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

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.

Friendly approach: an Irish Guard patrols the streets of Basra Every Iraqi is a potential troublemaker, a possible target. If one fails to stop at his checkpoint, his response will be to open fire. If more than 50 gather to chant anti-American slogans, he will likely flood the street with soldiers. If he so much as suspects that the crowd has weapons he may well consider a full-scale counter-attack.

Still in full battle dress, though the war is over, he is awesome to behold. His President insists that he was never a member of an invading force, that he was a liberator and is now a peacekeeper. Yet much of the time he is loathed, despised and spat upon by those Iraqis for whose freedom he fought. He and his comrades are among the most hated men in the Iraqi capital.

The manner in which the American forces stormed their way to Baghdad may indeed have been awesome. They fought the war with verve, with valour and with steely determination. How they are holding the peace, however, makes a woeful contrast.

British troops, by comparison, are welcomed in southern Iraq with cries of "We love you Britannia, welcome British." In the south, the British not only won the trust of the locals during the war and used it effectively to gather vital intelligence, they kept it in the aftermath. The Americans, hampered by much stricter rules of engagement and with little experience of peacekeeping, are swiftly losing the battle for hearts and minds.

On the streets of Basra, Safwan and Az Zubayr in southern Iraq, British soldiers, with years of experience of dealing with civilian populations in war zones such as Northern Ireland and of peacekeeping in the Balkans and Sierra Leone, are treated as saviours. They have abandoned their helmets in favour of their more people-friendly berets, have taken off their body armour and mingle with the locals. They have helped to set up a local police force and a council to get the city's infrastructure running smoothly.

"Have you met my buddy Ahmed?" says Sergeant Euan Andrews, from the 7th Parachute Regiment of the Royal Horse Artillery, as he swings an arm around an Iraqi by his side outside the freshly painted Basra police station.

Ahmed, beaming in a baseball cap emblazoned with the words "City of Basra police" in Arabic and holding a truncheon, punches his new friend in playful camaraderie. "A month ago we were shooting at each other," says Euan, "now we are on the same side."

As Ahmed, chest swelling with pride, steps out to deal with the next car check by himself, Euan gives him an encouraging nod. "They're all getting there," he says. "It will take time. There is still a lot of: 'He is my cousin, my friend, he is ok.' We have had to explain that police must be impartial. But slowly we are getting there."

That afternoon the soldiers are playing football against the locals and in the evening they have volunteered to repaint the local school. The Iraqis loiter to chat as they pass the station, shaking soldiers by the hand and bringing them home-cooked meals. "Our methods of dealing with the locals are very, very different from that of the Yanks," one officer says over a cup of local coffee. ("Awful," he says, "but they like it when we drink it.")

"Unlike the Americans we have taken off our helmets and sunglasses and we look the locals in the eye. If we see one vehicle heading at speed towards a checkpoint we let it through. It is only one vehicle. We call our method "raid and aid" - don't ask me what we call the American way."

In Basra, raid and aid worked. For two weeks the 7th Armoured Brigade waited at the bridge before entering the city. During that time it built up its relationship with those Iraqis brave enough to provide intelligence about the Fedayeen - Saddam's loyalist fighters - who had held the city to ransom.

The result was that when the British did enter, they knew where to go, who to go after and who to trust. For them the rules of engagement changed as warfare became peacekeeping. Now, they no longer automatically return fire. They wait. Often Iraqi gunfire is a sign of celebration at the return of electricity or running water. They know it is not necessarily attacking fire.

The Americans are, admittedly, bound by much less flexible rules. Their Force Protection Doctrine decrees that all soldiers must wear helmets and body armour in a war zone at all times and that gun fire must be met with response. They also have little experience in the peacekeeping arena, and their experience of urban warfare in the battle for Hue during the Vietnam war and more recently in Somalia has left them jumpy.

The British have learned in the past 30 years that good information on the enemy was their best protection and that putting soldiers at risk to get it was justified; jungle ambushes in Vietnam made the Americans obsessed with "force protection".

Since the killing of four American soldiers by an Iraqi suicide bomber 10 days into the conflict, they have become even more wary of locals.

Last week, Americans killed 15 people - among them two young boys - at Fallujah, an impoverished Shia area 30 miles west of Baghdad - when locals became angry at their occupation of the local school. Though the US troops say they fired in self-defence - and may well have done so - television footage of bleeding Iraqis, clearly unarmed, lying on the roads, have shocked Western viewers.

In Baghdad, where the Americans rarely leave their compounds, lawlessness is widespread. On Friday, when locals realised that Saddam's sister owned a lavish home in Al Jadria in the west of the city, they stormed the house. Pianos, furniture and paintings were dragged away by a mob of looters. When US soldiers arrived they stopped only long enough to warn journalists not to remove anything or they would be arrested, then left the mob rampaging through the house. "I'm not going near that lot," one marine said. "I don't feel safe anywhere near them, unless I am behind a whopping big tank."

