I understand that the sunglasses are a matter of Personal security, and that they are required to wear them on operations by their commandershence I mentioned that they were government issued.
I posted because Ales comment regarding different approaches to situations had drawn fire from IRONMAN; pre-supposing that we thought all Americans were using un-necessary force. My post was intended to show that outside of “search and destroy” missions there are opportunities for differences in the ways in which US and UK service men will conduct themselves.
And I disagree That in soldiering one needs to be aggresive.
I understand the psychology behind festamus’s comment. It is unfortunate that wearing sunglasses might create a “Duke Nukem” perception for some. But I think Cuts eloquently made the point that they are not worn for persona but rather for eye protection. I can imagine that the intesity of the sun in a desert area could be very hard on one’s eyes, day after day. Imagine also that sand plays havok on the eyes. And a soldier is no good without good vision, at least, not in the field with a gun.
If there are any who should but do not remove their sunglasses when they should, that would not be a really good thing. But I do not think that US soldiers wearing eye protection for good reason equates to a Duke Nukem persona intentionally perpetuated. I doubt very seriously that they are ever worn to convey attitude.
I do not know what "opportunities outside of S & R missions you mean. If there are “differences in the way that US and British servicemen conduct themselves”, I’d be interested to know. Although, I doubt the difference is substancial or the cause of any negativity toward Americans by the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq are either going to love us or hate us. I don’t think I have heard about enough inpropriety commited by American soldiers to warrant an opinion that they conduct themselves, as a whole (as Bluffcove has implied), in any way that is disrespectful or inconsiderate.
There is no Army that does not have a few loose cannons in it. We’ve seen a few recently in the US military. We’ve also put them in handcuffs and pressed charges on them for it as well! I imagine the same is true of the British, Russian, and other armies. It’s commonly known that jobs which provide some level of authority over others, such as police officers, attract the unscrupulous along with the those with scruples. It’s unfortunate but unavoidable.
Especially your last comment, as we have seen over the last dozen years at least, one of the strenghts of the Brit squaddie has been his ability to switch from peace keeping to a war footing with no ripple whatsoever.
I will admit that I’d prefer the Toms to work without shades, but as I posted earlier a small drop in H&M is far preferable to leading a nineteen-year-old to his basha because he’s lost his eyes…
That’s pretty much the norm though. I have not seen a single comment by a member who is British that is critical of Britain untill this thread. However, once you see a number of anti-American comments and none that relate to britain, a pattern begins to reveal itself.
Yes, but I think that by implication, you could probably have worked out that someone saying they thought the war in Iraq was a bad thing for America to do, would think the same about Britains involvement. It seems fairly self explanatory to me! Also, as America has chosen to adopt a leadership role, it will naturally draw ‘leadership criticism’, as it is the most high profile and obvious actor who appears to be taking the decisions.
I wonder how you mean. I see the forces of both nations performing search & destroy missions. I see both investigating the locations of terrorists and going after them. Surely you’re not going to suggest that the US is using cluster bombs on civilian locations or something like that.
No, I think that others have covered some illustrative examples above. There are many differences between the way the British and American forces conduct themselves at the tactical and operational levels.
But they did not dissagree to force Iraq to submit to inspectors, or to use force if Iraq would not comply. Furthermore, it is documented and the UN has agreed, France included, that Sadam Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people in the early 1990’s. I can only imagine that if France or any other country (in some strange alter-reality) were having it’s citizens gassed with MIG’s dropping nerve gas on them, that they would not only hope, but expect the US to interveine.
Like many Europeans, you have conveniently forgotten the riots and public outcries in France where hateful anti-American balther was yelled on the streets and in thier press, and American products and flags were buned on the pavement and such. Those are the things that prompted Americans to change the name of “French fries” to “fries” or “American fries”, and other such things. Very much like the anti-Americanism that has been existing here in this forum, and my reaction to it. So too were those events.
Irrespective of the Origin of the Anti-French sentiment in the US, it is still comparable to anti-American sentiment elsewhere, if not more serious. This was my point. The US, as a whole, seems no less capable of this kind of thing than European nations. One mitigating factor is the large diversity within the US, which I suspect helps ensure that any anti-British feeling, for example, is lost in the other noise. For example, I have met Irish Americans who view the British as an Evil nation and our Army as an illegal force occupying Northern Ireland. The NORAID issue, which has already been discussed, seems to also illustrate another example of a considerable sector of (I’m led to believe) East Coast (Irish) Americans who are very anti-British. My point is this, the US is not really any cleaner in this respect than anyone else; your assumption that it is/that the US are better, is yet another example of an Anti-American sentiment causing attitude!
