God, thousands of these poor kids who fought and died for nothing.. military industrial complex made money, tony and George retired rich and people died..
Respectfully I'm compelled to say please do not say to a combat Vet that he suffered the agony of war for nothing; inner turmoil that remains until death, losing their brethren forever. "Dying for nothing" is no balm for the living. I lost some dear friends to the Vietnam era. I was part of that as a member of the USAF. War is the result of failure of leaders , not the military, which trades lives for politik.
@@lesfoliesbergere3997 yeah you do have a point.. but to think about this, the act you committed in the name of national interest.. caused ever lasting pain in others.. by you, I mean everyone who participated in this.. Russians in Ukraine, Americans in Iraq.. there is really nothing to be proud of.
I fought for an idea of giving those people a better life. A chance to build the country they wanted without such oppression. It might not have worked out in the end, but I feel it is better to fight for an ideal even if you fall short. Rather than tut, do nothing and then move on.
@@lesfoliesbergere3997 You're mostly correct that it's mainly the politicians to blame, but senior officers in the military also bear a lot of responsibility, because they didn't push back and weren't critical enough of what was being asked of them, but instead arrogantly assumed they could complete this impossible mission successfully and expected their troops to "make the best of it and muddle through somehow" even though they knew they weren't trained for, or experienced in, regime change. Basically, the politicians asked their military to do something they weren't supposed to, but instead of protesting and complaining, or even refusing, the Generals accept this mission with enthusiasm, despite having little idea about how to complete it successfully. It's worth noting that the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003, yet the existing Iraqi government was disbanded in May 2003, only 2 months later, which is what led to chaos and then insurgency, which is exactly what "Hearts and Minds" was supposed to prevent!
@@Chaddlee It's ok to have good intentions, but people remember results and will forgive months or even years of hardship, if you succeed. However, in this case, you failed, causing widespread suffering, misery and death and making a bad situation worse, so no, it's not good enough to try and fail. Unfortunately, politicians in the USA and UK were arrogant enough to think they could improve a regime by dismantling, gutting and replacing it and unfortunately many in military (such as yourself) still believe such intervention were justified, despite the horrific damage it's caused. It seems the lessons of Vietnam haven't been learned, but perhaps the soldiers of the future will learn lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hearts and minds is something the americans can learn,well put together mini doco put together by the forces you tube team,thoroughly enjoyed watching it.
I came back to 2004 when the British forces in basra lwas studying on the roof of the house and the thing that bothered me the most was the helicopter pilo but the forces were respectful not behaving like the Americans in Baghdad
I don't think hearts and minds was just a PR tactic. I think it was and is still very much disconnected from reality. The British troops are not a governing body. They cannot bring in jobs for the residents , they cannot pay their bills, they cannot do anything other than try to shoot at the enemy. Hearts and minds might be a good strategy for a few weeks or months after a main battle but you cannot prolong it to years. Bc those communities end up deteriorating in the mean time due to the usual necessity for basic self-governance and basic needs. Everything about this clip further underlines the vast gap between your fantasies and the reality of the situation. You insist on going places with almost no plan and no real understanding of your surroundings and then you get randomly sentimental about it to fill in the void left by the complete lack of clear plans. You brought with you far too many fantasies of what you can accomplish and then tried to make those fantasies stick by talking to people. The middle east is not a perfect place and it never was. Most people want water, shelter and to live....not a ''hearts and minds" campaign. No one really understands what that means and what you want. You're letting people starve and then telling them you really care about them. That's what your ''strategy" translates to in REALITY. It translates to insanity, basically. You give them gifts they're going to smile, but that's about as far as it goes. Stop this nonsense with trying to make other people into your own image bc it never works. An army unit is not and never will be a governing body in any area they go to. You have way too much vagueness in everything you try to accomplish for anyone's comfort levels. If I showed up at your door with a vague mission and refused to tell you when it will be over and when I would be leaving, and what I am doing in the mean time except trying to ''get to know you", how would you feel? Suspicious maybe? Yeah, bc it sounds ridiculous. What if I brought you a few gifts once in a while? Does that make it all better now? O_O'' Of course not. Everyone else tends to interpret this type of situation the same. You're dealing with people not microbes. People make choices. And understanding someone else, putting yourself in THEIR shoes is not an ''out of body experience", it's basic human empathy. Everyone does that all the time, usually. That's rudimentary to most people. You not feeling like it's rudimentary is why you cannot have a successful ''hearts and minds" campaign. You understand neither the hearts nor the minds of the people you're trying to bond with...and you're not used to bonding ''in that way" already....so, it makes no sense, right? This is usually when people start feeling like it's just a dumb PR campaign bc that's what it sounds like. They might not all speak english but they do understand if you're actually helping them or promising things you cannot deliver for years at a time. This is why you need a clear plan, based in reality. So, if you would like to take away something from this, it should be the need to live IN reality. Have realistic goals, understand your strengths and your weaknesses. Keep in mind that your group cannot govern in that area and cannot provide jobs. THEIR usual tribal leaders understood that if you're the leader they come to you for jobs. You cannot replace their system with a less useful one and a cute poster. Bc now your influence is both ''alien" and ''worse". Again, this is rudimentary stuff. It's just not rudimentary for soldiers who spent less that 5 minutes thinking this stuff through before going on deployment and expected to stay a few months not a few decades. LIve IN reality. Communicate that reality truthfully to other people. And then all these problems go away.
