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

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

[WaterDragon]

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.

[Stultis]

OTOH, see:

Bad Reporting in Baghdad

IT'S ENDLESSLY FASCINATING to watch the interactions between U.S. patrols and the residents of Baghdad. It's not just the love bombing the troops continue to receive from all classes of Baghdadi--though the intensity of the population's pro-American enthusiasm is astonishing, even to an early believer in the liberation of Iraq, and continues unabated despite delays in restoring power and water to the city...

[may18]

smile thumper now i have to look up g.gordon liddy ;p

[may18]

quote
___
I'm not sure if you're referring to me in saying the British troops didn't pull their weight. I believe they did everything they were asked to do. I believe they followed orders. I believe they were, and are, part of the larger plan. No matter if they "could" have done more, that was/is up to the commanders on the ground in the theater of operations. Not being privey to the grand plan, I see no concrete reasons to doubt or second guess the performance of British troops in Iraq. The objective has been achieved. Future analysis will reveal any shortcomings.
____

To be quite honest that was a much as we could have sent forces wise. With peacekeeping commitments all over the world, half our armed forces are currently abroad.

If you think we are bad projectively well i saw an analysis of mainland europe that shows the rest of europe combined could just about have sent the same number of troops/armor etc abroad between them ;p

hard to imagine isnt it?

[may18]

ok just read that thread.

How i would think of us forces after reading that.

Scary warriors, with perhaps a suggestion that us troops make bad peacekeepers.

I can see why it annoyed some, and the inclusion of the first paragraph which insinuated rangers arent good peacekeepers isnt needed.The article was meant as a positive story but could have been fine without the refference to the us forces.

[flyer182]

No. Only M1's

[Thumper1960]

Not really hard to imagine. Europe seems to have relied on the US to largely defend them since the Second World War. I'm not sure if the collective pysche of Europeans is that since they've had two of the bloodiest and most destructive world wars fought on their soil, they can't seem to abide by "large" standing armies. I'm no psychologist, so I'm not certain about what I think is the reason behind European dislike of military powers. Europe has thrown their lot in with the UN globalist camp: we can't trust one state with a strong military to do what is right, good and/or moral. Subconscious sabotage of military strength by pennying in and recoiling in fear from going for the whole pound?

[may18]

Im not sure why they project so badly, personal opinion a hangover from the cold war, where projection was not an issue.

The unionisation of euro armies imho must affect them tho

and a nice uk/us friendship story below, hope to god this isnt seen as offensive, its meant to demonstrate one of the many friendships and bonds made between our forces

source, startribune
______
CAMP VIPER, IRAQ -- Learning on Sunday that they had been considered missing in action was only the latest nightmare for eight Marines whose M1A1 Abrams tanks broke down in the Iraqi desert and lost contact with U.S. forces.

On Monday, for the first time, the Marines told the story of their 11-day ordeal that began on March 20, when the United States invaded Iraq from Kuwait. The Marines' 2nd Tank Battalion was in the first wave of U.S. forces.

One of the first tanks to rumble onto Iraqi sand was the Gabriel, named for the angel who in Christianity told Mary that she would give birth to Jesus, and in Islam delivered the word of God to the Prophet Mohammed.

Flying the flag saved the crew from being bombed by Allied aircraft.

"We waited for a positive ID," said Cpl. Ben Webster of Columbus, Ohio, the Gabriel's gunner. "It was an Iraqi T-54 [tank]. We killed it, popped the turret clean off it. . . . There was no remorse, no feeling of elation, no nothing."

They took some rifle fire from Iraqi fighters posing as camel herders, nothing serious for a tank. Then came their downfall. Anticipating tanks, the Iraqis had dug an 8-foot deep trap on the route, and the 67-ton Gabriel went into it nose down.

U.S. and British forces have dubbed the Iraqi fighters "floppies," a reference to the sandals or flip-flops many wear to disguise themselves as civilians. But there is nothing "floppy" about Iraqi military tactics, Webster said.

"These guys are pretty smart," he said. "They use techniques that are so antiquated, but so effective."

The Gabriel wasn't stuck. It was broken. An arm that helps maintain tension on the tank's wheel track was shot.