Many Europeans also conveniently forget that the UN, France included, passed a resolution giving the UN members the right to:
Inspect Iraq from top to bottom for WMDs
Use force if Iraq would not comply.
So the US let Hussein play his cat and mouse game of agreeing then disaggreeing at the last moment to allow inspectors for several years. After several resolutions and years of wasted time, the US did what the UN agreed could be done. Then the French raised hell that we did it. Hypocricy.
Not really, I believe that they wanted to allow the inspection process to continue, and were doubtful about the evidence provided by the US and UK Governments proving the existance of WMD’s, evidence that has since been proven to be utter balls.
I thin you are not quite understanding something. I agree that a little of that occurs here. But it is not arrogance, and certainly not to the degree that you imply. We are lands seperated by an entire ocean, European nations are not. You can drive from France to Germany to Poland and back. You cannot visit Europe by car from the US. There are some Americans who are ignorant of the fact that society in much of Europe is just as advanced as it is here, and that Europeans have all of the same things that Americans do. But it is ignorance caused by an inability to know what European culture is like because they cannot visit. Most Americans have only seen Europe on the TV. Those relative few who might be so ignorant as to think MP3 players are rare in Europe are not in any way a reasonable sample of America. No more than a European who thinks that America is a country which is full of nothing but sports-loving, beer drinking blue-collar workers who can’t wait to take a gun over to some foreign country and shoot Arabs while singing a Toby Keith song. Europeans misunderstand Americans every bit as much as Americans misunderstand Europeans.
Granted, but I have seen that attitude at some level time and again in American visitors and service personnell. It is rarely at the “Wow, you have cars/MP3 players/clean water here too!!Thats really neat!” level, but there is always a distinct attitude of condescention, IME. It pisses us off, just like anti-americanism pisses you off. I understand the reasons for it occuring. The habit of American moviemakers to make grossly inaccurate films like U571 et al. which portray a totally false and American centred view of history do you no favours either.
I would agree with that to some degree. I am a bit more reactionary than some others. However, I am not the cause of the anti-Americanism that I have seen here. it was here and I saw it before I ever got deeply engrossed in a single discussion on this forum.
Again, I feel that you are perceiving anti-Americanism where, on the whole, there isn’t any. Maybe a bit of piss-taking, maybe some banter, maybe some irritation, but not what I would call anti-americanism. (i.e. a dislike/hate for all things american simply because they are.)
Honestly, I had not read that statement before writing my comment above: (No more than a European who thinks that America is a country which is full of nothing but sports-loving, beer drinking blue-collar workers who can’t wait to take a gun over to some foreign country and shoot Arabs while singing a Toby Keith song.)
It is indeed a false stereotype amongs Europeans. Enough so that it gets reiterated to make a point. I don’t think most Europeans actually believe it though. I think many of them use it as blather to further their sentiments. I do not believe you mentioned it for that reason however.
Well this is my point, if I were to make a joke about a national stereotype, you say that you would view it as “blather to further their (my) sentiments”. If someone makes a joke, most British people view it as a joke, and not to be taken seriously, as you seem to. One of the things I like about the UK is that, on the whole, we can laugh at ourselves and don’t take things too seriously. Perhaps you should relax a bit too.
I disagree with that.
Why??
I agree that I am a bit more reactionary than some others. But I dissagree that my reactions were based upon jest that was purely harmless. As I said, I say anti-Amreicanism here prepetuated by a few people regularly before I began getting invloved in anything more than a simply comment on a subject.
It is not just your reactionary nature that is the problem, it is more the fact that you keep posting your opinions as fact, or posting things that are technical lies; e.g. AR’s/section fire/600m et al being impossible, and then refusing to acknowledge the points of those of us who have done those things and seen them done; instead calling us liars and hypocrits. Correcting some of the fallacies you have stated does not constitute anti-americanism!!
As I have stated however, I will strive to be less reactionary. I hope that others will take similar steps. Let us hope also that I can poke fun at Britain without it being seen as anti-British. I doubt that would be possible now, and I doubt that it ever would have been. Therefore, I will try not to do it.
Well in that case, can we poke fun at the US without you taking it as Anti-Americanism?? If you can’t take it, we are not going to let you hand it out!!
As an outsider looking in at the Iraqi situation, Ironman, rather like yourself, i.e. a civilian dependent on media reports, I found the following an interesting perspective on the different approaches of US and British forces, from an Iraqi viewpoint.
