U.S. Soldier’s Guide to Iraq (1943)

Post Reply New Topic

“A Short Guide to Iraq”—recently republished by the University of Chicago Press as “Instructions for American Servicemen in Iraq During World War II”—filled a big gap in the knowledge of American troops in Iraq, and its overall message was certainly admirable:

“You aren’t going to Iraq to change the Iraqis. Just the opposite. We are fighting this war to preserve the principle of ‘live and let live.’ Maybe that sounded like a lot of words to you at home. Now you have a chance to prove it to yourself and others. If you can, it’s going to be a better world to live in for all of us.”

Over and over, the book offers advice built upon the twin notions of tolerance and respect:

“Bread to the Moslems is holy. Don’t throw scraps of it about or let it fall on the ground.”

“In a house or a tent, follow the rule of your host. If he takes off his shoes on entering, do the same.”

Some of the advice is embarrassingly dated, not so much in what it says as how it says it:

“If you should see grown men walking hand in hand, ignore it. They are not ‘queer'.”

Some of it is, in light of contemporary conditions, laughably understated:

“The Iraqis have some religious and tribal differences among themselves.”

But to their credit, the anonymous authors of this book never try to oversimplify or make something out to be less complex than it is:

“It is a good idea in any foreign country to avoid any religious or political discussions. This is even truer in Iraq than most countries, because it happens that here the Moslems themselves are divided into two factions something like our division into Catholic and Protestant denominations—so don’t put in your two cents worth when Iraqis argue about religion. There are also political differences in Iraq that have puzzled diplomats and statesmen.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20203752/site/newsweek/

My how times change!

Obviously Bush hasn't seen it (or if he had, he hasn't gotten past the front cover).
Oil and world domination, two things paramount to the only super-power left. USSR is gone therefore no Cold War, free trade agreements with allies mean the Yanks will always be one jump ahead, England and Australia now do Bush's bidding because of 11/9 (read as 11 Sept) and the Yanks are trying to corner the market on anything from oil to J K Rowling's latest offering. Funny thing is, the Americans didn't enter WW2 in Europe until 1943, how come they had a book written in preparation for an invasion of Iraq, which wouldn't have had much involvement then?

There weren't going to Iraq to invade, they were going to defend the British interests in the area and prevent the Nazis and Russians from the oil.

Despite the "dated" comments, the majority of what was quoted in the article seems remarkably ahead of its time.

Thanks for posting that. It was an interesting read.

Indeed - I also think it would have helped immensely had the military read up about the Japanese by the time they entered the 2nd world war and not simply dismissed them as 2nd class citizens.

Some dreadful misunderstandings occurred. For instance, Japanese generally saw it is extremely dishonourable for an enemy to surrender. They had no respect for the soldiers who surrendered to them as they considered their behaviour totally dishonourable.

In the meantime, the allies believed it was honourable to surrender to a foe rather than try to fight to the death if they were severely outnumbered.

Military forces should respect the citizens of a nation, and not treat them like dirt. That's one thing that certain US Soldiers and Marines are not doing, as well as others.

That's right! There is also something I don't understand - why are so many US soldiers getting killed in conflicts? Is it simply a case that they form a majority of all the forces in Iraq and other places?

Or are proportionately larger numbers losing their lives? It is a conundrum to me.

Some of it is proportional. Judging from news reports in the UK, we appear to be losing men in Iraq (and Afghanistan) at a one per day rate. This appears to be one man killed per single operation or engagement.

Logically, it follows that if the US deploys a larger number of men in a single operation, they will lose a greater number of men. However it could also be said that one man per operation is quite a healthy exchange, and the enemy will engage any sized group with what they perceive as overwhelming force. Some of these deaths are from indiscriminate acts such as carbombs and landmines, and as such, are not dependent on the firepower of the enemy so much as tactical discipline, the size of units, and pure chance.

