"Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye"

The Daily Telegraph U.K. ^ | 4-05-03 | Not attributed

[Vigilanteman]

Agreed. The gist of the article is the Brits have a much longer history and tradition as colonial powers. Americans have neither the experience nor the desire. Which is why Bush is now talking to the armies of India and Pakistan about taking over peacekeeping duties in Iraq. Now that Saddam is gone, we have bigger fish to fry.

[Grampa Dave]

This is pure left wing fiction to cover for this maggot's wet dream posing as an oped and news:

He counts his unit's kills meticulously, each one a tick in black pen on his khaki helmet which is, by now, bleached by the sun and battered from battle. Perched in the turret of his tank, just behind the barrel that is hand-painted with intimidating war cries such as "kill 'em all" or "I'm a motherf***ing warrior", he talks only to those Iraqis with the temerity to approach: he feels vulnerable without a 60-ton Abrams girding his loins. It is impossible to read anything in his eyes because they are always obscured by mirrored sunglasses.

Only in the safety of his unit's headquarters, behind barbed wire and protected by heavy weaponry, does the American marine take off his body armour and helmet. On the streets of Baghdad, out on patrol, he is wary and ill at ease.

[dandelion]

No, that would be the Russian WINTER, an entirely different thing than the Russians themselves (no slouches themselves, to be sure). Nobody wins against the Russian winter, and all do well to remember that. Had not Hitler chosen to turn on Stalin, he might have remained in power. That was NOT a good choice...

And while the Brits bravely battled Hitler long before we entered the war, the war against the third Reich would not have been won if America had not joined the fight. The British Bulldog held the fort, but it was the Yank who entered Europe and defeated Hitler.

[annyokie]

Neither have I. I guess it was too patriotic for the mainstream media.

[Grampa Dave]

Do the Marines even have Abrams?

He counts his unit's kills meticulously, each one a tick in black pen on his khaki helmet which is, by now, bleached by the sun and battered from battle. Perched in the turret of his tank, just behind the barrel that is hand-painted with intimidating war cries such as "kill 'em all" or "I'm a motherf***ing warrior", he talks only to those Iraqis with the temerity to approach: he feels vulnerable without a 60-ton Abrams girding his loins. It is impossible to read anything in his eyes because they are always obscured by mirrored sunglasses.

[AnAmericanMother]

"For God and Country, men. Now onto Baghdad and Victory"

Hot D**n!

(I want a copy of that videotape! Anybody got a clip?)

[piasa]

It's those cute Brit accents. Everyone loves those cute Brit accents...

It's almost as good as an Aussie accent.

But if they want to walk around without body armor and kevlar, that's an unneccesary risk when compared with any possible gain and it's just plain stupid. If people want to kill a Brit or US soldier, they're going to try to do it whether or not the soldier wears body armor- although it'll be a good deal easier without. (I prefer targets which are vulnerable and I am sure most terrorists do too, which is why they like airliners, pizza parlors, and beating up on civilians.) Being vulnerable is not going to win anyone's heart - being deadly will at least get their respect. Being respected beats being loved any day.

The SAS is respected but not because of the way they dress.

[yarddog]

It wasn't just Hitler.

We were fighting Japan and Italy too. The Russians had more fighting early because they were in it earlier. So were the British.

According to Cornelius Ryan who wrote several accounts of the war, Hitler devoted most of his resources to the West after D-day. He always underestimated Russian strength.

I would also suggest that our air campaign along with the British did as much as anything to winning the war. We also suffered very heavy casualties in the air war.

[mrsmith]

The Brits are at least two weeks ahead of us in Basra.

Maybe that's because they had a two week head start?

Anyway let the Telegraph show a little patriotic favoritism for their marines, if I remember correctly they got unfair criticism for waiting outside Basra until it cooled down.

[AnAmericanMother]

No, that would be the Russian WINTER, an entirely different thing than the Russians themselves (no slouches themselves, to be sure).

"Russia has two generals on whom she may rely: General January and General February."

-- Tsar Alexander, IIRC

[piasa]

I don't think the Russians would have done well if it weren't for the US and UK supplying them via Iran.

[microgood]

But just remember these articles when we are invited to praise Blair and Britain. Anti-Americanism sometimes goes underground for a while, but it will inevitably burst out, in the most boorish and crass ways.

And pathetic. This article is the product of a delusional mind describing a scenario which only exists in his mind. Narcissim at its finest.

[Doe Eyes]

That's odd - the Brits never complained about the tactics of our "mother****ing warriors" when the Yanks whipped Hitler for them...

The British are our best ally. No reason to trash them just because you don't like an newspaper story in their free press. Go trash the French.

[Clara Lou]

The Russians did most of the Hitler-whippin. Not us. And in my opinion the Brits did at least as much as we did. Probably more.
Just remember, it was the Brits who did will-nilly nighttime bombing runs while the Americans who took on the deadly, punishing, but more effective daytime bombing.

With that said, I don't think that we need to let a snotty newspaper reporter cause us to turn on the Brits.

[LibWhacker]

What a crock.

[yarddog]

Yes I once read that nearly all Russian transport vehicles were supplied by the USA.

Nikita Khruschev once said he would have starved to death in WWII if it were not for Spam. We also gave them a lot of Bell Aircobra's which they liked for ground attack and tank killing.

[ricpic]

Although the article is strongly tinged with anti-Americanism, I would not call it drivel. It may well be that the doctrine of force protection may have had a rigid effect on the American troops responses to Iraqi behavior in the immediate post war period. Gaining the trust of the civilian population of a beaten country is always a tricky business. It may be that the seemingly minor decision of the Brits to take off their helmets, and wear berets (to give just one example), has paid big dividends in gaining the trust of the locals in Basra. Maybe the doctrine of force protection needs some modification. Sometimes something can be learned by the US military from another military organization.