I’m sure you know of the “Bahgdad Blogger” calling himself “Salam Pax”, who published a blog right through the invasion stage of the war, and after.
Now, I admit, as a Brit I have a bias on our behalf.
Without wishing to restart any arguments from other threads, I would suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, the British Army’s history of garrisoning an Empire, together with the thirty years of Troubles in Ireland, have given it an institutional experience of dealing with foreign cultures and peoples of a level unusual in other armies, not restricted to the US.
In addition, the American principle of “Force Protection” is, perhaps, a sensible natural reaction in a hostile environment, but not really conducive to a “hearts and minds” programme, particularly in a country with a gun-owning culture like Iraq.
This is NOT a swipe at the way the Americans do things.
It’s a reflection on how the historic and cultural differences in the armed forces of our two countries manifest themselves in the operational aspect of their duties.
Anyway, here’s how at least one Iraqi saw the differences :
Baghdad Blogger
Basra under the Brits feels like another country. But you must learn to bargain when it comes to blood money
Wednesday July 2, 2003
The Guardian
Going down south to Basra is like going into another country. You are literally going through another time zone. The war was in full throttle when daylight-savings time should have come into place, but since there was no government to organise it some governorates just didn’t change their time. So when you go through Samawah and Nasiriyah you enter a different time zone, and then come back into +4 GMT zone when you get to Basra.
The other reason why it feels like you are going into another country is the British presence in the south. The first thing you notice is that everything is smaller, their vehicles are tiny compared with what the Americans are using in Baghdad. They have these cute little tanks which go really fast, our driver called them “baby-tanks”. As we were entering Basra we encountered a small convoy, just a couple of vehicles escorted by the British equivalent of a Humvee. On the top sat a soldier with a BIG gun.
In Baghdad that gun would be pointing either at the car right behind the military vehicle or at the sidewalk, scanning the buildings. But the British guy wasn’t pointing at anything, he was just looking around with the gun turned in, at an angle that would have shot him in the foot if it had gone off by accident. You appreciate this only after you have been driving behind an American Humvee and praying that your car doesn’t backfire or make strange noises, because the US soldier has that gun pointing right at you.
The next thing was getting into Basra and being stopped at the checkpoint. One soldier in a floppy hat waving his hand for you to slow down, and when you lower the window he actually greets you with “al salamu alaikum”. That got him some appreciative giggles - imagine that happening in Baghdad. Everybody here in Basra is so much more laid back, even after the incidents in al-Majar al-Kabir. To their credit they didn’t decide to punish the whole population and clamp down on them.
I did go to al-Majar yesterday. I went to the police station and got to meet some of the people who are calling themselves “the emergency brigade”. They are a creepy lot. There is so much that is not being told and so many glances going back and forth between them, you just know that they are hiding something bad.
How the British ever decided to let this “brigade” handle the security in that governorate is a mystery to me. How could they make a deal with a self-appointed “supervising committee” in Amarah which then decides to form an armed “emergency brigade”?
I don’t think the idea in itself is wrong. Local problems need local solutions, and if the Iraqis can govern themselves, and by all means we should, then let us do it. But the “coalition forces” also have to know who they are getting in bed with.
The flip side of this decision is the way the British have dealt with the issue of Iraqis killed by the British forces by mistake. The south is very tribal. Killing someone, especially if he came from a powerful tribe, might start a chain of revenge killings unless the two tribes were to agree on some sort of compensation, ie blood money. So while we are sitting with some people in Amarah we hear the following story.
During a wedding celebration, two young men fire celebratory shots into the air. A British patrol happens to be near by, they think they have a couple of Fedayeen shooting at them. Bang bang, the Iraqis are dead.
The British take the bodies to the hospital, and after conducting an investigation they find out they were not Fedayeen, a mistake has been made. So the next day two British officers, two Iraqi lawyers and a translator go to the hospital and ask how the locals deal with this sort of thing. The concept of “Fasil” or blood money is explained to them. A couple of days later the word spreads that the British have paid 15 million Iraqi dinars in blood money to the families of the two Iraqi men. Further bloodshed was stopped. Perfect.
I am not discussing the moral correctness of blood money. This is the way things are done here and if this money will stop any sort of revenge killings then it is worth it. No, I only have one comment: being foreigners, they paid too much. Habibi, everything is bargainable here, and paying 15 million in blood money will ruin the blood money market - it is way too much. You should improve your tribal connections and get someone to bargain for you.
