed they are. And yet you sense that in this war, as in so many others, the improvising skill of the soldiers on the ground will make up for the cosmic screw-ups of the people up the chain of command.

If anybody is wondering: Where are the young idealists? Where are the people willing to devote themselves to causes larger than themselves? They are in uniform in Iraq, straddling the divide between insanity and order.

Seoulstriker
12-03-2003, 08:25 AM
thanks for the article, Deuterium. :hug:

Beowulf
12-03-2003, 08:28 AM
Great article.

-b

duck
12-03-2003, 08:32 AM
Time to re-post on why the troops are in this kind of situation.
(Inter Press Service) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF26Ak03.html

EDITED by B:
This article may be discussed in a separate thread. If Duck wants to post it.

Beowulf
12-03-2003, 09:02 AM
Time to re-post on why the troops are in this kind of situation

I read the article you posted, it seems to be about Michael Ledeen.....??

Please clarify you post.

Be especially clear on how it relates to Deuterium's post.

-b

Kingpin
12-03-2003, 09:04 AM
Good article. But when i read it i felt something is missing. Now i understand. There should be stars and stripes flag waving somewhere near this page and "God bless America" also. ;)

duck
12-03-2003, 09:18 AM
Beowulf: Because I cannot understand why the inadequate planning if postwar Iraq is being glorified in the first article. Mr.Ledeen is one of the main architects of the war on a theoretical and ideological level, but the only thing he seems worried about lately is the near escape of his buddy Wolfowitz in Baghdad.

Beowulf
12-03-2003, 09:35 AM
Beowulf: Because I cannot understand why the inadequate planning if postwar Iraq is being glorified in the first article. Mr.Ledeen is one of the main architects of the war on a theoretical and ideological level, but the only thing he seems worried about lately is the near escape of his buddy Wolfowitz in Baghdad.

I see.

Your post seems only to be related to the first article in that it deals with Iraq. The similarity ends there.

The first article shows how the soldiers move from a combat role to a "hearts and minds" type of role. That is the theme of the article.

Your post concerning "why the troops are in this kind of situation." Is not relevant to the theme of this thread. (see above) Although it may raise some interesting points, it is only remotely similar to the original article and that similarity is by virtue of geography alone.

I view your post as a thread hijack. I will leave your post there, but edit it to show that I have made changes. I will do this within the hour, so you'll have time to cut and paste it if you want.

Feel free to make your post into it's own thread. I think there may be some good points that merit discussion, but not in the context of this thread.

-b

duck
12-03-2003, 09:49 AM
beowulf: Well, one could claim combat troops instead of SF in a "hearts and minds" role is a contradiction in itself and results of poor planning. But if you wish, feel free to edit the article or I can edit it myself. And on second reading, the NYT article is quite on spot, contrasting the efforts of the troops against the planning failures.

Beowulf
12-03-2003, 10:01 AM
beowulf: Well, one could claim combat troops instead of SF in a "hearts and minds" role is a contradiction in itself and results of poor planning. But if you wish, feel free to edit the article or I can edit it myself. And on second reading, the NYT article is quite on spot, contrasting the efforts of the troops against the planning failures.

Very Well. Start another thread to present your opinions.

Royal
12-03-2003, 10:46 AM
beowulf: Well, one could claim combat troops instead of SF in a "hearts and minds" role is a contradiction in itself and results of poor planning.

'Hearts and minds' being a British concept originally, I feel qualified to comment here ;)

1. If SF ain't first and foremost combat troops what the hell are they?

2. 'Hearts and minds' (as practised under British military doctrine) has always utilised 'combat troops' at all stages. The Royal Marines, Parachute Regiment and Gurkhas in particular (who I don't think anyone would claim aren't combat troops) have a long history of 'hearts and minds' Ops (other line Combat Arms have often been used over the years, particularly in the latter stages).

Beowulf
12-03-2003, 10:52 AM
beowulf: Well, one could claim combat troops instead of SF in a "hearts and minds" role is a contradiction in itself and results of poor planning.

'Hearts and minds' being a British concept originally, I feel qualified to comment here ;)

1. If SF ain't first and foremost combat troops what the hell are they?

2. 'Hearts and minds' (as practised under British military doctrine) has always utilised 'combat troops' at all stages. The Royal Marines, Parachute Regiment and Gurkhas in particular (who I don't think anyone would claim aren't combat troops) have a long history of 'hearts and minds' Ops (other line Combat Arms have often been used over the years, particularly in the latter stages).

That's exactly right.

Every soldier participates in the "hearts and minds campaign" a few hundred joes can undo all the good work of a TPT or ODA. But those same 300 joes can magnify exponentially the good work done by the SOF units.

The article is good precisely b/c it points out this relationship, and I wanted people to get an opportunity to see/discuss that before getting sidetracked.....

Red
12-03-2003, 11:05 AM
I agree we their hearts and minds should be taken over so that they have no hearts and minds to be hijacked by saddam and his band of carnivale workers.

Trident-za
12-03-2003, 04:27 PM
Man, the mental shift in attitude must be difficult to deal with on a regular basis. Respect to the guys who can pull it off.....