West Point Professors Lecture in Baghdad.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
The country is not secure, the UN cant do anything about that so they cant do anything else because all depends on security.
And as you should know by know, the UN is not an entity in its own, it is just a reprisentative of all the member countries.

Do you have a crystal ball?


So if the UN cant do anything until it is secure, what could they have done? Only the US and supporting countries has had the fortitude to get the job done.

Like I said before and should be bloody obvios by now, under the UN falls all member countries, including the US, France, Russia, Germany and so on, a change would change the authority in Iraq under the UN, forces would include US and more supporting countries than the US has now alone.

How does this crystal ball of yours work?

Like I said, the UN has not had the fortitude to step in help.

The UN has not been given the opertunity because the US does not want the UN there. The US wants UN operations in Iraq under US rule, this does not comply with the UN as an international entity.

I must go now, while I'm gone please share some information on this crystal ball of yours since you have so many facts on what might have been and what might be.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
No one is going to be able to miracle new power generation over night. THis is going to take time to sort out.
About 3 months ago, it was reported that Iraq was producing 4000 MW and prewar levels were 4400MW, However at that time demand was 6000MW. I doubt at this point demand is going down. It will take time to get things where the power is reliable 24/7 all over the country. The needed infrastructure does not happen over night.
Agreed. But could it have happened in eight months if we had planned better and if we had allowed other countries to participate? That's the real question.

Maybe it could have been done faster. ANYTHING can be done better/faster/cheaper looking at it from hind-sight. But the simple truth is - others didn't want to take part - they CHOSE not to be involved. I'd say we've done quite alot in the short time our coalition has been on the ground - inspite of the pocketed resistance.

So yes - the real question is - why didn't the other countries participate when it would have been better for the Iraqis? Was it politics? Old Contracts? Rubber spine? Remember - we didn't say anyone couldn't join the coalition - they chose not to.

CkG
actually no,
they wanted to be under UN control, and the US wanted either the UN or the other countries being under US control, so they chose and the US chose

And the UN chose to leave. IF the UN were in control, things would be much worse. They have have shown no backbone recently.
The country is not secure, the UN cant do anything about that so they cant do anything else because all depends on security.
And as you should know by know, the UN is not an entity in its own, it is just a reprisentative of all the member countries.

Do you have a crystal ball?


So if the UN cant do anything until it is secure, what could they have done? Only the US and supporting countries has had the fortitude to get the job done.

Like I said before and should be bloody obvios by now, under the UN falls all member countries, including the US, France, Russia, Germany and so on, a change would change the authority in Iraq under the UN, forces would include US and more supporting countries than the US has now alone.

How does this crystal ball of yours work?

Like I said, the UN has not had the fortitude to step in help.

The UN has not been given the opertunity because the US does not want the UN there. The US wants UN operations in Iraq under US rule, this does not comply with the UN as an international entity.

I must go now, while I'm gone please share some information on this crystal ball of yours since you have so many facts on what might have been and what might be.


So if the UN goes in, who is going to be doing all the work(troops/funding rebuilding)? The US. It is that simple. Even with the UN there, the US will still be doing most of the work.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The UN administration does not want to go in yet because of security issues. They will not provide their own security.

Who should provide the security.

Iraqis - Not trained yet and/or in control of the situation. If they were, we could reduce our troop strength and not be taking casualities.

US - oops - we are supposed to be getting out of there so the UN can take over.

Catch 22
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The UN administration does not want to go in yet because of security issues. They will not provide their own security.

Who should provide the security.

Iraqis - Not trained yet and/or in control of the situation. If they were, we could reduce our troop strength and not be taking casualities.

US - oops - we are supposed to be getting out of there so the UN can take over.

Catch 22
If they were to provide their own security would those troops be under American Command or the Command of the US? Would the US allow UN troops there when they don't have any jurisdiction over them?
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The UN administration does not want to go in yet because of security issues. They will not provide their own security.

Who should provide the security.

Iraqis - Not trained yet and/or in control of the situation. If they were, we could reduce our troop strength and not be taking casualities.

US - oops - we are supposed to be getting out of there so the UN can take over.

Catch 22
If they were to provide their own security would those troops be under American Command or the Command of the US? Would the US allow UN troops there when they don't have any jurisdiction over them?

I think the US would allow UN troops assigned to provide security for UN workers to not have to report the US commanders. Where the troops would come from is a different headache. The major coalition(sp?) opposition has no interest in providing troops into Iraq, period. Therefore where will the security troops be drawn from. If the UN asks for US/allies to provide troops, then they are then backhandly (indirectly) approving the original invasion.

The UN does not want to take on the problem of resolving the overall security issue of the country.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: more people who don't trim their quotes
[ ... ]
So if the UN goes in, who is going to be doing all the work(troops/funding rebuilding)? The US. It is that simple. Even with the UN there, the US will still be doing most of the work.
Let's keep in mind that this whole diversion started with a discussion about rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, NOT providing military support. My contention was that we could rebuild Iraq's electrical generation and distribution infrastructure more quickly if we had planned better in the first place, and if we had the participation of countries like Germany, France, and Iraq's neighbors. The Bush administration has effectively excluded those countries and their valuable resources by imposing unreasonable conditions.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Drift3r
West Point Professors Lecture in Baghdad

Fri Jan 16,12:17 PM ET


By JIM KRANE, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - To the U.S. Army, flying eight West Point professors to lecture at Baghdad University was a chance to showcase the military's scholarly and humanitarian credentials.

