Normally we'd downweight the follow-up post (see [1], [2] for why), but this case is such an outlier that I think two isn't too many the way it usually would be.
My grampa was stationed in Iraq at this time. I bet he would have seen this manual.
I remember him telling me about hunting Warthogs in the desert. Bullets were in short supply so hunters were given one bullet and knife. You had one shot, and then you had to go slit the animals throat with the knife.
They gave the gun to my grampa a lot, he was an country boy who grew up target practicing on the range. He was always a solid shot.
I've heard stories about Turkish soldiers deployed as peacekeepers after the Iran-Iraq War. They weren't permitted to fire their rifles at all so they hunted deer at night with jeeps.
A deer had her babies this spring right in front of my window.
All day I noticed a deer checking out my yard. I had no idea she was looking for a safe spot to give birth.
I took a nap, and woke up to a wet fawn looking into the house.
It looked like she had the other one behind the fence.
My first instinct was she abandoned them, but I was completely wrong. She had her babies, cleaned them up, and she dissapears for a few hours. She does not want to bring any attention to her babies. Fawn don't have much of an odor when born, so it is to there benefit she isn't around except for feeding.
Every night she would return to her young. It was pretty amazing.
They slowly grew. The one by the window would only get up when mom came by--roughly 2x day. The babies are helpless to any predators. That is supposedly why the mom keeps them in different spots.
Anyways, they now just visit. It's a good feeling they are healthy, and seem happy.
It's why deer-vehicle crashes are so common. Deer are pretty fast, and don't have any reason to stand in a road (there's nothing for them to graze, after all). But if they're crossing the road when you come along and your headlights suddenly blind their dilated eyes...
(By the way, their eyes are more like a cats, with pupils that can dilate far wider than a humans, so imagine a cop suddenly aiming a spotlight at you when it's pitch black - and then make it several times worse...)
I hit about a half dozen of them when I was younger.
Freezing in front of the lights is a big issue, but a bigger one is that they flip out and do weird stuff based on the sight and sound of the car at twilight. I had one jump into and break the driver side window of my car on one occasion.
> American success or failure in Iraq may well depend on whether the Iraqis like American soldiers or not. It may not be quite that simple. But then again it could be.
I'm shocked by the clear, simple and thoughtful advice this booklet gives. It just feels like the antithesis to the kind of official government communications today that use needlessly complex language and seem to try to avoid actually saying anything of substance.
It just feels like the antithesis to the kind of official government communications today that use needlessly complex language and seem to try to avoid actually saying anything of substance.
That is changing. Slowly. The U.S. government has a program to train its people to speak and write clearly and in ways that ordinary people can understand. But it's a big government, and it's going to take a while to spread everywhere.
A similar thing is happening in healthcare, which is where I work. It's called "health literacy," and everyone in a customer-facing role at my company gets lots and lots of training in it.
I can't speak about the government's motivation, but for us in healthcare, it's because people who understand the state of their health get sick less and cost less money to heal. Sad that it took a bunch of studies to come to that conclusion, but bean counters gotta count beans.
You forgot step 0: ban every member of the Ba'ath party from participating in the government, thus ensuring a large supply of insurgents with military experience and access to weapons depots we didn't bother to secure.
Thank you! Paul Brennan will go down in history as a malicious individual who wanted above all to destroy Iraq and it back centuries. Of course, he also wanted to setup the US to profit nicely from the rebuilding efforts but that is a secondary pain.
Bremner, not Brennan; which is odd, because I thought it was Brennan, too. Also, I forgot that he disbanded the army separately from the general de-baathification of the government.
Genius moves all around, the guy was obviously playing 0.3D chess.
Additionally, “With us or against us” isn’t an ideal stance in a region as old and complicated. Oversimplification of complex issues seemed the method of dealing with allies and enemies.
Banning Baath was a very correct decision, were they let them stay, Iraq would've exploded, and boiled over earlier, and more violently.
What was wrong was them failing to deal with Baathists themselves, not the party. Without Baathists question being ever given a final solution, it came to bit them back.
While USA was struggling with rebranded Baathist remnants, actual Saudi backed extremists, and Iranian militias sneaked in, some times even with US own backing, ensuring far bigger troubles to come.