I don’t think it has been addressed at all except to say that Americans wear sunglasses for eye protection, which has been wrongly interpreted to indicate an attitude. I have not heard anything that illustrates that the US military operates in a way that is improperly impersonable toward the Iraqi people, and I have provided infoprmation about some of the wonderful things that American soldiers are doing (utilities, water, food, clothing, pet adoption pprogram, etc.) that are very personable and community minded.
But it is not comparable. If you are walking down a street and someone of a particular group shoots at you and you pull you gun and fire back, are you the instigator? Certainly not. If you then put your weapon away and continue walking and another member of that group fires upon you, you fire back. Eventually you get to the end of the road where a member of that group without a gun says, “You bad American! You shot at 3 members of my group!” It’s ridiculous.
The difference is significant. Nobody is saying that there are not people in the US that blather anti-eruo sentiment. Those people are in every country. But to say that such sentiments originate from the US as much as in Europe is incorrect. Perhaps you do not realize this because you do not live in the US. Here in the US, we hear about anti-American commentary frequently. I live in the US - I read the news on the Net, I watch the news on TV daily, I talk with others, I see American satire. I watch political debate programs on TV. I cannot remember the last time I heard an anti-French or anti-British comment, blatant or sly. Oh sure, we make fun of Charles and Camilla, but who doesn’t (British included)? We make fun of ourselves too - our senators and congressmen, president and corporate leaders (Bill Gates is comedy material here as everywhere). But that is comedy, not political commentary on “Face the Nation” (a popular political news-discussion program).
I do not believe there is any “anti-British feeling” (to quote you) that is lost in the ethnic diversity of America. You are expressing dismay over a supposed unspoken “feeling” held by Americans. If it is not expressed freely, as is done by the French for example, it cannot be too great. I will admit that many Americans are displeased with the French for openly displaying anti-American sentiments, evensofar as to burn American flags in public and such, after doing a 180 in the US and saying, “You bad Americans! You went to war in Iraq like we agreed you could!” I have heard Americans express displeasure over the French for those things. I have never, ever, in my 43 years of life heard an American express anti-British sentiment based on modern or recent events (not relating to the War for Independance, that is). Not once. Does that mean that such sentiments don’t exist? Oh, I am sure that they do in some. But I certainly am not hearing it here in the US.
As I have stated, I dissagree strongly. Anti-European sentiments exist, but they are not perpetuated to the degree that we hear anti-American sentiments in the world. I think this is at least partly due to the fact that Americans are so caught up in their everyday life. Life is very busy here in the US. In the US, people typically work more hours per week than in Britain or France. We don’t have much free time on a daily basis.
As for the Irish-Americans, that is quite a different and relatively unrelated condition. Those are people whose ancestors have been subject to British rule which they feel is unjustified, even unkind. They are not representative of the American people. I imagine that there are Russian-Americans who would have similar feelings about the now-dissolved Soviet Union. But you can’t say that because Irish Americans (not all I am sure) dislike England that they are a sample of Americans as a whole. There are circumstances there that were created by the British themselves to cause such sentiment in that ethnic group. Their feelings cannot be said to be like that of the general public. To be honest, when in the past few hundred years have there been more than 5 Irishmen in one place at one time where one of them has not made a negative comment about the English? To imply that Irish-Americans continue doing it here is to imply that Americans do it because they are American. They are not at all the same thing. If the land of America were still ruled by the British would not expect Americans to express anti-British sentiments?
Many Europeans also conveniently forget that the UN, France included, passed a resolution giving the UN members the right to:
Inspect Iraq from top to bottom for WMDs
Use force if Iraq would not comply.
This is the real point of contention between the US and Europeans at this time. But the inspection process was NOT continuing. UN inspectors were continuously not allowed to inspect very large, curious buildings which the Iraqis would not say their purpose was. So we would run back to the UN and complain about it, Iraq would make concessions, and it would repeat itself numerous times. I don’t know about you, but if I have agreed to allow inspectors to inspect every inch of my country, but would not let them inspect one large building after another over a considerable amount of time, I’d say that I have something there I don’t want you to see. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the something might be like what the Iraqis used on the Kurdish people in the early 1990’s. There is more reason to assume it is something bad than good that they are hiding. :?
How could the French have been doubtful about:
Video footage of Iraqi MIGs dropping das on crouds of feeling opeople on hillsides
Testimony from Iraqi (Kurdish) people who said that Iraq gassed them and people were falling dead everywhere.
Especially since they had already agreed that the evidence was good!
It’s silly. If they were in doubt, they would not have voted for the resolution to use force, regardless of American pressure. One thing is certain - a Frenchman is not goin to do what an American aks him to do if he does not want to.
