dynamic entry in Iraq


PDA






yy
December 23, 2003, 01:55 PM
How effective is the dynamic entry IF you take into account the amount of ill-will it generates in the population?


Reading an interview with a professor in Iraq got me thinking. To paraphrase him: Iraqis would start to hate/shoot Americans not out of support for Saddam but out of reaction to the humiliation they suffer when a door gets broken in, head of household is handcuffed in front of family, after getting roughed up.


I cannot judge the accuracy of this psychology professor in the interview, but i do echo the sentiment. I'm against dynamic entry because it humiliates the targets/suspects. Some claim it saves lives. I don't buy that because no controlled experiment ever compared the dynamic entry to a polite knock. Maybe few lives were lost because the targets/suspects would have cooperated to a politely delivered warrant anyway. (I'm stating an opposite extreme to illustrate the confusion in the lack of controlled experiments). And for sure the few mistakes where the no-knocks took down innocents by mistake only riles up the population.


Can anyone point the way to a different tactic that looks at effectiveness beyond the short-term live-saving? The reaction can be deadly to a no-knock in a population that values pride over lives.

If you enjoyed reading about "dynamic entry in Iraq" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TallPine
December 23, 2003, 02:13 PM
To paraphrase him: Iraqis would start to hate/shoot Americans not out of support for Saddam but out of reaction to the humiliation they suffer when a door gets broken in, head of household is handcuffed in front of family, after getting roughed up.
And I suppose folks in the USA might have the same reaction .... ?

yy
December 23, 2003, 02:31 PM
And I suppose folks in the USA might have the same reaction .... ?


Yes. And I hope this post invites discussion that is a little removed and more objective because it focuses on a third party in a faraway land.

bountyhunter
December 23, 2003, 02:41 PM
How effective is the dynamic entry IF you take into account the amount of ill-will it generates in the population?


Reading an interview with a professor in Iraq got me thinking. To paraphrase him: Iraqis would start to hate/shoot Americans not out of support for Saddam but out of reaction to the humiliation they suffer when a door gets broken in, head of household is handcuffed in front of family, after getting roughed up.


I am frequently reminded that I know nothing of such matters (as well as many other matters), so I will simply direct attention to the only real learning tool: HISTORY.

The British used much the same tactics in Northern Ireland we are using in Iraq as a response to repeated terrorist attacks. They actually had an easier time than we do because the IRA were concentrated into a smaller area and were a homogenous unit as far as ethnicity and objectives.

The British troops would raid suspected houses at night, roust the undressed people from their homes into the street and then ransack the place destroying as much as possible. Like our sweep in Iraq, about 99% of the time they found nothing but left a lot of really pissed off people in their wake.

What happened in NI is that it galvanized support for the IRA and eventually the Brits caved in and negotiated a peace with them. I don't know if the Al qaeda and Sunni elements in Iraq have as much backbone for long term fighting as the IRA, but it is a fact that having soldiers in your face all the time drives young people en masse into the ranks of the "freedom fighters".

bountyhunter
December 23, 2003, 02:49 PM
Can anyone point the way to a different tactic that looks at effectiveness beyond the short-term live-saving?

YES, but it will never be used because it is not macho and does not look good in re-election ads. The only way a country can achieve lasting peace is when all factions have some say in their future, because then it is in their best interests to drop a dime on the thugs who are doing the terrorism. The terrorists only exist as long as they have popular support, and that is where they can be destroyed.

The truth is a lot of those countries would degenerate into civil war and genocide if the "controls" were taken off as happened in Iraq, Kosovo, and Bosnia. I have pretty much given up hope people will stop murdering each other by choice, so I think the only way to peace would be for the UN to partition off the territories based on population size of the various ethnic groups and then use force to maintain the borders. It sucks, but it's better than constant war.

Malone LaVeigh
December 23, 2003, 02:53 PM
The reaction can be deadly to a no-knock in a population that values pride over lives.And is armed to the teeth.