"we" or ''you" would refer to the decision makers in those contexts. I don't think you were lied to about the reasons for the war, I think you were not involved in any discussions about the realities of that specific war theatre. I think most people have an unrealistic rosy picture and that this practice should end. I try not to mix emotions into strategy discussions. This comment refers to the strategy and the people I am addressing are quite alive. The problem with having too much empathy is that no one has the hard discussions anymore. And that won't help the next batch of soldiers or their loved ones. This is just what I sound like in my more analytical voice. It's not that I have no empathy, it's that there isn't always a lot of room for it and I don't want my expression of empathy in this situation to distract from the more analytical points of the discussion. A good analogy would be to imagine how you would feel if you were a trauma surgeon, during the surgery. You don't have time or space to feel all your emotions at that time, you have to prioritize or you will never save the patient. It would be in a sense ''selfish" for you to waste time with your own feelings, and misplaced, bc if you do, you can lose the patient. It would be self-indulgent and my lack of abolity to prioritize and compartamentalize my emotions could cost someone their life... Does it make more sense now? @@TerryBell1968
I enjoyed reading your analysis. I would just point out that empathy is the driving force behind healthcare professionals. A trauma surgeon would be expected to empathize with their patient's sufferings. It is precisely why "beneficence" is the guiding principle of medicine. I assume what you are referring to is "competence." Competence doesn't equate to empathy and vice versa; however, both go hand in hand to conduct a successful operation.
Korea was not hearts and minds. It was a conventional war. It also worked in Iraq. Iraq is a free and democratic country today (They are allied to Iran.).
@@rikkivet3407 If there was a weapon of mass destruction in my country why didn't you find it but oil is the weapon we all Knew what is the reason for the graves of your English ancestors in my country
Hearts and minds is great in theory, however, the coalition changed the regime and had no plan how to implement democracy, then abandoned the people in Iraq. scandelous.
In Malaya you had structure. Administration, law, police already functioning since 1920s. In Iraqi. A Iraqi functioning society stripped of order by an invading power. One man turned the clock back. Paul Bremmer. He dismissed both experienced UN and UK civilian advisors overnight. And deemed Baath party members illegal. 99.9% of the population. So there wasnt a Marshall plan like in 1945 Germany. Even armed Japanese soldiers at the end of WW2 continued to assist British colonial authorities in Mayala and Vietnam until 1946. No idea why UK troops from the highlands of Scotland to the Yorkshire dales. Handing out sweets to kids. Would overcome a disfunctional occupied country. It was Saudi Arabia after all that financed 9/1. Why invade a crippled Iraq.
And just like Afghanistan, they picked up and left in the middle of the night which will lead the country to boil right back down again to where they started. What a waste. Should have never went.
@@TheSalamander_ The UK was the second largest military force in Iraq after the USA, with exclusive responsibility for certain areas. Admittedly, most of the mistakes were made by the USA, but the UK shares responsibility as their main ally. The point is that these well intentioned "Hearts and Minds" efforts weren't going to work without a stable regime, functioning government and trained security forces. The fact that senior British military officers didn't realise this at the time, but even worse, apparently still don't accept it now, (as none of the interviewees admitted as much in this video) is a failure of leadership on their part.
Why? They didn't decide to go there in the first place they were just doing their jobs. If anyone should be ashamed it's the dictator who ruled Iraq He invaded Kuwait starting the whole problem im the first place and was killing millions of his own people.
Utter rubbish….the British Army does NOT have some magic social skill dealing with the “locals”…it’s a stupid urban myth. I’m a 2434 from 1974 btw ….24 years completed…
@@handal0 You both make relevant points. Why didn't the video point out that it's not an exclusively British strategy, or that it failed when the French tried to use it in Vietnam? AFAIK, the USA tried the opposite approach when they intervened, which also failed.