Posted on 05/21/2004 2:57:16 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:21:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WHY don't the Americans trust us? Why don't they talk to us? Even before yesterday's raid on the home of Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi Governing Council, more and more Iraqis have been asking such questions.
"It is as if we are being scripted out of matters that concern us," says a member of the Committee for Reconstruction and Development in Baghdad. "Several European companies have been enlisted to work out urban development plans that should be decided by us."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
>>>>WHY don't the Americans trust us?
Could be a small problem with something called Al Taqyya.
BUMP
Not surprising. The Iraqi tv station wasn't even set up by the time of the war. What did we have, two years?
Gee, I don't know, could it have something to do with the hundreds of our sons and daughters who have been killed while trying to help your people?
I was going to say almost the same thing. Its kind of hard to build a good working relationship with Iraqis when they shoot at you and constantly chant "Allah Akba"... "Death to the Occupiers" and other charming slogans.
You just can't get a word in edgewise.
Not to mention you can't hear crap anyway 'cause you just had a roadside bomb go off near you and your ears are ringing like Saint Mary's bells.
Depends on the definition of trust....but...
1)It's tough to put a lot of trust in a people who have been subjugated under tyranny and terror for so long that they've forgotten how or are unwilling to fight for their own freedom.
2)It's tought to put a lot of trust in people when you can't differentiate between the good guys and bad guys.
3)Last but not least, it's impossible to trust a people who are subjects of the terrorist cult called islam.
That's 3 reasons..I'm sure there are many more.
Yes it is hard to get close to the iraqi people with the violence going on. But that is exactly the strategy of the terrorists, to create that chasm.
Our strategy needs to be to overcome it.
There are 2 camps of how to fight that:
Camp 1 says "lots and lots of American troops"
Post a soldier on every street corner and lock down the whole country. Fact is, that would be a disaster, as Iraqis hate our presence more, terrorists would have more targets, etc., and having lots of boot s on the ground doesnt by itself bring you closer in goals, just creates a physical presence.
Camp 2 says "use iraqis" and leverage and work with them on building iraqi sovereignty and Iraqification is the better strategy. That means giving Iraqis their sovereignty and the ability - with us - to making decisions and being responsible for security.
Now camp 2 *requires* that we build up trust and responsibility among the iraqi leaders. It also requires we *communicate* our values, intentions and goals to Iraqis and their leaders. The fact is that this article is basically saying we are not doing all those things.
We are playing to the WRONG audience, the Arab audience, instead of to an Iraqi audience. and we are failing to LISTEN to the Iraqis and let them take the lead on things. And we are not trusting the iraqis with enough descisions. Our CPA is too remote from the Iraqi people themselves.
maybe this is due to security problems, but as a fact it still may be accurate.
Your points even if true are not relevent to many of the complaints. It doesnt take any trust of the Iraqi people to simply *talk* to them:
1) Article said: " Baghdad has 150 new newspapers, almost all of them better than Al Ahram, if only because they aren't propaganda sheets for an unelected government. Yet they can't even get an interview with Bremer's driver, let alone President Bush."
Great point if true... why arent CPA and US administrators more active in Iraq selling the coalition in Iraq?
You know our 'favorables' are not great, so why not?
why did Bush go on Al Arabia but not an *Iraqi* media outlet? Why did abuse of *IRAQI* prisoners lead to apologies and comments to *Arab* and *Jordanian* leaders but not to Iraqis themselves? Why *cant* Bremer give the wonderful free press of Baghdad the time of day?
Surely the indifference that Bremer shows Iraqis will be repaid in turn.
2) ""Would it not have been better for the president to call the head of the Iraq Governing Council or, better still, to invite him to the White House, to offer an apology?" asks a member. "And was it not odd that the first move to make up for Abu Ghraib was an invitation to the Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmad Quraie to visit Washington? This means that Iraqis are tortured, but the Yasser Arafat gang are rewarded." "
Yes, this is very odd AND SHOWS THAT DEPT OF STATE IS INFESTED WITH ARABIST NONSENSE THAT HURTS US FOREIGN POLICY!!!
