US to pull out of Saudi Arabia.

[TCO]

I think the initial popular reaction may be similar. The difference is that in 1945 we had completely dominated Japan and Germany and there were few other unconquered sympathetic countries nearby. And the entire world had decided that the Germans and Japs were shameful.

Nowadays, there is much more public discussion that encourages insurrection and resistance in Iraq. Varying from the Al Jazeera message to the Euro message (finding fault). I'm not so much making a point as to whether this is right or wrong. Just saying that the dynamic is different and that this has an effect on the Iraqis.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Um, no, not really. What makes you so certain that there is something fundamentally different about Iraqis than, say, the Japanese of 1945? Let's turn the question around: What reasons would those other countries have for liking the US better than the Iraqis?

The fact is the Japanese, even in 1945, offered far less resistance to US occupation once the war was over then the Iraqis are offering now. Could you imagine a significant military presence staying in Iraq for more then 50 years as it has in Japan? Japanese leaders were primarily responsible for the conflict that was fought, while in Iraq the people have a significant animosity to US policy even without the propagandizing by Saddam.

EDIT - Ah, you already addressed this, I hate when that happens.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Ned
FYI, I have seen video of bullet holes in the school occuppied by the US troops. I have also heard that the firefight went on for hours.

But, of course, the Iraqi's were fighting for hours without weapons.

The Telegraph reports:

There were bullet holes in two windows of a class room and some bullet marks on the walls.

The Independent notes that:

Yet there are no bullet holes visible at the front of the school building or tell-tale marks of a firefight. The place is unmarked. By contrast, the houses opposite – numbers 5, 7, 9, and 13 – are punctured with machine-gun fire, which tore away lumps of concrete the size of a hand and punched holes as deep as the length of a ballpoint pen. Asked to explain the absence of bullet holes, Lt-Col Nantz said that the Iraqi fire had gone over the soldiers' heads. We were taken to see two bullet holes in an upper window and some marks on a wall, but they were on another side of the school building.

The reports don't contradict each other, but one does not tell the full story. Is the Independent lying, or were those bullet holes on the other side of the building, away from the firefight?

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news.../30/wirq30.xml

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=401718

[PLATO]

gs, I have never been accussed of having my head in the sand before. But in being aware of the situation in Iraq one could assueme that it is a compliment

Seriously, the coverage that I have seen has centered on "what is the level of dissent". It appears that while dissent is there that the vast majority of the Iraqi people are glad Saddam is gone.

Long term, I think that dissent will grow due to the factors that you have stated. I think that the Iraqi people, as a whole, were glad to see us come...and will be glad to see us go.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


The fact is the Japanese, even in 1945, offered far less resistance to US occupation once the war was over then the Iraqis are offering now.

Perhaps. Satellite TV hadn't been invented yet and at the very least, there were far fewer reporters in Japan in 1945 than there are in Iraq today. The media of 1945 was far more of a puppet to US interests than today. Also note that Japan suffered far more civillian casualities at the hands of the US than Iraq has. And there is that little matter of an atomic bomb or two...

Could you imagine a significant military presence staying in Iraq for more then 50 years as it has in Japan?

Today? no. Twenty years ago I couldn't imagine the European Union, let alone Poland ever joining.

Japanese leaders were primarily responsible for the conflict that was fought,

Same is true in Iraq.

while in Iraq the people have a significant animosity to US policy even without the propagandizing by Saddam.

Not sure what you mean here. IIRC, Japan was also subject to a US led trade embargo before the war. They certainly had no reason to love Americans before or after the war.

[gsmoove23]

Perhaps. Satellite TV hadn't been invented yet and at the very least, there were far fewer reporters in Japan in 1945 than there are in Iraq today. The media of 1945 was far more of a puppet to US interests than today. Also note that Japan suffered far more civillian casualities at the hands of the US than Iraq has. And there is that little matter of an atomic bomb or two...

Whatever the case the dissent that we see in Iraq wasn't at the same level in Japan. Whatever the specifics of the case are this is the reality that we have to deal with or do you propose getting rid of Al Jazeera and cracking down on any semblance of free speech.

There is strong anti-americanism in Iraq it was there before the 1st GW and it was in the surrounding countries as well. More then half of its neighbouring countries support terrorism, why am I even argueing, this is a waste of my time.

Plato, I completely agree you're head is in the sand. They like that Saddam is gone but they will like it even better when both Saddam and Bush are gone.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by PLATO1003 Long term, I think that dissent will grow due to the factors that you have stated. I think that the Iraqi people, as a whole, were glad to see us come...and will be glad to see us go.

They like that Saddam is gone but they will like it even better when both Saddam and Bush are gone.

Hmm...Does this mean we are in agreement?

[gsmoove23]

Aaaah, enjoy it while it lasts.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Aaaah, enjoy it while it lasts.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by gsmoove23


Whatever the case the dissent that we see in Iraq wasn't at the same level in Japan.

