British commanders condemn US military tactics

Iraq Forum

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...l?from=storyrhs
British commanders condemn US military tactics

By Sean Rayment

London

April 12, 2004

Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.

One senior officer said that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, said part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".

Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are."

The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slavs and gypsies.

Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".

The officer explained that, under British military rules of war, British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks similar to those being conducted by the US military, in which helicopter gunships have been used on targets in urban areas.

British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets. The American approach was markedly different, the officer said.

"When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.

"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage, but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later."

The officer believed America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the insurgents.

"The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach - it has failed," he said.

"They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people."

- Telegraph

Common sense. The kind of one put in practice in former Yugoslavia by european peacekeeping troops - with some success. The first battle you have to win is the one of hearts and minds of the people from the country in which you are. Otherwise, the tasks are significantly harder.

Wow, what profound wisdom, Frenchie Europist! Why didn't we Americans, in our blind fury to kill Iraqi civilians, ever think of that?


One poster some time ago made an observatrion that I thought was quite profound and brilliant. He said, and I am paraphrasing, "The real reason why people around the world so bitterly vilify U.S. global policies—and the U.S in general—is that all the governments of these people are so potentially corrupt that if placed in the position of such power that the U.S. exercises, each of these governments would be expected to be nothing but the villain that they accuse the U.S. to be."

It's lonely at the top, but the view is much clearer.

Dear Curley,

I did not expect any other comments on your part but these simplistic ones.

First - who did comment on the "blind fury of the US army to kill Iraqi civilians"? I did not - you write this ridiculous assertion.

I don't think that the US military is willing to kill civilians. They are facing a difficult situation and most certainly the guys on the ground are doing their best as good professionals. I certainly won't blame soldiers risking their lives. Anyway heavy-handed actions have been stated and their relevance is in question. Why wouldn't it be possible to question it ?

In case you don't know - who knows, after having read so much crap from you it would not be surprising - the "potentially corrupt " "europeist" governments have been sending troops in most of the places the US has fought, pulling together with the Americans on the ground. The tasks are difficult to achieve but this cooperation usually works, thanks to the professionalism of the people engaged, whatever their nationality.
But, even though, there are different ways to deal with rebellion occuring among civilian populations - and this is one of the most difficult job when one has to deal with such events. Keeping peace is therefore a particular issue, that requires appropriate answers. And I am not the one asserting that the Europeans are good peacekeepers in the places they are in charge of this job - military experts do so.
A bunch of terrorists and brainwashed individuals are threatening the stability of Iraq. Their aim is to have the whole population join their side - knowing that, it is mandatory not to ease their agenda. It has nothing to do with appeasement, rather with appropriate weighing of the stakes.

"Here is the answer which I will give to President Roosevelt... We shall not fail or falter; we shall not weaken or tire. Neither the sudden shock of battle nor the long-drawn trials of vigilance and exertion will wear us down. Give us the tools and we will finish the job."

—Sir Winston Churchill, Radio speech, 1941

JY I see you still have not learned with this guy

You can't be expecting reason and balance from such a balanced post you've first posted, not from that guy. But I see you still like to humor the fella.

I know I have no chance to change anything in such a twisted mind - but other people read his crap, and - I'm sure you know what I mean - I can't help to reply; I expect those other readers to ponder over it and react, so that an intelligent debate can start. In such a way it wouldn't be a vain attempt ... so thanks for replying Peace, if you read it then it was worth being written :smile:

Simple question regarding strategy: why did the Allies let Iraqis keep their weapons?

Exactly the same mistake was done in the US sector of Modagicio, Somalia.
Interesting is the fact that no fighting were reported on the French sector: Somalians got their weapons confiscated.

exactly the point, I have mentioned it much earlier (March the 8th) , why the Americans did not secure the Army camps... some intelegant people over here start to make fun out of my question.... people like Syzak and Curley the Juggler check here

Jo Wilding Iraq Diaries - In Fallujah

"The satellite news says the cease-fire is holding
and George Bush says to the troops on Easter Sunday
that, I know what we‚re doing in Iraq is right.
Shooting unarmed men in the back outside their family
home is right? Shooting grandmothers with white flags
is right? Shooting at women and children who are
fleeing their homes is right? Firing at ambulances is
right?

Well George, I know too now. I know what it looks like
when you brutalise people so much that they’ve nothing
left to lose. I know what it looks like when an
operation is being done without anaesthetic because
the hospitals are destroyed or under sniper fire and
the city‚s under siege and aid isn‚t getting in
properly. I know what it sounds like too. I know what
it looks like when tracer bullets are passing your
head, even though you‚re in an ambulance. I know what
it looks like when a man‚s chest is no longer inside
him and what it smells like and I know what it looks
like when his wife and children pour out of his house.

It’s a crime and it’s a disgrace to us all."

Preston

Frenchfries,

Why can't you watch French telly any more?

Preston