Iraqis are Iraqis, not some sub-species of Arab. It's insulting and patronizing indeed. But this whole episode shows an even worse, suicidal impulse among our foreign policy corps - ONCE AGAIN WE COURT OUR ENEMIES AND IGNORE OUR FRIENDS.
"Now camp 2 *requires* that we build up trust and responsibility among the iraqi leaders."
To play the devil's advocate, if only they could stay alive long enough to build up some trust and responsibility.
Touche. Again, that is the terrorists plan. they kill 'collaborators'... it's an ugly ting that even the term 'collaborators' is used, when in fact they are Iraqi citizens killed by murderers thugs and criminals.
The Terrorist playbook is Algeria 1945-1960.
Do an FR search on the Paul Johnson chapter on Algeria from Modern Times. That playbook is *centered* on the separation of the people from the 'ruling element', then the terrorization of that ruling element, and thirdly the driving away of ANY TYPE OF MODERATION or moderate policies.
The Algerian terrorists were very cruel to those moderate politicians and 'collaborators' who tried to compromise and build political stability.
That is why for example, marines will build schools and the terrorists will kill the school principle. Message: Dont let your schools get better. Killing the head of the IGC makes nobody immune.
Now, if we *widen* the Iraqi sovereignty in a real sense and get MORE Iraqis involved in running their country, then we have prevented the key goals of terrorist victory. It deflects the possibility of a blow against democracy. In truth, once secured, democracies can be quite durable.
The last element, getting ordinary Iraqis to be citizens and patriots requires trust-building and requires us building many bridges... simply because the task is difficult doesnt mean it shouldnt be done. We have to do it.
We are making many mistakes, none of them fatal; overall we are winning and most Iraqis are not on the side of terrorists. All we demand after all is that Iraqis soon run their own country. This is not a high hurdle despite the pessimists. Poorer and less stable countries manage to do it, even Islamic states (Indonesia) have managed it.
But I am afraid that in Iraqi eyes we came in as liberators, and we could have built up from there, but alas we have only fallen in their eyes. Part of that is natural consequence of the terrorist insurgency and the deliberate terrorist policies, but we should have been able to defeat it better if we build those links up better.
I recall an August 2003 article by Max Boot, praising the military for their excellent work out in the field and criticizing the CPA for not getting 'out of their coccoon'. The CPA has simply *not* had impact. The $18 billion we were to spend? Barely spent $1 billion by March. getting elections up and running? In many places - by why not in the whole country within a year? Why is security forces still such a problem? Why havent we been able to go district by district on this?
The Max Boot article made it clear military forces were using practical and adaptable approaches to solving real porlbems, while CPA was stuck in Baghdad and not impacting real Iraqis much. This article confirms that impression and suggests the missed opportunity.
BUMP to your understanding of the big picture. My vision is through a straw hoping my son comes home in one piece.
A very strange move by the President, indeed...
I thought that was a bad move as well. I didn't see any Arab or Muslim countries apologize to the US after 9-11. Not even the Saudis who were most culpable. Why the heck should the US apologize to anyone except those who were wrongly mistreated? Those sweeping apologies just allows the whole region to play the victim.
My comments were made as an answer to the question, "WHY don't the Americans trust us?."
I fully realize that even though we distrust them we still have to "talk to them". Arabs have a long standing rep for being duplicitous by nature, not exactly a solid base to start from in developing trust. That's why I said "It depends on your definition of trust".
So, it doesn't mean you can't talk to or negotiate with or influence them. Simply means you 'gotta' understand what your dealing with when you do.
Actually, I think you miss the whole thrust of the article when you say: "Arabs have a long standing rep ... " We are not dealing with Arabs as a whole, are dealing with Iraqis. We keep trying to talk to "Arabs" and pretend they are the homogeneous group they are not; that is not what *Iraqis* need!
Fair enough.
Let me rephrase..
*Iraqis*, who happen to be Arabs, have a long standing rep for being duplicitous by nature, not exactly a solid base to start from in developing trust.
Better?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.