That's actually my point. We didn't see any Japanese dissent but it is highly unlikely that the reason was because there was none. Japanese culture even today is both racist and xenophobic. In 1945, Americans were considered inferior barbarians, almost subhuman.

There is strong anti-americanism in Iraq it was there before the 1st GW and it was in the surrounding countries as well.

Perhaps you can show some evidence of this. While I've certainly seen anti-American protestors in Iran and Israel, I don't recall much of a history of Iraqi protestors before the war.

More then half of its neighbouring countries support terrorism, why am I even argueing, this is a waste of my time.

No argument from me.

They like that Saddam is gone but they will like it even better when both Saddam and Bush are gone.

Undoubtably, however since we are, in fact, there and in control, it would be a disservice to leave before the country achieves some measure of stability. The US only entered Iraq on Mar 21. IIRC, the US stayed in control of Germany for years after the war was over.

[gsmoove23]

Gunkulator, any number of history books on the subject of the occupation of Japan will not even hint at the levels of opposition we have seen in only the first month in Iraq. They have had a long time to collect eyewitness accounts on both sides, its just not there.

My point was that US soldiers shooting innocent civilians is a natural product of an occupation of Iraq, whether there were gunmen in the crowd or not. Whether you believe the people support US troops being their or not the troops actually know they don't and they are justifiably scared. The best we could do for the Iraqis and our own reputations is allow the UN to run the show now.

I'm not saying UN troops wouldn't have the same problems, just that they would suffer less criticism for it in the Arab press and we would have someone else to blame.

[PLATO]

1st of all, the Japanese resistance was nil due to the fact that it was a matter of honor to obey the Emperor's command. He said "lay down your arms" and they did. Immediately and without question. Iraq does not have the same societal structure.

2nd, UN troops have consistently proven unreliable in the role that you are defining. Bosnia provides a lucent and tragic example.

3rd, If theattitudes you describe are so prevalent, then critisism for any US role would be the same. We would be held responsible regardless of the circumstances. IMHO, we will do a better job of restoring order than the UN could do under the best of circumstances.

[gsmoove23]

I never understood the bad rap some people give the UN in Bosnia. I don't think you could possibly have a more difficult job of trying to keep peace there. In all of its peace keeping missions I think the UN has done admirably considering the situations that existed beforehand.

Anyway, giving the UN run of the show does not necessarily mean that the US should pull out completely but perhaps negotiate an independant role where it can still carry out necessary military operations but leave the administering and urban policing (the most difficult jobs) to the UN. Somewhat like in Afghanistan, and this time funding won't be a problem because of oil.

Whatever you feel will happen, this would quash much of the criticism thrown at the US today.

[Ned]

Sandman, you raise enough points here that justify an investigation. Perhaps our troops reacted to stone throwing alone with direct fire.

There is a recent movie about just such an event. The officer in charge ordered his men "to return fire." A lot of civilians were killed.

He was court-marshalled. The theory was that the demonstrators did not have weapons and the commander screwed up.

So I think the Army ought to investigate. If the mob was only throwing stones, the response should have been to fire over their heads -- at least at first.

But, can you imagine the stupidity of people in a mob who throw stones at heavily armed soldiers during a war? Just what in the world did they expect as a response?

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
I never understood the bad rap some people give the UN in Bosnia. I don't think you could possibly have a more difficult job of trying to keep peace there. In all of its peace keeping missions I think the UN has done admirably considering the situations that existed beforehand.

Anyway, giving the UN run of the show does not necessarily mean that the US should pull out completely but perhaps negotiate an independant role where it can still carry out necessary military operations but leave the administering and urban policing (the most difficult jobs) to the UN. Somewhat like in Afghanistan, and this time funding won't be a problem because of oil.

Whatever you feel will happen, this would quash much of the criticism thrown at the US today.

gsmoove, you do know about Sebrenicia, don't you?

Also, there is a recent movie out concerning an incident where soldiers from opposing sides were caught in no mans land. Both sides wanted the UN to come to rescue the soldiers. They did, but the French and UK commanders countermanned the order even as the UN troops were in the middle of no mans land rescuing the troops. The UN sergeant and his men were ordered to leave.

The asserted reason for the order was that it was too dangerous for the UN troops to get involved.

The lunacy of the order needs no explanation. But it was this same lunacy that caused Sebrenicia. The UN troops would have had to actually engaged the Serbs in combat in order to save the people of Sebrenicia. But, as has been often said here, such actions are too dangerous for UN peacekeepers.

Crap! I say. Pox on the UN peacekeepers. The examples of their perfidy in allowing massacres of innocent civilians by armed militias and terrorists is legion. Since the UN SC is nominally in charge and gives the orders, nothing will change unless the UN SC changes. But, as we have seen in the case of Iraq, the UN SC is essentially dysfunctional. It's internal divisions condemn it ultimately to effeteness. It has the pantomime of power, but the reality of smoke and illusions. Nothing will ever change this. We all know this to be true.