Your handy guidebook to an invaded Iraq

A quite wonderful book is being republished next month: Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq during World War II. The guidebook was made to inform American troops stationed in Iraq in 1943 how best to assist the British guarding it against Nazi infiltration – and much of the advice holds true today.

But the preface of the book, written by Lieutenant Colonel John A. Nagl, reveals in a small way, how underprepared today’s US troops were to “win the peace” in Iraq.

Nagl writes that he wishes:

…that we had listened to lessons already learned but long forgotten, advice such as: “The nomads are divided into tribes headed by sheikhs. The leaders are very powerful and should be given great consideration.” A policy that showed greater consideration to the Sunni sheiks and to their interests in the immediate aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 might have prevented the fervent insurgency from being raised to the fever pitch it has taken recently – for, as the 1943 guide warns in stunning understatement, “The Iraqis have some religious and tribal differences among themselves.”

Really? American troops were really not given basic information on the internal mechanics of Iraqi culture? The instructions in this guidebook were to inform the military about Iraq in 1943, but it’s not like America hasn’t fought a war in that country since then - the first Gulf War ended just 12 years before the 2003 conflict. Did the US military learn fail to learn any lessons in 1991 – or were they just not passed on to the military and political leaders who prosecuted this war?

This is just a small example of the mismanagement of the current war. The big picture can be gained from reading Bob Woodward’s excellent book, State of Denial. Woodward thinks that the current Iraq war could have been won, but is being lost because of strategic errors made in the first year after invasion.

So Woodward would probably agree with this (amazingly frank) assessment from Lt Col Nagl in the Iraqi guidebook:

It is almost impossible, when reading this guide, not to slap oneself on the forehead in despair that the Army knew so much of Arabic culture and customs, and of the importance of that knowledge for achieving military success in Iraq, six decades ago – and forgot almost all of those lessons in the intervening years. It is a sad fact of history that armies all but invariably forget the lessons of prior campaigns and have to relearn them from scratch when war begins again, at the cost of too many soldiers’ and civilian lives.

Murad Ahmed

Comments

[James Kennett]

The British learned in the 1920s how to suppress an insurrection in Iraq: such a task requires no less than one soldier for every 23 Iraqis [1]. Nowadays this would mean 1,300,000 troops.

US Army field manuals concur, recommending in an insurgency one soldier for every 20 locals [2].

These lessons were ignored by politicians who preferred to follow the Wolfowitz Doctrine, that the Iraqis would "welcome us as liberators". They fielded an army of 130,000, a tenth of the size required.

When our leaders believe the Wolfowitz Doctrine, they can be politely described as afflicted with "cognitive egocentrism". Without the politeness, "criminally brain-dead" would be closer to the mark.

[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/10/empire200610
[2] http://mondediplo.com/2007/02/04iran

[Lee]

Geography is not being taught today in America, except as a means of finding places on maps (except for South Carolina). The idea of cultures outside the US as being something of value to study is too sophisticated for most educators in the US, and we suffer for it. Far too many Americans think that others should emulate us, and refuse to study anything that needs a passport to visit. Sigh.

[Owen]

This would be the war that the Times wholeheartedly supported (on the instructions of it's proprietor) despite it being run by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld? Strikes me it's a bit much for you to sit back and laugh at 'those stupid americans' now..

[Andrew Milner]

Problem is, Americans have never learned to be Colonialists. First they try to be best buddies with the people of the nations they occupy, and when that doesn't work, they fall back on punitive actions. But as with a child, when physical punishment is ineffective, the only option is more physical punishment. During Britain’s colonial period, we went into countries for the long haul. Not just firm but fair and no fraternizing with the locals, but also brought significant benefits. From double-entry accounting procedure to railways to agriculture and hygiene.
Americans are so mind-numbingly ignorant they literally couldn't correctly identify from any country on a world map. They wouldn't be able identify any national flag or national anthem. Even if Colonialism weren’t way past its sell by date, Americans shouldn’t be Colonists. And the people being used to occupy Iraq have such a low levels of international awareness and high levels of xenophobia; wall-to-wall media propaganda can convince them of almost anything, however illogical and contradictory. So it’s easy for unscrupulous leaders to psyche up support for war and occupation, making the people of occupied countries appear sub-human. In short, at the citizen level, the US is simply not smart enough to be top nation.

[Stuart Midgley]

Whatever one's moral or ethical viewpoint on the invasion and subsequent war, the sheer incompetence of those who conducted it stands out.

Do not underestimate the knowledge and abilities of the US military however. A lot of their officers are close students of history. Not a few of their generals have degrees in international relations, politics and history.

I suspect that a lot of people in the US military knew that things were not being planned properly but that under Mr Rumsfeld they knew there was no point in saying so.

He was notoriously sarcastic and vindictive to those who did not agree with his existing point of view.

Historians and future politicians will judge him and his president harshly, not for their morals but for their foolishness.

[Dodgy Geezer]

"Do not underestimate the knowledge and abilities of the US military however. A lot of their officers are close students of history. Not a few of their generals have degrees in international relations, politics and history.

I suspect that a lot of people in the US military knew that things were not being planned properly but that under Mr Rumsfeld they knew there was no point in saying so"

Probably accurate, but not for long. Under this crowd anyone who had different ideas was sacked. So the legacy of Bush and Rumsfeld will be a generation of incompetent Americans in positions of power.

[Betatrom]

I found this great site with the top 100 eBooks all available as free mp3 download. Check it out.

http://www.BooksShouldBeFree.com