This article is provided
courtesy of Stars & Stripes, which
got its start as a newspaper for Union troops
during the Civil War, and has been published
continuously since 1942 in Europe and 1945
in the Pacific. Stripes reporters have
been in the field with American soldiers,
sailors and airmen in World War II, Korea,
the Cold War, Vietnam, the Gulf War, Bosnia
and Kosovo, and are now on assignment in the
Middle East.
Stars and Stripes has one of the widest distribution
ranges of any newspaper in the world. Between
the Pacific and European editions, Stars
& Stripes services over 50 countries
where there are bases, posts, service members,
ships, or embassies.
Related Links:
Current
Archive
Stars
& Stripes Website
Sound
off in our Discussion Boards
Have an opinion on the issues discussed in
this article? Sound off.
Get
Breaking Military News Alerts
|
|
|
|
October 1, 2004
[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this article?
Sound
off in our Discussion Boards.]
By Charlie Coon,
Stars and Stripes European Edition
HEIDELBERG, Germany — The war in Iraq
is a lot like those that will be fought in the future, as today’s
U.S. military has found out.
“This was an enemy that we could not master with our technological
capability,” Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez said Thursday, echoing
the observations of other top generals who spoke at this week’s
Land Combat Expo 2004.
“To some extent, the future is now for war-fighting; this corps
was facing that over the course of the last year,” said Sanchez,
former commander of Combined Joint Task Force 7, the U.S.-led military
coalition that overthrew former Iraqi President Saddam
Hussein in spring 2003 and has been fighting an insurgency ever
since.
Sanchez cited the changing face of the enemy, the broad and changing
range of stability and resistance in different parts of the country,
the complexity of working with international forces, and the varying
sentiments of the Iraqi people on the presence of U.S. and other
foreign troops.
“Are we liberators or occupiers? It’s a matter of perspective,”
said Sanchez, the V Corps commander. “There were a lot of Iraqis
who truly embraced us as liberator, but there was an enemy out there
and a culture out there that still saw us as occupiers.
“Part of it is us understanding the Middle Eastern culture and
the Iraqi culture. … Just [our] mere presence equals ‘occupier,’
even though you’re providing them with everything they need to live,
to revitalize their economy and to give them freedom and democracy
and all those things that we value.”
Sanchez praised coalition troops for being adaptable and doing
jobs that were not in their job description as a soldier. But the
troops sometimes got back mixed messages from the people they were
trying to help.
“It doesn’t matter to them,” Sanchez said. “They still need you
out of there. [But] they say, ‘We don’t want you here, but we don’t
want you to go.’ They would tell us that freely — ‘We don’t want
you here, but don’t leave.’ So how do we resolve that?”
Sanchez spoke Thursday before about 1,500 people inside a packed
Village Pavilion ballroom at Patrick Henry Village. His statements
reinforced observations made Wednesday by Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey
and Lt. Gen. William S. Wallace.
Wallace, whose V Corps led the toppling of Saddam in spring 2003,
acknowledged the U.S. military at times was slow to react to the
shifting dynamics and sentiments of the Iraqi people, thus missing
opportunities to win their support.
For months after the toppling of Saddam’s regime, Sanchez said,
U.S. soldiers were the face of the coalition’s public relations
effort to win the peace in the war-torn nation.
“For the soldier, it means communicating with the people and talking
to them about what’s going on in their country, and trying to communicate
what the future looks like,” Sanchez said. “That’s very, very difficult,
and the soldier is the guy that’s out there — 180,000 of them [including
non-U.S. troops] — that are touching the people across the entire
country.”
Working with militaries from other nations has been easier said
than done. Some militaries, for example, brought weapons and were
well trained.
Others brought no weapons and weren’t trained.
“Our definition of self-defense is different than other countries’
[definitions] and you have to understand it as a commander at every
level,” Sanchez said.
National caveats, such as differing rules of engagement, are something
Sanchez said he hoped future coalitions would iron out.
Email
this page to friends
©2004 Stars & Stripes. All opinions
expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily
reflect those of Military.com.
|