[b]The only reason the French are now pissing at the US over Iraq is because there were no WMD found, even though they were agreed to have existed by the evidence (France included) I mentioned above. It is a way of trying to save face in light of the results of the inspections that have taken place since the US and Britain and Spain etc. went to war in Iraq.
Had WMD been found, they would have been pushing people aside to get in front of the news cameras to take credit for voting for the use of force. But since none have been found (wonder why with all of the time-wasting games and inspections that were not allowed by the Iraqis) they are pointing a finger at the US. It’s hypocricy and it’s shameful. It’s a perfect example of “I told you we wouldn’t find it!” But you agreed we would! “Yes, but I didn’t like it did I?” Well who did? “Yes but it was your idea to begin with!”[/b] :roll:
Let me help you better understand American anti-French sentiments that are not related to Iraq. Ever since long before the war in Iraq, American tourists have been going to France to visit. Thousands go every year. The majority of those who have been come back and tell their family and friends about how the French treated them. If there is a discrepancy over a meal at a resaurant they call the American a “stupid country bumpkin” and tell them that they don’t know enough about food to complain, and told to leave. American under-cover video cameras have been used in French food establishements showing Frenchman putting bodily excrements on meals to be served to Americans. I have seen the video myself!
Many have been asked to move aside for a Frenchman to pass or do this or that. When Americans try (using a translation dictionary) to talk to French shop owners, the French pretend not to be able to understand them and put their most expensive product on the counter, expecting the American to buy it. They smile at Americans as they take their money, then turn around, and not realizing the American can still hear them, say things like, “Those stupid Americans. They are just country people. They know nothing!”
That kind of thing has been goin on in France for decades. After so much of it, and after remembering Grandpa who died in the 1st or 2nd WW in France, Americans begin to get a bad taste in their mouth for anything French. I can honestly say that Americans do not have the same mild dislike for the British. It’s just not here. I don’t see it or hear it. I do think that some Americans, not the better part of us, feel that the British have slightly up-turned noses. You know, a bit “upper crusty” and such. But then, I don’t think Americans perpetuated that stereotype, and I ceretainly don’t hear anyone mention it more often than I replace my calendar. We all have stereotypes, Americans included. They are only a problem if they are worn ont one’s sleeve.
I think that for the most part you are mistaking a fascination Americans may have with the similarity between our cultures as condecention. As for Hollywood, I don’t see why there is any surprise there. Hollywood is run by liberals who are making films to get money. It is filled with unscrupulous people who enjoy twisting the truth if it makes a more exciting film that will draw money. Hollywood is not a sample of the American public by any means. It is a sample of blind greed. That’s all.
I did not want to get into this conversation, but you have prompted me to:
I would not say that the anti-Americanism that I have seen is on a hateful level overall. However, in several discussions where several British posters were attemepting to sway my opinion but were not able to, they have resorted to changing their signatures to “God Bless the Royal Dragoons!” and such, and making comments that because I am American I have a blinded view of the subject. Quite a few times I’ve heard, “But you don’t understand! American’s think this or that! You don’t get the same info in America that we do! Here in Britain we know that such and such because such and such! You Americans think you know everything!”
Really, I have seen that. Not in those very words, but clear and plainly said enough. I’ve seen a lot of it. Even when the discussion was about something completely unrelated to nationality or who invented what. In every debate I have been in, someone British has brought up “Americans” or “because we British”. It is all the more frankly stated in light of the fact that I did not use nationality in my debate whatsoever! Yes, there has been plenty of that here. I hope that it stops.
I agree. I am trying, and will continue to.
I never said that section fire with AR’s is impossible. I said that it is not done, that it is not the policy of any army to use AR’s for section fire at 600m. And it’s not. The only documentation provided by anyone shows section fire at 300-500m. Not 600m. The banter that resulted was because I would not renig on my statement, which was true and had not been disproven by anyone. That’s where the “Awwww you are American, maybe they don’t do it over there!” and “God bless the Royal Scottish Regiment!” and such starts up.
I have not posted anything that is a lie. Wherever I have made an error and been show so, I have owned up to it.
Well, because of all the anti-Americanism that has been passed off as good fun, I doubt that I would be able to laugh at it. Its a little like the boy who cried wolf at this point. But I will try. You must then expect me to be able to do the same. I make you this promise: I will not make any anti-British sentiment and pass it off as a joke. I have no desire to make nationalistic comments. If I do jets as you do, you must be assured that I am a man of my word - any jest I make will be armless and not a reflection of feelings. As I have stated numerous times, I am not anti-British.