The Marines knew the rest of their unit had pushed forward, leaving the Gabriel behind. What they didn't know was that they had company a couple of miles to the north.

Another U.S. tank, nicknamed the Intimidator, had double trouble. It had started with a finicky fuel sensor that gave out entirely, and it had a break in one of the rollers that connect with the track.

There was no way to inspect the damage, let alone fix it, because the Intimidator was taking heavy artillery fire.

"I didn't sleep at all that night," said Lance Cpl. Michael Holmes of Miami. "I stayed up in the gunner's hole all night."

At one point Holmes spotted a tank he knew did not belong to U.S. forces. He asked another crew member to take a look with night vision goggles. It wasn't one tank. It was 13 -- all in a position to blast the Intimidator.

"The only thing that saved us was one man," Holmes said. "The tanks were British, and they were waiting for their commanding officer to give the authorization to fire. He knew enough about American tanks to recognize us."

The British rolled north, expecting a recovery unit to rescue the inoperative U.S. tanks. The crews expected the same, but it didn't happen. Instead, the Marines saw a barrage of attacks from U.S. aircraft. They credit the Stars and Stripes flying on the Gabriel with saving them from friendly fire.

On the second day after the breakdowns, the tankers lost radio contact with their units. Radio codes are routinely changed to avoid interception, and only technicians with special clearance know how to adjust the equipment to fit the new codes.

In the Gabriel, Webster went to sleep that night "trying to imagine how we were going to fix this thing."

The next morning, the crew went to work with rope, communications wire and duct tape.

When the Gabriel was rolling, after a fashion, it came upon the Intimidator.

"We made a pact before we moved that we were not leaving each other behind," Webster said. "That old saying, 'Marines don't leave Marines behind,' was real for us."

Shifting sand had covered the tracks their units had made on their race north, so they had no clear route to follow to catch up.

So, using a global positioning device, they headed north. They passed Bedouin shepherds, and eventually an Iraqi boy who seemed terrified of the tanks but eagerly scooped up the Meal Ready to Eat they tossed to him.

By the fourth day after the breakdown, they were out of water and low on food and fuel.

"Suddenly, a little moped dirt bike came speeding out of nowhere," Webster said. "We knew for sure it was British."

A British air-naval unit was camped nearby. For three days, the Marines helped guard the camp while British mechanics patched their tanks and resupplied them.

It wasn't a cure, but it was effective enough to keep them rolling.

On the road again, they traveled with a British convoy of the 216th Airborne Assault Brigade. On Sunday, the tanks limped in to a repair station at Camp Viper. The Marines learned that they had been listed as MIAs.

Before they said goodbye to the Brits, they did one more thing. They renamed the Intimidator the USA/UK.

"I even grew to like tea," Webster said.


______


Comments
duct tape is truly a wonderfull invention

if the war had lasted longer, we would have had you all converted to tea ;-)

[Thumper1960]

Comments duct tape is truly a wonderfull invention if the war had lasted longer, we would have had you all converted to tea ;-)

Duct tape is good for everything.....except ductwork!

Tea? That's offensive! Everyone knows that Americans are TRUE to coffee!

Cheers!

[Pukka Puck]

"I'm not sure if you're referring to me in saying the British troops didn't pull their weight. I believe they did everything they were asked to do. I believe they followed orders. I believe they were, and are, part of the larger plan. No matter if they "could" have done more, that was/is up to the commanders on the ground in the theater of operations. Not being privey to the grand plan, I see no concrete reasons to doubt or second guess the performance of British troops in Iraq. The objective has been achieved. Future analysis will reveal any shortcomings."

I did not write that the British Troops did not pull their weight. In this thread I have written several times that I believe they did everything they were asked to do.

I also wrote several time in this thread that the British troops did everything they were asked to do by their American and British commanders and did it very well.

I agree that they were capable of doing more, but that for very good political reasons, the powers that be decided that the British troops should be limited. With British public opinion so against the war, it only made sense to try to keep their casualties down and not give the anti-war British press any more fuel for their anti-war campaign.

I certainly have not doubted or second guessed the performance of British troops in Iraq. I think they performed very well, doing what their American and British commanders asked them to do. I very much doubt that future analysis will reveal any shortcomings in the performance of the British troops performance.

