US troops hinder Iraq's stabilisation claims British MPs' report

news.scotsman.com ^ | 2005 Apr 6 | Andrew Marshall and Ed Johnson

[Wiz]

Excessive use of force by United States troops in Iraq has antagonised Iraqi civilians and made the process of rebuilding the country more difficult, a British parliamentary committee said in a report published yesterday.

The House of Commons foreign affairs committee said the slow pace of reconstruction had fuelled the insurgency, and suggested Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for international terrorists.

"Excessive use by the US forces of overwhelming firepower has also been counterproductive, provoking antagonism toward the coalition among ordinary Iraqis," the report said, echoing the concerns of British officials.

Some have privately complained that the US military is too heavy-handed in Iraq, compared with British soldiers, who often patrol on foot and in berets instead of helmets in an effort to win the trust of Iraqis.

[Wiz]

I do not want to criticize British, but while British parliament may think US is too tough on security with use of arms, I think the British force is too soft on security with use of arms. In fact, the British force was criticized by the Iraqis for ignoring Mahdi Army torturing local residents of Basra, while the British force was near by watching. The British force should be more aggressive.

Healing Iraq - Mahdi Army Beats 2 Students to Death in Basrah

Hooded men assaulted the students with rubber cables and truncheons which resulted in the death of a Christian girl, Zahra Ashour, and another student who came to her rescue after militiamen had tore off her clothes and were beating her to death. He was shot in the head.

Students also say the police and British soldiers were nearby but did not intervene.

I do not think this will allow the British Force win the hearts of Iraqis, not at all.

[Piquaboy]

Yeah! We could win over the insurgents if we only professed our love for them. They do have an excess of liberals in England also and this must be one of them.

[NordP]

This just in....

Scott Ritter has joined the British Military, and is now advising the British parliament on what is going wrong in Iraq.

(/sarcasm)

[jmc1969]

If we were nice to Zarqawi he wouldn't attack us. Care bears and hugs to all.

[cooper72]

It seems as usual, any criticism of the US is met by stereotypes and exaggeration of others.

The British soldier is experienced in patrolling hostile areas, and knows the tricks of the trade. The American forces have little experience in this area.

British soldiers wear berets and little body armour to show they are policing and are not out to hurt civilians. The US chooses full body armour and aggressive tactics with civilians.

To walk about in hostile areas with little protection to give a sign to the ordinary people is something you may disagree with, but it is hardly cowardice.

Don't forget they are there while most are not.

[Williams]

Unless I'm mistaken, the British are deployed to the South in the far friendlier Shiite areas, whereas the U.S. troops are bearing the brunt of the Sunni revolt. Apples and oranges. No armor in the U.S. areas was resulting in soldiers assasinated in grocery stores.

[cooper72]

It depends what you mean by "friendlier". I don't think getting blown up is friendly, but I take your point.

However, Britain and America have always had different tactics which actually helped Britain when we defeated the Argentines on the Falkland Islands.

The Argentinians were trained by America, and supposed that Britain being friendly with the US would also use the same tactics as the US. So they expected a full-frontal assault on the main bases. However, British tactics have always been different and the British Army landed in the opposite direction, trekked for miles to surprise them from behind.

Maybe the differences compliment each other.

[cooper72]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4853940/

[mewzilla]

The House of Commons foreign affairs committee ...

Friends of George Galloway, are they?

[cooper72]

All committess are cross-party and include all parties, right and left.

[Chi-townChief]

The proper American to any of these MPs would be: "Blow me, pal."

[L98Fiero]

Wow, all those posts since march 28 and not one positive comment. You are on a troll-roll.

[cooper72]

Do I need to say America is good? Is that not OBVIOUS? If it makes you feel better I am glad America is a superpower and not anyone else, except my country of-course! :-)

I just like to fight for Britain in my little corner when people use stereotypes and give anti-British views.

If you can't handle debate then so be it.

[cooper72]

The proper American to any of these MPs would be: "Blow me, pal."