Lastly, what I forgot to mention was US finally look every bit of face, and any rapport it had left with Iraqi population.
US wasn't able to talk to people of Iraq with a straight face at a after around 2007-2008. Then, they resorted to pitting Shia vs. Sunni. It was not a bright idea, and I have no idea why they even came up with it.
The continued occupation of Germany and Japan is far less fraught. Yes controversies arise, but not on the level of hostilities experienced in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Occupation of Germany/Japan was also substantially different in nature. By the end of ww2 both countries had been depleted of all war making capacity in people, equipment, and industrial capacity.
Even then, the occupations were limited to specific military bases that both sides would view as positive for defense against external threats.
The soldiers reading this guide would have had the truly remarkable opportunity to see the marshes in the south well before the more recent wars & Saddam's order to drain them. Worth reading about for anyone interested in the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamian_Marshes
Wilfred Thesiger's The Marsh Arabs is a fascinating look at the natives of the marshes.
It appears that the marshes may be recovering to some degree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Arabs
3. It explains what the soldier’s mission there is in a broad sense (defeat Hitler).
4. It has quite a bit of quick-and-dirty info like language basics and a map (I’m guessing more than a few folks stationed there would not be able to find Iraq on a world map before they went — that’s true today for sure).
Something about the language of manuals from this time is truly a masterclass in effective teaching. This and instructional videos from this time feels like a lost art
It seems like a manual like that today would have to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy and legal approvals that would suck all life out of the language. I know that the army always had censors, etc. but maybe it is yet another example how things were “simpler” back then?
It certainly feels a lot less sanitized or "corporate bland". The tone is very casual, like you're talking to an older buddy. Lots of colloquialisms like "southpaw" and "lick" as in beating someone. Even some puns "Yes, Iraq is hot spot in more ways than one".
The one thing I can't tell if that's just how it was written naturally, or if that tone is on purpose like in the propaganda films and posters of the time. Obviously they wanted soldiers to read and follow the instructions, not get bored and toss it aside so I think the style is intentional.
Can you imagine if it was written today, what would they use to make it approachable for young soldiers, emojis and memes?
"It seems like a manual like that today would have to go through multiple layers of bureaucracy and legal approvals that would suck all life out of the language."
That is a byproduct of having networked computers. It is easy and cheap to distribute first draft of a .DOC text to 10 000 officers for comments. It wasn't as easy with a real paper copy.
The Iranian guide uses many of the same turns of phase as the Iraqi guide, but has nothing resembling the same energy. It's an interesting comparison. (I'm a little disappointed; Iran is a super fascinating country).
The FMs can definitely be dry as a bone, and way too wordy. When I was in (02-06) I remember getting these small comics filled with anthropomorphized military vehicles with faces that spoke and offered advice on basic maintenance. Pretty hilarious stuff. There's an archive of issues from 1999-2019 here https://www.logsa.army.mil/#/psmag if anyone is curious.
I think the GP is correct; not that the military is fundamentally inhumane but that as an institution its publications are almost absurdly bureaucratic. See, for example, any field manual produced in recent decades, or look into 'military powerpoint.' Military documentation today tends to be verbose, repetitive, legalistic, and laden with references to doctrinal matters, an excess of acronyms, and lacking any kind of writerly voice.
It's not all bad; survival manuals are dense but concise and well-structured, for example. On the other hand, the Advanced Combat Helmet comes with a 200+ page manual whose useful content could fill maybe 30 or 40 pages. More abstract topics like leadership, tactics, strategy, and logistics are in many respects manuals about navigating the very large and complex institution of the DoD. The smaller branches produce better output, unofficially or quasi-officially, eg the Marines have some excellent writers as do SOF - not least because soldiers in those branches are expected to exercise greater autonomy and decision-making at all ranks, whereas the army in particular is more of an organizational machine for delivery of combat power, not unlike Amazon for explosions.
Someone asked if the helmet manual even needed to be 30-40 pages and the post got flagged. But that's a legitimate question. Here's why:
1. Military field manuals are not that big, about the size of a paperback book because they have to fit in a pocket.
2. There's a bunch of stuff about measuring your head to pick the right size, which really matters...
3. and how the straps attack to the helmet, which also really matters and is not as obvious as you'd think. You need to know this in case your helmet straps get damaged and you need to re-attach them.