DaveB
December 23, 2003, 03:31 PM
An added benefit is that the more we emulate the IDF and their treatment of Palestinians, the more difficult it will be to convince the people who don't already hate us (in the Middle East) that we're different than the IDF.

db

grampster
December 23, 2003, 03:49 PM
So, ok, your son is in Iraq. He is 18. He just got out of high school and when you hugged him goodbye a month ago, you took a deep, long smell of his kid smell and remembered how he and his clothes smelled when he was a baby and hundreds of other memories flooded your memory........

His job is to go to a house where it is said that a few young Iraqi thugs meet to build bombs and store guns and ammo used to kill American soldiers and free Iraqi people/policemen/politicians/.

His orders from his commander is that he go to the door and politely knock and ask if he might come in and talk things over with the suspected thugs.

In my opinion there is no shortage of blissninnies in this world, and they out themselves every day in every way.



:scrutiny: grampster

JimP
December 24, 2003, 11:13 AM
Grampster, you took the words right out of my mouth!!! What do these folks think we do... Just go around kicking in doors with no reason or cause?? :banghead:

having just come from there and will be going back soon - don't believe all you read in the papers or the awed by clinton (ABC); news by clinton (NBC); clinton news network (CNN); clinton-broadcasting service (CBS) networks....

We have some smart guys doing some great things. Feel free to go over and take a look... :D

Double Naught Spy
December 24, 2003, 11:33 AM
The original question is comparing apples and watermelons. How effective is dynamic entry in Iraq? Very effective, pure and simple, just as it is here and elsewhere. Now is there going to be fallout from this procedure? Maybe, but the fallout does not negate the usefulness of the procedure itself. It may cause additional problems for the US soldiers, but the procedure itself is still tactically sound.

grampster
December 24, 2003, 12:07 PM
JimP,

God Bless you and I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your service to our Country. Because of your courage and selfless dedication to your countrymen, the world IS a safer place for all of us.

Illigitimi non carborundum est, my boy. Keep your head down, your eyes open, your wits sharp and watch your 6.

grampster

MrAcheson
December 24, 2003, 01:03 PM
You guys are forgetting something. In Iraq under Saddam, people would knock on your door and do awful things to you without warning or justification. Whole populations were killed for the actions of a few. In contrast, American style police tactics probably look pretty mild.

Sergeant Bob
December 24, 2003, 01:38 PM
JimP it's good to hear from you again. I've been wondering how you were doing. Just want you to know you all have my full support for all you do for us. You all make me so proud!
Check in when you can and give us a full report.
Take care of yourself and know that you are in our prayers.

tetleyb
December 24, 2003, 02:42 PM
Lets ask a simple question, when do those troops know when and for that matter, who will be shooting at them? When police officers do high risk entries, they do the same exact thing. So, what is the difference? Several persons within that country are hostile against the US.

I want our troops to be as safe as possible. If that means the hard, heavy approach, so be it. I understand the political fallout from within the country. However, if it saves one Marine or soldiers life, I'm all for it.

The troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, have my full support.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All.

Lone_Gunman
December 24, 2003, 03:27 PM
Will a heavy handed approach win the hearts and minds of Iraqi's?

Isn't that what we are trying to win at this point?

Our soldiers are at risk while in Iraq because they are an occupying army. No one wants foreign soldiers in their homeland.

Saddam is ousted. That is a great thing. I think we need to get our men and women out of their right away, and let the Iraqi's sort the rest of this mess out on their own. Our presence only serves to breed stronger anti-American sentiment.

To quote a failed politician, we are a republic, not an empire.

Waitone
December 24, 2003, 06:17 PM
Bear in mind dynamic entry is used in part of Iraq. Our media's soda straw visuals lead us to believe the whole country is aflame. Fact is most of the trouble is centered in the area of Iraq which was supportive of Saddaam. Sunnis are legitimately concerned about their future since it is reasonable to expect retribution after 30 years of oppression they inflicted on other areas.

Is dynamic entry effective? Yep! Does it hack off people at the recieveing end? Yep! For now it is hacking off people who are hacked off in any case. Remove dynamic entry from the mix and something else would get 'em irritated. The Sunnis are used to being at the top of Iraq's food pyramid. They are now at the bottom and are quite worried that past debts will come due.

If you enjoyed reading about "dynamic entry in Iraq" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!