I saw nothing in that post that indicates that Americans and British conduct themselves remarkably differently in Iraq, or that indicates that Americans put forth some “Duke Nukem” persona intentionally or otherwise, or that they are impersonable toward the Iraqi people.
The only exception might be that the British soldier was not pointing his MG at the car behind his vehicle. That to me indicates nothing. It is true however, that American soldiers are constantly attacked when driving down the streets of Iraq by hidden gunmen and RPG’s. I’ve seen plenty of footage of it, and videos of it are not hard to find on the Net. I’ve seen some of those too. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for American soldiers to be on pins and needles when cruising down a street since they know that an RPG could blow thier Humvee at any second, or that someone is about to pop up on the roof of a building with a Bren or AK and let loose on them. It happes every single day.
If you have a better example, I would be interested in seeing it.
I saw nothing in that post that indicates that Americans and British conduct themselves remarkably differently in Iraq, or that indicates that Americans put forth some “Duke Nukem” persona intentionally or otherwise, or that they are impersonable toward the Iraqi people.
The only exception might be that the British soldier was not pointing his MG at the car behind his vehicle. That to me indicates nothing. It is true however, that American soldiers are constantly attacked when driving down the streets of Iraq by hidden gunmen and RPG’s. I’ve seen plenty of footage of it, and videos of it are not hard to find on the Net. I’ve seen some of those too. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for American soldiers to be on pins and needles when cruising down a street since they know that an RPG could blow thier Humvee at any second, or that someone is about to pop up on the roof of a building with a Bren or AK and let loose on them. It happes every single day.
If you have a better example, I would be interested in seeing it.[/quote]
(my emboldenment)
With respect, it doesn’t matter if it indicates anything to you, or to me, or not.
The point is it indicated something to the Iraqi who wrote the piece.
Being greeted in his own language also seems to have made a difference, as does the fact, since he thought it worthy of mention, that he was flagged down by a single soldier (although no doubt the car was being covered by others) in, in his words, a floppy hat.
I’ve never suggested that American troops put forth a “Duke Nukem” personna, or that how the British operate is better or worse than how the Americans do.
Just that there are differences.
The feeling in Bagdad is different than in the south. The blogger states that it is because it is less hostile there. It is far more hostile in the north (Bagdad area) and troops conduct themselves accordingly. That is not an indication that American troops are acting less respectfully. They are more in harm’s way there than in the area of the south where the British soldiers are, according to the blogger.
I also see that the British accidentally shot 2 men at a wedding and then, rightfully so, try to make good on it. Now, such mistakes happen in war. But there you have an example of where British soldiers make the same mistakes that American soldiers do because they are on “pins and needles” and never know exactly who may and may not be an armed combatant, but you are using that blog to make a point that Americans might point an MG at a car that come up behind them in a heavily combative zone?
I think you can see my point. The blogger is not comparing the way the British and Americans do anything. He is only remarking that the level of hostility and manner of troops varies from one place that is very hostile to one that is not.
I do, indeed, take your point.
It is worth considering, however, that the piece written by the Iraqi was printed on 2nd July 2003, less than two months after the declared end of hostilities, and before the insurgency and daily attacks really got going.
Again, I’m not making direct comparisons between British and American methods, and I am certainly not saying one is better than the other.
Merely showing how, as I said before, at least one Iraqi perceived the differences.
I do, indeed, take your point.
It is worth considering, however, that the piece written by the Iraqi was printed on 2nd July 2003, less than two months after the declared end of hostilities, and before the insurgency and daily attacks really got going.
Again, I’m not making direct comparisons between British and American methods, and I am certainly not saying one is better than the other.
Merely showing how, as I said before, at least one Iraqi perceived the differences.[/quote]
But that is my point. What the Iraqi blogger percieved does not even imply that anyone is conducting themselves more or less respectfully than anyone else. He is not expressing that according to himself there is such a percieved difference in troops behavior that is not directly related to the zone they are in or level of hostilities there.
He only states that becasue there is more histility in the north than the south, the British seem more relaxed there than whoever is fighting in the north. I don’t think it matters one bit that it was posted when it was. There was not a sudden end to hostilites by Iraqi insurgents against the troops. It just subsided. Even if it had, that does not mean a soldier is going to stop pointing his MG at cars that run up behind his Humvee in a place where such a thing has meant for a long time that there’s a chance you are living your last day on Earth. I think you percieved something in that blog that simply wasn’t there. Perhaps you could find something that actually does support your statemrent that American troops conduct themselves with less respect or congeniality with the Iraqi public. Honestly, I don’t know, but I rather doubt it.
