[Vision2020] Afghans, Iraqis Not Ready . . . No New Rules

[Tom Hansen]

Copied and pasted below are letters to the editor published in the July 31,
2006 edition of the Army Times -

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Afghans, Iraqis not ready

I was not surprised that Special Forces A team conducted itself
professionally in "The battle of Mari Ghar" [June 26].

What I found disconcerting was the dismal depiction of the accompanying
Afghan national army soldiers. The narrative of the Special Forces weapons
sergeant spoke volumes.

If the Afghan soldiers were paralyzed during this particular firefight,
after years of training with U.S. forces, where does that put Afghanistan as
an emerging country?

I saw the same thing in Iraq when times of crisis arose and there was a
definite need to deploy indigenous troops in the area during the Shiite
holiday, Arabeen. The entire Iraqi battalion just failed to report to the
forward operating base for duty.

When things cooled down and the fighting was done, they mysteriously
reappeared and were put back on the rolls.

There was no disciplinary action taken against them, because U.S. forces
were desperately trying to hold together Iraqis in the units.

These phenomena point to the fact that there is no respect/trust between the
host nation soldiers and the Americans tasked to train them.

Here we are, nearly five years into Afghanistan and more than three years
into Iraq, and we have allies unwilling or hesitant to secure their own
country.

Most American soldiers look at most Iraqis with disdain and ridicule.
Unfortunately, this has anything but the desired effect on the very people
we are trying to win to our side. I have seen it a thousand times in both
theaters.

We hold ourselves superior to these people. They, in turn, feel this
arrogance and it does nothing to bind them closer to us.

If we are to ever achieve victory over the insurgents operating in either
theater, we have to build a bond to the people willing to side with us.

And you cannot buy it. They will take our money as long as we are willing to
give it away, but that will never win their allegiance.

I read often that our leaders say we are making headway in these two
theaters against the insurgencies, but when I read this article, it makes me
wonder whether we are just propping up a government that will never bear
anything even remotely akin to a democratic nation. If this is the case,
what are we really gaining?

Maj. Robert E. Dixon

Olmstead, Ky.

---------------------------------

No 'new' rules for war

The cartoon from the Hartford Courant newspaper [Frontlines, July 10] merits
comment.

The civilian cartoonist sends the message, given the recent Supreme Court
decision barring military commission trials for accused terrorists, that we
are now forced to refer to and play by "the rules."

There aren't any new rules. Soldiers learn in basic training: One does not
torture or mistreat prisoners. One does not kill the wounded but does
provide available medical aid. One does not harm or kill civilian
noncombatants. One does not fire on hospitals or undefended homes. One does
not poison water or destroy food supplies of noncombatants. One does not
kill those who signal surrender.

Most importantly, any officer who orders such actions should be disobeyed.

Why should we follow the rules when the enemy doesn't? Because, in the end,
we cannot expect to win hearts and minds if we act without honor.

Ours is an honorable profession. The real issue is, why did the Supreme
Court have to remind us to play by the rules and be honorable?

Col. James E. Longhofer (Retired)
Placerville, Calif.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Pro patria,

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho


********************************************

"In America, anybody can become president.  
That's one of the risks you take . . ."

- Adlai Stevenson

********************************************