There are also other factors.. in both Afghanistan and Iraq, British units are undersupplied, outmanned and outgunned, and lack many of the support facilities provided to american troops, such as effective helicopter evac, or fire-support. In some cases we are even reliant on american forces for such things, which fail to materialise. (A recent report in afghanistan revealed that british special forces had in fact cornered Bin Laden and co in a valley, but lacking the numbers to achieve an assault, requested support. None was available from british sources, and an american task force was dispatched instead of support being given to the troops already there. , which then proceeded to land in the wrong valley and get cut to ribbons.) This suggests that, even though british forces are logistically second-rate, they are actually superior tactically, given their low casualty rate.

There is also the mindset of the attacker. Britsih troops seem to have a better record at peacekeeping activities, and anti-american furor is high, anti-british furor seemingly lower. It follows then that maybe the americans are considered priority targets, coming under more fire. Also, if they have more troops, they will be tactically jucier targets.

So there are a few sides.. it could be numbers, or it could be training and ability. Most likely it is a combination of them all.

The booklet was produced in mind of a defensive forces taking up position to protect oil-interests from an aggressive invading force. Thus the Iraqis at the time were not the enemy.. the Wermacht was. Now (at least some) of the enemy are the Iraqis themselves. A change in mindset is not an odd prospect.

TBH it doesnt even read as all that dated though. Males holding hands is STILL a basis for queer-bashing, and that phrase is written in vernacular for people who would use such a term. An internal document would most likely use the term "homosexual" and I imagine that discussion about the content of this booklet would probably have used that term over "queer". (ie "We need to clarify to the men that holding hands is not homosexual behaviour. Whats a word most likely to be understood by the grunts for that?") Queer is the most basic common term likely to be applied by the troops. It is essentially "dumbing it down" so that everyone will understand, rather than using "high-falutin posh-talk."

Notice there is a terrible bias in the reporting: we are never told how many losses there were on the other side of a conflict, or the total number of troops involved, to give it some perspective. That's an indictment of the mainstream news media.

I was, and am, a supporter of the Iraqi invasion. It was something that was necessary to do. To protect the Iraqi's oil (which, incidentally, we made sure still belongs to the Iraqis, we aren't stealing it - and apparently they're going to sell it to the Chinese, the ungrateful bastards), to remove an unstable despot that was not only threatening the region but very easily could have (and possibly did) put grave weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

That having been said, the Bush administration administered a textbook invasion, beautifully planned and executed... but totally botched the occupation from day one. Only now in the last few months does it seem like we're finally getting our act together and getting things accomplished over there, apparently because one general who has his head on straight is now calling the shots, not inept and inexperienced bureaucrats. And hopefully Congress will see that and give him the time and funding he needs to finish the good work he's started over there.

Regarding the field manual: Good read, something our troops should still be made to read today. Because nothing has changed in 50 years over there. Hell... nothing's changed in 500 years over there.

Reports tend to simply state " a larger number of enemy." Though i suppose when the foe have a tendecy towards hit and run, getting figures is a bit tricky. Even the troops are most likely relying on a volume of firepower - based guess, and the number of casualties.

My biggest complaint about the war is the fact they could have done it all in 91 just as smoothly, with the popular support of the Iraqis, but they wasted the opportunity.

Here is the book in Pdf format:

A Short Guide to Iraq (1942) - http://digitallibrary.smu.edu/cul/gir/ww2/pdf/w0025.pdf

Haha!

page 4

"Moslems pay attention to good manners.

Handshaking in Iraq is considered an important part of good manners. You will be greeted with a handshake on every occasion that you meet an Iraqi. His handshake is cordial and sincere. Return it in the same spirit.

But do not touch or handle an Iraqi in any other way. Do not wrestle with him in fun, and don't slap him on the back. Any such contact is offensive to his idea of good manners. Above all, never strike an Iraqi."

and this

"That man in the flowing robes you are going to see soon, with the wiskers and the long hair, is a first class fighting man, highly skilled in guerrilla warfare.

Few fighters in any country, in fac,t excel him in that kind of situation. If he is your friend, he can be a staunch and valuable ally. If he should happen to be your enemy, look out!"

Bit about understanding Arabic was interesting; however, wouldn't everyone be trying to read the signs?