IRONMAN drop the 600 metre thing, You know yo uare in the wrong you ahve already told Erwin that standrad rifles are effective at 600 metres, do you want to be a liar and ignorant, or misinformed with some spine and accept you didnt knwo shit when you made your comments about 600 yard section fire.
Bearing in mind your spring powered rifle comments and your “change weapons for FIBUA / OBUA” comment I suggest you know shit all about infantry tactics.
I don’t think it has been addressed at all except to say that Americans wear sunglasses for eye protection, which has been wrongly interpreted to indicate an attitude
Wrongly interpreted or not - if the local populatiuon feel thrteatened by sunglasses there aint shit all you can do about it! It matters not one Iota what the “intended” primary effect of the glasses is, if the secondary effect is to damage relations with the public you are there to protect and consequently leads to conflict. The opinion and percieved threat merntioned by the Iraqi blooger is important because it is the “percieved” threat that will amke the local popiulation hostile. regardless of what intent or threat the coalition actually pose
But it is not comparable. If you are walking down a street and someone of a particular group shoots at you and you pull you gun and fire back, are you the instigator? Certainly not. If you then put your weapon away and continue walking and another member of that group fires upon you, you fire back. Eventually you get to the end of the road where a member of that group without a gun says, “You bad American! You shot at 3 members of my group!” It’s ridiculous.
WTF? I think you are talking about retaliation in the face of criticism? If so then avoid gun references eytc you complicate the issue un-necessarily, especially as the situation you describe ahs alot of ramifications for all involved. If someone knocks your nation and they are in the wrong or misinformed then let them, Chances are they are talking Bull, if it is obviously bulloney then that will be noticed by the audience who will discount whatever the detractor says. Basically IRONMAN people who are wantonly cynical quickly lose their audiences without evidence to back them up.
“You bad Americans! You went to war in Iraq like we agreed you could!”
They didnt, the UN didnt, no one said you could go to war, the Hans Blic inspections had an aweful lot of other clauses attached, and no action was to be taken by the UN without Unanimous support, the US didnt get the support and yet still went in, in contravention of the UN mandate. You cannot wave UN mandates at ilegitmate rulers and then flout them yourself,. This to a large extenet is what has angered the Europeans.
How could the French have been doubtful about:
Video footage of Iraqi MIGs dropping das on crouds of feeling opeople on hillsides
Testimony from Iraqi (Kurdish) people who said that Iraq gassed them and people were falling dead everywhere
.
These events happened prior to Desert fox - Nothing was done to resolve the issue at the time, because Hussein was “our bastard” A Western nation on the doorstep of the Soviets sphere of Influence, the first time the the American French Uk, governments took an interest in Saddams behaviour was when he invaded Kuwait. Until then everyone including the US was happy to let Saddam play his own games on his soil in return for him not turing communist on us. " weeks prior to the invasion of Kuwait and after the World became aware of the plight of the Kurds the Uk and US were still shipping weapons realted equipment to the “butcher of Baghdad”.
Many have been asked to move aside for a Frenchman to pass or do this or that. When Americans try (using a translation dictionary) to talk to French shop owners, the French pretend not to be able to understand them and put their most expensive product on the counter, expecting the American to buy it. They smile at Americans as they take their money, then turn around, and not realizing the American can still hear them, say things like, “Those stupid Americans. They are just country people. They know nothing!”
That isnt anti american that is french arrogance there is a huge difference!
With regard to the God Bless the Royal Dragoons signatures etc. That is not anti American - if you would prefer us to bless teh 101st arborne we will, in order to demosntrate our support for your troops but that would be crass would it not!
And finally - Do not tell us not to mock Americans for being stupid and obnoxious when you have stood infront of this forum and slandered the British Army on evidence compiled from a google search for “Gurkhas” Attempted to educate British Infantrymen in the art of fieldcraft with your deluded ideas of section fire. and taken on (at present count) 4 "aeronautical Engineers ovewr the matter of jet aircraft engines -once again with information gleaned from Google.
You are showing yourself to be ignorant and consequently we do not respect you - npt the american nation but you singular. You have been shown to be misinformed and you have not backed down in the face of superior knowledge this justifiably ahs angered the forum.
DO NOT EDIT THIS MODS - EITHER DELETE IT OR LEAVE IT ALL.
Perhaps I am, indeed, seeing something in the blog more than was intended.
The pertinent point about the timing, however, is that at that particular time there had been no car bombings (IIRC) and few, if any, attacks from civilian vehicles.
So the point of your post which I emboldened is rather less relevant then than now, when I would agree the situation has changed dramatically, and particularly in the North.