Did Bill Clinton not get into trouble for a similar sentiment?

[bernie_g]

My cousin is out there now, as CSM of his unit (logistics corps) I talked to him when he was on leave about this very issue.

They tool-up heavily for convoy duty, all the firepower and armour they have, but when they're in town they wear berets and no body armour. His view, shaped by 20 years of Northern Ireland on and off, is that you do peacekeeping by being peaceful and laid back. Make friends and influence people.

You really don't want to know what he thinks of US doctrine.

[NZerFromHK]

Imperialism Speeches

In carrying out this work of civilization we are fulfilling what I believe to be our national mission, and we are finding scope for the exercise of those faculties and qualities which have made of us a great and governing race. I do not say that our success has been perfect in every case, I do not say that all methods have been beyond reproach; but I do say that in almost every instance in which the rule of the Queen has been established and the great Pax Britannica has been enforced, there has come with it the greater security to life and property, and a material improvement in the condition of the bulk of the population. No doubt, in the first instance, when these conquests have been made, there has been bloodshed, there has been loss of life among the native populations, loss of still more precious lives among those who have been sent out to bring these countries into some kind of disciplined order, but it must be remembered that that is the condition of the mission we have to fulfil

There are, of course, among us - there always are among us, I think - a very small minority of men who are ready to be the advocates of the most detestable tyrants, provided their skin is black - men who sympathize with the sorrows of Prempeh and Lobengula [African kings who resisted the British], and who denounce as murderers those of their countrymen who have gone forth at the command of the Queen, and who have redeemed districts as large as Europe from the barbarism and the superstition in which they had been steeped for centuries. I remember a picture by Mr. Selous of a philanthropist - an imaginary philanthropist, I will hope - sitting cozily by his fireside and denouncing the methods by which British civilization was promoted. This philanthropist complained of the use of the Maxim guns and other instruments of warfare, and asked why we could not proceed by more conciliatory methods, and why the impis [warriors] of Lobengula could not be brought before a magistrate, and fined five shillings and bound over to keep the peace.

No doubt there is a humorous exaggeration in this picture, but there is gross exaggeration in the frame of mind against which it was directed. You cannot have omelettes without breaking eggs, you cannot destroy the practices of barbarism, of slavery, of superstition, which for centuries have desolated the interior of Africa, without the use of force; but if you will fairly contrast the gain to humanity with the price which we are bound to pay for it, I think you may well rejoice in the result of such expeditions as those which may have, and indeed have, cost valuable lives, but as to which we may rest assured that for one life lost a hundred will be gained, and the cause of civilization and the prosperity of the people will in the long run be eminently advanced. But no doubt such a state of things, such a mission as I have described, involves heavy responsibility. In the wide dominions of the Queen the doors of the temple of Janus are never closed, and it is a gigantic task that we have undertaken when we have determined to wield the sceptre of empire. Great is the task, great is the responsibility, but great is the honour; and I am convinced that the conscience and the spirit of the country will rise to the height of its obligations, and that we shall have the strength to fulfill the mission which our history and our national character have imposed upon us.

Brought to you by:

(Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1895 to 1903)

[Wiz]

I don't mean to be tough on UK, and I think UK has played a major role in Iraq. That should be honored and thanked by the Americans. I also feel UK has always understand the ideology of America, and has been the best friend which I appreciate. Probably many other Americans feel the same. However, I am concerned about the recent events in Basra which British soldiers may have ignored an act of crime by Mahdi Army in Basra, which may be a result on the strategies to avoid use of arms much as possible to win hearts of Iraqis. This may result for terrorists to gather in Basra than areas under security of American force which British force in Basra is less likley to intervene.

[cooper72]

There are lots of crimes in every area that go unpunished. The British Military and American Military have always disagreed on tactics, and British Soldiers on the whole do not like American troops.

This is not an anti-American rant, as America is a great country, but is simply evidence I have picked up in my life.