4. The ACH has a bunch of moveable padding inside that can be put into various different configurations for comfort. Bot all of these are equal, though. What's viable for walking around in hot weather is not safe if you're doing a parachute jump.
5. And while you can experiment with the padding you can't just move it around any old way because otherwise you'll have it too high or low on your head and you'll either be exposed or block out a lot of your visual field.
6. The thing is rated to take a direct hit from a bullet and and prevent it from getting through to your skull, though even if it succeeds in that you are probably gonna have lesser injuries. This is the sort of thing worth having some detailed information about.
7. It's designed to have stuff attached to it (drink holders, christmas lights) so you need additional information on how the furniture connects to the helmet.
The reason the manuals get sooo long is that when the army makes a decision about a very basic piece of equipment like this that every soldier has to have, it's committing to buying millions of the things (at about $250 a pop) and issuing them to hundreds of thousands of people, so they really, really do not want people to fuck it up.
This is really outstanding documentation; it's better than a lot of hardware/software manuals I've seen - meaning the prioritization, conceptual chunking, well-thought-out flow diagrams etc, as opposed to the cheeky cartoons.
Also 'I authorize the Tigerprimer - Guderian' is a shapr contrast with the tedious homilies that decorate contemporary manuals.
I bought this field guide as printed book in Germany a few years ago, next to a booklet in the same format "Instructions for British Servicemen in Germany - 1944", and for American soldiers the "Pocket Guide to Germany - 1944".
It's interesting to compare the British and US military leadership's view on their own soldiers and on the Germans. In general, the British seemed to be much more cautious towards the Germans, and the Americans seemed to have trusted their soldiers more to judge a situation.
This is an annualized excess inflation rate of about 12% over that period. (No particular meaning intended by this comment, and of course the inflation rates of both the dollar and dinar are not even close to constant over time... just an interesting number.)
I saw it a lot in China too, and one of my friends would grab my hand while we were walking out for some food. It did feel wrong to me at first. But as it happened over and over again it started to just feel friendly, nothing more.
Fascinating! Most of the messaging here is refreshingly open-minded, direct and timeless. I'd expected to read a lot of imperialistic bombast that aged horribly.
Truth is, as many other commenters have pointed out, this document's overall tone reflects better on the American spirit than a lot of what's in the global conversation today.
“Twin pipe-lines have been constructed to the ports of Tripoli in Syria and Haifa (HAI-fa) in Palestine, on the Mediterranean Sea.”
A reference in US military to Palestine before it was gifted to European settlers and rebranded as Israel. Guess it wasn’t a “land without a people” back then.
"One of your big jobs is to prevent Hitler's agents from getting in their dirty work. The best way you can do this is by getting along with the Iraqis and making them your friends. And the best way to get along with any people is to understand them" // Great advice from the dark times.
>And the best way to get along with any people is to understand them
I feel like this advice alone could help everyone globally when they condemn some political or religious group specifically because someone considers them "backward." Nobody ever stops to think that they got successful within that system, so what would cause them to ditch their beliefs now because you "an enlightened" individual "know better."
There are a lot of problems that could have been avoided in the past 20 years if everyone deploying to Iraq, Afghanistan or a similar location was forced to sit through, and pass, a one week length cultural/sociological/religious/history class.
I have found that the gaps in knowledge between your typical USAID worker in Afghanistan and some military members (even those who should know better, at E5 and E6 ranks and similar) can be quite vast.
I have a copy of the one the US Navy gave to Seabees deploying to Iraq around 2006-08 (I don't remember when he was deployed offhand). It's very similar with local customs and a tourist-level intro to road signs, money, language and numbers.
This part of the war was definitely about oil, and the guidebook makes no bones about it. Hitler found the Caucasian oil fields substantially less accessible than he'd hoped. In fact, it was already a lost cause by the time this book was written, which meant the Middle East was far more important to the Germans than it otherwise would have been.
The whole idea was to deny those resources to the enemy and safeguard them for Allied use.
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological or nationalistic battle. It's repetitive, tedious, and nasty—the things we're trying to avoid here.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - if we were going to liberate North Korea, the point would be largely to let the North Korean citizens live free of their horrifically oppressive government. You just have to distinguish between the culture of a country as defined by the traditions and history of its people and the culture as defined by the government, particularly if the government is a dictatorship. The former is good and should be preserved (generally) while the latter is generally to the detriment of the former.