In the more affluent areas of Al Mansour and Al Kaarada, local families have been forced to build barricades to keep out thieves as the American soldiers refuse to patrol.

In the Shia ghettos of Saddam City and Khadamia, where the Americans are reluctant to go even in tanks, the local imams have taken matters in hand. "Imams have set up local security stations in the hospitals," says Yousef al Alwani. "Guns that have been looted, many from Saddam's palace, are brought to the mosques and from there the imams take them to the hospital and arm the local militia who are now policing us. The Americans don't protect us and they don't help us. What else are they doing but occupying us?"

Cultural background, say military analysts, explains much of the British success in southern Iraq. "Britain and other European nations have imperial traditions," says Stuart Crawford, a retired lieutenant colonel in the 4th Royal Tank Regiment. "As a result, British troops have been inculcated with the ethos and tradition of colonial policing, where small numbers of men would have close contact on a daily basis with local populations. But America is a young country with no colonial past."

In some respects it is a paradox that Britain, which once ruled an empire, should have a more flexible and sensitive army than America.

At the end of the 19th century, the howitzer and the Maxim gun were the equivalent of the cruise missile and the tankbuster. To maintain control yet allow and encourage people to live in their traditional ways, they became accustomed to understanding and respecting local culture and customs. It is a lesson that the American army has yet, it seems, to learn.

"I think the Brits performed wonderfully in this, as did the Americans, and we should focus on what we have in common more than what differentiates us. Still, I was as mad as you are at this article, and I think you can clearly make a case that the US role in this demonstrated more military prowess (even if this was simply the nature of the strategy), and given that more US lives were lost in more perilous situations, this article is PARTICULARLY offensive."

I agree wholeheartedly!

I agree that it wasn't the fault of the British troops that the script said "pussyfoot" and it is certainly no insult to the troops to point out that they did what they were ordered to do with skill and courage.

I would only take exception to not faulting certain posters for taking offence at anything that can construed as criticism of the British troops.

Some posters can CONSTRUE so hard that they can make an insult out of nothing.

Two reasons. First, the British have more experience in dealing with hostile populations in urban areas than almost anyone, with the possible exception of the IDF. Secondly, no regular troops in the world receive as much training as the British.

I think there's an important point here.Aside from our Special Forces, the average American soldier is incredibly young and inexperienced with dealing with foreign nationals. One of the consequenses of never having been an imperial power.

This article, however, is tame compared to the lying POS posted on another thread -- also from the Telegraph. It's as if Fox News hired Noam Chomsky to replace Sean hannity.

Apparently, you are an idiot.

"Why is it that American soldiers are involved in bloody encounters with Iraqi civilians and British troops are not?"

You can only come up with two possible explanations, to wit:

"Two reasons. First, the British have more experience in dealing with hostile populations in urban areas than almost anyone, with the possible exception of the IDF.

Secondly, no regular troops in the world receive as much training as the British."

"Add these two factors to the fact that England has four or five centuries worth of experience in maintaining order in foreign countries and that explains much."

It does not explain the difference nearly so much as the fact that the British are in Saddam hostile Basra and the American troops having the difficulty are in Baath Party strongholds like Tikrit.

As Ursus arctos horribilis posted in post number 2:

"Now let me see, The Brits are liked in southern Iraq. The Americans are adored by the Kurds in northern Iraq.

But the Americans are so much chopped liver according to the article.

I suggest this paper strongly propose we drop the Brits into the most die hard Sadamnite bathest strongholds within Baghdad and see how they fare with that meet my buddy Ala Babba scenario BS."

Or as No Truce With Kings wrote in post number 41:

"However, I think this paper is neglecting a few points.

1. The Brits occupy one of the most anti-Saddam parts of Iraq -- the Shi'ite region around Basrah. Of course, they are going to be greeted like conquering heros.

2. The US holds some of the most pro-Saddam regions, including Falludah and Tikrit. If there *is* going to be any resistance to occupation those are the places -- and it does not matter whether Brits or Yanks are occupying those sites.

3. Over the vast majority of Baghdad, the US are being treated as liberators. The Western press, partly because they are lazy pigs, too self absorbed to leave the Palestine Hotel, and partly because they are anti-US anyway (even US newshawks) prefer to play up the few demonstrators that go to that hotel to protest the US."

Now you have a clue, but you are still an idiot. Claiming that Americans can't look Iraqis in the eye but the British can is anything other than a deliberate, gross insult clearly shows that you are an idiot, unworthy of further consideration.