My Grandfather fought in WW2 and told the family that they were as scared of the American troops as the Germans. The reason being that he said the Americans would shoot anything that moved.

In the first Gulf War my cousin fought there and won a military medal for bravery. He too disliked the American Soldier as he thought they were ill-disciplined and slovenly. he said he finally realised why the British Army is obsessed with cleanliness, as the cleaner you are in a desert the better you feel. He even told me his regiment drew their weapons at American troops over an argument.

In the first Gulf War the statistics show that more British died from American gunfire than Iraqi.

I repeat this is not an anti-anyone, but just empirical evidence I have of British Soldiers feelings for American Strategy.

Maybe we the difference is that British pragmatism has always been Machiavellian. To paraphrase Machiavelli: it is necessary to have both the cunning of the Fox and strength of the Lion to succeed. Sometimes you can win by the cunning of the Fox alone, other times you have to destroy your enemy with the aggression of the Lion.

I think American morality sees cunning and deception as somehow "un-manly", and that for your troops in Iraq to be "friendly" is a weakness.

I think the motto of probably the best special forces Britain, the SBS (the Special Boat Service who are at LEAST as good as the SAS) best sums up preferred British strategy:

"Not by Strength, By Guile".

Be honest if anyone said this on here they would call them soft, and yet there is no-one tougher than the SBS.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F04%2F11%2Fwtact11.xml

[propertius]

Wow! Thank you so much for positing that little piece on inspiration from the best prime minister Britain never had!

[PJ Costello]

"The British Military and American Military have always disagreed on tactics, and British Soldiers on the whole do not like American troops."

I think if you take a close look at winning percentages throughout the history of both countries you will find that the US armed forces are superior...by far. This includes victories over the British, twice, and long before we were a global force. As for British troops not liking American troops...who cares?

"This is not an anti-American rant, as America is a great country, but is simply evidence I have picked up in my life."

Evidence? You listen to stereotypes and exaggerated anecdotes...hearsay...and call that evidence? The problem is that you believe what you choose to believe. You believe what is shoved down your throat from the British press...condescending shots to follow the pints...adds up to literary boilermakers.

"My Grandfather fought in WW2 and told the family that they were as scared of the American troops as the Germans. The reason being that he said the Americans would shoot anything that moved."

My grandfather fought in WWII and Korea as well...(landed at Normandy). He never had an unkind word for any ally. It's clear that your rightful places are taking (it) up the rear.

"In the first Gulf War my cousin fought there and won a military medal for bravery. He too disliked the American Soldier as he thought they were ill-disciplined and slovenly. he said he finally realised why the British Army is obsessed with cleanliness, as the cleaner you are in a desert the better you feel. He even told me his regiment drew their weapons at American troops over an argument."

Let's see here. Your medal-winning cousin disliked the Americans because they were "ill-disciplined". But his regiment drew their weapons on American troops over an argument? An argument? What's wrong with this picture? They're passing out medals in the UK for abject stupidity, I see.

"In the first Gulf War the statistics show that more British died from American gunfire than Iraqi."

Maybe you should suggest shooting first, handshakes later.

"I repeat this is not an anti-anyone, but just empirical evidence I have of British Soldiers feelings for American Strategy."

You've only provided "empirical" evidence once...and even that could be questioned. The rest is anecdotal. And your claims of not being anti-anyone are starting to sound a bit silly.

"I think American morality sees cunning and deception as somehow "un-manly", and that for your troops in Iraq to be "friendly" is a weakness."

I would love to see your beret-bearing soldiers on patrol in the Sunni triangle. Your analogies are absurd. Life in Basra is far different than other areas of Iraq...where the real fighting is taking place and where the American soldiers are putting it on the line.

"Be honest if anyone said this on here they would call them soft, and yet there is no-one tougher than the SBS."

Damn near any US Marine, Green Beret, Navy Seal, or Delta Force does the trick.

Sorry if I've shattered any delusions.