For the Iraqi students and professors in attendance, the lectures smacked of education at the wrong end of an M-16.

"We don't want them inside our university or inside our country," said Fuad Hamdan, 24, a political science student, watching as U.S. troops frisked those entering the lecture hall.

This week's series of guest lectures from the U.S. Military Academy turned out to be another example of what the U.S. Army considers its good works being misunderstood by those living under its occupation.

Although the lecturers were unarmed, their American security escorts carried M-16s into the classroom. Students and professors complained to a reporter afterward about the presence of armed occupation troops on the grounds of a center of learning.

"I can't stand it when they put their guns in my face," said a woman professor who asked that her name not be used. "This is a university, not a battlefield."

The woman professor sat through a lecture Wednesday on recent trends in political science from Col. Robert Gordon, who directs West Point's American Politics department. The Iraqi professor said she found Gordon's material divorced from Iraq's reality.

More relevant, she said, would have been an academic discussion on Americans' views of Arabs, a popular topic on this campus of 40,000 that sprawls across a thumb of land bordered by the Tigris River.

"We don't have anything against Americans, but we don't like the Zionist ideas they use against us," said Ahmed Qasim, a political science professor at the university.

Army Brig. Gen. Dan Kaufman, West Point's silver-haired academic dean, acknowledged that university students are a tough audience anywhere, especially in a proud country chafing under military occupation.

"It's nothing new. American college kids don't like soldiers on their campuses either," said Kaufman, wearing desert camouflage fatigues as he stood near a hand-painted banner demanding an "end to the occupation."

"Intellectual freedom means you get what you get. We regard that as a victory," he said. "They're free to criticize."

The Army also acknowledged that firebrand college students are among their most virulent potential enemies. Bringing them face to face with some of the U.S. military's top professors, the Army hopes, will temper the influence of the inevitable campus radicals.

Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, a deputy commander of the Army's 1st Armored Division, said the lectures were born in a division brainstorming session on winning the minds of potential recruits for the guerrilla cells currently mounting attacks in Baghdad. Former members of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s Baath party are thought to make up most of those cells.

"We asked ourselves, 'Where could the recruits come from that would buy into the jihad mentality or the former Baath mentality?'" Hertling said. "Then, as a pre-emptive counter, we decided to start engaging them."

The Army's counterinsurgency effort at Baghdad University also extends to rebuilding women students' dorms, installing a computer lab donated by Saudi Arabia and contributing 14 tons of used West Point textbooks, Hertling said.

But the rebuilding successes relentlessly touted by Americans were spurned by Iraqis bitter about the state of postwar Baghdad, where phones don't work, daily blackouts darken swaths of the city and garbage-choked streets have been carved up by blast barriers and razor wire.

"The Americans haven't changed anything since they arrived in the country, so how are a few lectures going to help?" asked Enaas Jihad, 25. "You Americans managed to bring your tanks here by airplane very quickly. Can't you do anything about the electricity?"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=3&u=/ap/20040116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_west_point_2
These lectures strike me as a poorly-considered execution of worthwhile intentions. We may have a wonderful opportunity to shape younger minds in Iraq if we can figure out how to meet them on their terms, and can provide sincere dialog instead of lectures seen as one-sided public relations.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
These lectures strike me as a poorly-considered execution of worthwhile intentions. We may have a wonderful opportunity to shape younger minds in Iraq if we can figure out how to meet them on their terms, and can provide sincere dialog instead of lectures seen as one-sided public relations.

The attitude that our way is right and the best way to do something is the problem. Iraqis may understand their country better and realize that a different way may be more effective even if it is not a gold-plated.

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: more people who don't trim their quotes
[ ... ]
So if the UN goes in, who is going to be doing all the work(troops/funding rebuilding)? The US. It is that simple. Even with the UN there, the US will still be doing most of the work.
Let's keep in mind that this whole diversion started with a discussion about rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, NOT providing military support. My contention was that we could rebuild Iraq's electrical generation and distribution infrastructure more quickly if we had planned better in the first place, and if we had the participation of countries like Germany, France, and Iraq's neighbors. The Bush administration has effectively excluded those countries and their valuable resources by imposing unreasonable conditions.

Please clarify what is the first place.

When we went after Iraq, the infrastructure was not as targeted like we did in the first war. Mainly because we were not trying to break down the country.

The big problem was the resistance/guerillas. It was not expected that there would be so much scorched earth action.
We were going in with the intent of helping the country, not to occupy it.
They feel otherwise, part of it is propaganda that they had been fed over the past 10 years and part due to the fact that we were removing their leader.

The level of damage to the infrastructure is something that no-one ever expected. There is knowledge that the Europeans counld provide, and probably are doing so, under the table. The physical logistics of rebuilding exceed the actual support infrastructure which presently exists in Iraq (again due to the resistance).

If France/Germany/Russia had a proven magic wand to end the problems, I am sure that they would be welcomed into the party.