I hope this clarifies my position, which, as far as I can tell, is identical to your own and is in no way contrary to your position.

[may18]

hehe lets all chill, we are allies after all

regarding uk forces, there are quite a few things they were doing which didnt make headlines in the states

for instance elements of an iraqi division nw of uk troops in basra and se of us marines was obliterated by the royal horse artillery of p company (paras) who provided support to both uk and us troops.

So generally uk troops were fully engaged in areas that arent so interesting for headlines.

I prefer to see the arguing cool down, im proud of the work of my amed forces, and proud of my families long history of serving within them

[tictoc]

The French, in any case, like your military so much, they are planning to assign to you the lion's share of military duties in the coming EU "counterweight" force. The door is open for you to join the "European core" whenever you're ready.

It is a high honor indeed, if you choose to accept it. While France supplies the brains in the partnership (and Germany the Brauns), you will be the enforcement muscle.

Rosbifs to the front!

[may18]

hmm im pretty sure uk wasnt even invited to the eu army summit?.

Any links plse regarding plans t make the uk main fighting force?

[tictoc]

hmm im pretty sure uk wasnt even invited to the eu army summit?.

Not this time, the four countries at the "pralines summit" were still too busy commiserating with one another.

Any links plse regarding plans t make the uk main fighting force?

A number of recent editorials (sorry, no links handy) have put two and together: the EU bigwigs are reluctantly conceding that diplomacy alone will not make the EU a major actor on the world stage. Both France and Germany have let their military spending slide and are unable/unwilling to scrap their social spending to reverse this trend. So they need a European nation willing to put a powerful military at the service of Brussels (EU, not NATO).

There are only two: Russia and the UK. Russia scares many especially in Central/Eastern Europe. That leaves only the UK. So if the British could realize that it is in their best interest to accept junior partnership in EU foreign policy crafted by the French, the way the Germans already have, all would be well.

Speculation? Too far-fetched? Maybe, but a year ago few people would have predicted the French to be as intransigent as they were in the UN security council in late 2002 / early 2003.

So, while none of the above is original with me, I believe it is probably close to what the French leadership are currently plotting.

[may18]

but why would the uk accept being a junior partner in an eu force if they are the major fighting force?.

[tictoc]

Why has the UK been a net payer to the EU's budget for decades?

Why have British governments submitted to what amounts to a redistribution of many billions of Euros -- money taken from the hands of British taxpayers and put in the pockets of French agricultural interests?

[may18]

let me explain further

one of the arguments pro europeans in britain use to say "join a euro army" is that with the current anglo american alliance we are a very junior party (true as they have much bigger forces)

and that we have zero influence (possible, but debateable)

Now what would be gained from going from one junior partnership, to another. Especially when the projective ability of the uk is far in excess of the european countries?.

Would not the fact the uk is the most capable euro force make it the most likely to lead if such a force came about

This is all theoretical of course.

[Pukka Puck]

The 'fruit dumplings' article was about winning the war over 'hearts and minds' and began WITH A BACKHANDED SLAP AT THE US SPECIAL FORCERS.

Just like this "We can look them in the eye but the Yanks can't" article, the author decided not to just write about what a great job the Brits were doing, but instead decided to compare and contrast what a great job the Brits are doing as compared to the lousy job the Americans are doing.

That is what American readers of these articles object to. It is classless to try and build yourself up by tearing down your allies.

You can either be intellectually honest about what the British authors of these articles are doing, or you, like Ivan, can bullshit and blow smoke. It's up to you.

[Pukka Puck]

"The article was meant as a positive story but could have been fine without the refference to the us forces."

Correction, would have had infinately more class.

[Pukka Puck]

Europeans have decided to spend their tax money on the welfare state, so they do not have enough money to pay for a strong military.

[Happygal]

How hyper-sensitive are you?

I doubt any of those US Special Forces mentioned in the 'fruit dumplings' piece would bat an eyelid at that article. Although they may question the fact why they don't get fruit dumplings in their back packs. :-)

Now...can we both get on with our lives? We've dallied too long on this topic.

You call me intellectually dishonest, I see you as petty and mendacious. I guess never the twain shall meet!