Oh you mean like they liberated the people of Iraq in 2003? yeah North Koreans are really missing out...
And people in Cuba and Hong Kong raise American flags just because the US is an enemy of their State (enemy of my enemy is my friend) not because of "freedom and change".
Please don't take HN threads further into ideological or nationalistic battle. It's repetitive, tedious, and nasty—the things we're trying to avoid here.
I inherited my grandfather's guide to France from WW2 - it's a really lovely little guide with clear goals, practical advice about the country and local customs, and enough information to figure out where you are and how to get a hotel.
I read the whole thing and saved it for future reference, in case I ever go there.
I wish therenwere a class of travel books written in this style. This seems particularly helpful, which I didn't know before:
-3 teas/coffees is ok, 4th is a sign to leave.
- quick language reference. The amount there can be learned in a few weeks prior the trip. I also like the suggested vocabulary.
- a bit of history and context on why people live the way they live.
It was renamed Iran, IIRC, to stress the relationship to Aryan, because of the regime’s support of Nazi Germany. If that’s wrong, blame the History channel or wherever I heard it.
I pointed this earlier and was downvoted. As far as I know only Bush called it i-RAHK! As an Iraqi of course I felt it was idiotic of him not to know how to properly pronounce a name of a country he's leading a war into!
That has always been the normal pronunciation in American English — at least where I’m from. It’s not something Bush invented.
I am sure there are also plenty of countries whose names are pronounced differently in Iraqi Arabic than in those countries’ native languages. That doesn’t make it “wrong”.
Well, language being a social phenomenon, neither pronunciation is incorrect according to any objective standard, since they are both rather common variants.
Is it “incorrect” that Germans call France “Frankreich” ?
What I'm curious to understand is how Iran and Iraq came to be pronounced differently in this guide (or otherwise), when they are both spelt almost the same way. The social phenomenon explanation, while I get it, seems too broad.
Because they aren’t pronounced the same in their respective countries/languages.
As mentioned elsewhere, Iran is “ee-raan”.
Iraq is more like “eh-raaq”.
They have different initial vowels which are obvious in Persian/Arabic script, but harder to translate into latin script with variable vowel pronunciations in English.
I don’t think there’s really a difference between “Iraq” and “Iran” for most Americans (other than, obviously, in the final consonant). Both pronunciations exist for both words, with the one that’s closer to the native pronunciation being more prestigious and the other one being often perceived as backwards or uneducated. (Nowadays, that is. I have no idea what the situation was in the 1940s).
It’s indeed surprising that the two are used inconsistently within the same book, but I suspect that’s just due to some uninteresting artifact of random chance. Perhaps the two sections were written by two different authors, or perhaps there was one author who happened to have an Iranian friend who exposed him or her to the native pronunciation. Who knows.
That the general public has not been exposed to the equivalent current documentation doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The level of understanding that many leaders have going into these situations, and especially their earnestness to want to help in material ways ... is very high.
The US Army didn't 'build schools' in Germany and many atrocities were committed there, far more so than incidents today which are generally widely reported.
The US firebombed German and Japanese cities and burned them to the ground, with mass civilian casualties. It was a completely different story in Iraq for example.
If the US were to have 'had to invade' Iraq in WW2, the era of this 'friendly publication' - well, they wouldn't have had a problem levelling entire cities either if it were deemed necessary.
Large swaths of US activity in Iraq and Afghanistan focused directly on construction and support of civil services. More so than probably any intervention in history.
That's not to say there aren't gaping holes in understanding and that it frankly may not make much of a difference anyhow, but it's more true that one would expect reading the slightly cynical comments here.
I do appreciate the familiar tone of the publication, and I do agree that there's something there we ought to admire, however, we do live in different times.
112 Gripes About the French - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27852034 - July 2021 (238 comments)
I wonder if Leo Rosten also wrote it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27865731). One thing's for sure, they had good writers working on these.
Normally we'd downweight the follow-up post (see [1], [2] for why), but this case is such an outlier that I think two isn't too many the way it usually would be.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...