Your argument is based on some isolated incidents. Providing water, food and the occasional incident of bravery are fine and dandy, but it is not how a population is won over. Winning the confidence of the locals requires a prolonged and personal relationship with the people. The British are very good at this, the American regulars are not as good.

BTW, disagreeing with you does not require that I be "ashamed" of myself, nor is it a "gross insult" to our troops. All that I am saying is that we could be doing better job at some of our occupation duties.

I hate to quote another Brit under these circumstances, but your hysterical defensiveness smacks of "the lady doth protest too much."

"All that I am saying is that we could be doing better job at some of our occupation duties."

I am sure that we could be doing a better job at some of our occupation duties. The British could also be doing a better job, since they are not now doing a perfect job.

You could also do a much better job of posting intelligent and interesting responses to this thread.

I can look posters in the eye, but you cannot look them in the eye, since you are an idiot and you know that you are an idiot.

Ok final post hopefully

first off i think its prtty clear that the brits on this forum have said this article is nonsense.

Ive read ivan disagree with it and ive said myself several times its silly.

WRT to the term "pussy foot", well all i can say is you dont kill a couple of thousand enemy and take several thousand pows by pussyfooting.

The south was given to the brits for one simple reason.

Better US logistics, its as simple as that.

When the towns where classed as objectives, such as al zubaryr they were taken in viscious street fights.
Much of the work was done by a force of just 4000 royal marines who killed and took prisoner more than their entire number.

It was clearly stated for the first week or so after surrounding basra that it was not an objective, the term used was "cut the head off the snake (ie take bagdhad).

However it was taken, basra was taken. And law and order has been established quickly.

If wondering why people are seemingly upset at your comments, suggesting "pussy foot is the script" is seen to make as nothing the harsh door to door fighting that royal took part in early in the war.
Do i think the USA fought more than the UK?.
Yes, they had more troops and better logistics

Do i think the objectives taken and roles done by the uk forces for their manpower are superb
damn straight i do,

Do i think uk soldiers are "better warriors" than us soldiers

Of course Not

Do i think uk troops are worse "warriors"
No of course not again

Do i think centcom kept the uk out of heavy fighting?
Definetely not.In fact the uk marines were given the first op of the war.

Hope that covers anything, plse from both uk and us posters, no more derogotary remarks such as trigger happy, bad peacekeepers, pussy foot etc

It is spitting in the face of those that gave their lives fighting alongside allies

Pukka Puck, other than the fact that I disagree with you, why am I an idiot? I'm sure than name calling served you well in the playground when you were ten years old, but it is a little on the lame side now.

Britain's long experience in Northern Ireland, and numerous other places, serves as evidence for my contention that they have more knowledge of urban peacekeeping operations than the US. The fact that American soldiers have opened fire on crowds and killed 15 Iraqi civilians, versus no such incidents for the British, is evidence of my belief that the Brits are doing a better job than us.

"The fact that American soldiers have opened fire on crowds and killed 15 Iraqi civilians, versus no such incidents for the British, is evidence of my belief that the Brits are doing a better job than us."

The Brits are in an area where folks with AK47 among crowds of civilians have not opened fire on them while Americans are in a much more hostile area where folks with AK47 among crowds of civilians have opened fire on them.

The Brits are in an area where no car bombers have blown them up at checkpoints, while at least two car bombers have killed American troops at checkpoints.

As FreedomCalls wrote in post #56 in regards to the shooting incident:

"Last week, Americans killed 15 people - among them two young boys - at Fallujah, an impoverished Shia area 30 miles west of Baghdad - when locals became angry at their occupation of the local school."

If I were the Telegraph's copy editor, I would re-write that sentence to this:

Last week, Americans killed 15 people - among them two young boys who were shooting AK-47s at them - at Fallujah, an impoverished Shia area 30 miles west of Baghdad - when ex-Ba'athist Party officials pretended to become angry at the Americans' occupation of the local school. They provoked a crowd of fellow Ba'athists to riot, even giving AK-47s to innocent 15-yer olds and taunting them to shoot at the Marines in an attempt to force the Marines to fire back in front of the pre-arranged CNN cameras. The ex-Ba'ath Party officials are struggling to get the Marines out of Fallujah so they can establish a foothold from which they can regain their lost power and authority.

What I referred to were not "isolated" incidents. For every photo we saw of Americans chatting with Iraqis, feeding them, etc, carrying injured Iraqi soldiers, playing soccer with Iraqi young men, crawling out into the line of fire to rescue old Iraqi women shot by Iraqi soldiers......for every one of these photos, and there were hundreds, so many acts of "looking Iraqis in the eye", that went unrecorded.

The article headline states a lie, and continues the lie in the article. It states the lie in order to make British soldiers look "better" than Americans.

I fail to see the need. Both armies performed exceptionally well. But the Telegraph seems to need to trash Americans in order to present Brits in a good light.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.