As for the section I have italicised, this again is a statement I never made.
No evidence has ever been presented that proved the claim, but there was an official military docuiment provided that stated section fire at up to 300m with AR’s. I guess “Well, you Americans might not do it but we do in the British military!” stuff is your argument. All I have asked for was proof of the claim. None has been provided.
If American soldiers wear sunglasses, so WTF. You are trying to make something of nothing. Afterall, you are the most incindiary peron on this forum. That is what you do. You think that your barrage of heavy insults and name callings will intimidate me into changing either facts or my opinion. But those things cannot do that. Courteous, informative explaination might.
The soldiers have every reason to wear them…
…while they are promoting thier adopt-a-pet program and knocking doors to give bottled water and food, or building temporary housing or whatever. I have seen plenty of footage of US troops in Iraq and cannot remember seeing a single US soldier wearing sunglasses. If they do, it must not be that much. At least, not when cautiously walking down a street in Bagdad or Falujiah with a gun in their hand, wondering where the rounds will come from. I have not seen it. It may happen, but I’ve not seen it. Give it a rest bluffcove. The only real problem sunglasses are creating is in your mind.
I believe that the press gave some people the impression that US soldiers are all wearing sunglasses and strutting around like Duke Nukem, and it’s offending everyone in Iraq.
“Who’s that soldier wearing sunglasses? Is he American? He is? He’s trying to look cool while he defense himself with that gun in his hand! What an ass! Why would anyone wear sunglasses in Iraq for crying out loud! The sun is so dim here!”
Dear Lord. Some Iraqi was found by the press to be pissed about a relatively small number of American soldiers wearing sunglasses, and they make a circus of it. Bluffcove, do you not see what is going on here? Is that some sort of surprise to you?
At this point, I am inclined to believe that the sunglasses thing is simply an example of liberal press blather slanted with the intention of putting the US in a bad light by exaggerating something that could have been a problem on a few relatively rare occasions.
Could it be anti-Americanism in the press? Very possibly.
As I have pointed out but you failed to understand, the blogger made no distinction between British and American troops or their behavior. None. It was an observation that because things are nastier in the north than the south, the British soldier (in the south) did not point his gun at the car he was in. Nothing more. Read the blog again. You did not understand anything he was saying. You are completely misinterpreting it to suit your agenda, because that is what you do, Bluffcove. You do it always.
If someone has criticism of my country that is valid, I’ll stand behind them. You however, make a hobby of looking for it and misinterpreting things into it, like the blog.
And the British went in, and the Spanish went in. But, alas, again, you are pointing your finger at the AMERICANS. Bluffcove, you are the perfect example of what I was saying. Perfect.
The UN DID pass a resolution authorizing force if Iraq would not allow the inspectors to do their work. After the Iraqis stopping the inspection of this or that facility for so long, the US acted on the resolution. I’m glad they did. It needed doing lest the last bit of evidence be destroyed in the time they created for themselves. The UN has proven itself to be an inneffective body. Something had to be done. Time was wasting - for a very, very, long time.
Now which country are you pointing a finger at again? Oh! Yes, it was the AMERICANS, not the British. Have you posted anyhthing as negative on a forum about Britain’s involvement in Iraq? I think not. Not you anyway.
What you think of my opinion of that issue is really not what the point was anyway. it was about French anti-Americanism, which existed long before the US and Britain went to Iraq, and will exist long after we leave.
Precicely. The Iraqis used chemical weapons on the Kurds AFTER Operation Desert Storm and BEFORE Operation Desert Fox. You just made my point for me. Something could be done, and the US and Britain did it.
I have no problem with such slogans. I do begin to however, when they show up in great numbers when anti-American comments are being made.
I will not discuss that issue, as you have been told. Americans are not stupid and obnoxious, and you are doing exactly what I have said has been going on here. Nice one Bluffcove. Good going!
If only something other that ridiculous claims were made, you know, military documents, scentific documents that showed that you can make a jet engine that is 10X the size of another and weighs about the same, your comment would have legs.
I do not think so. Where I have made errors, I have owned up to them. Bluffcove, you are attempting to turn this thread into a debate about several differnt matters and mucking it up. You do that every time you rant at me. Please don’t ruin the thread.
OK Erwin. I respect your opinion about the M1 Carbine. I can see that the weapon is so close to being one that opinions can be strong about it either way.
Two post from another site on this subject. The first is from a NG tanker who at this time had about 8 months in post as a troop commander. The second I have no information on his history. I am sorry for the long post but they give a better description then i.
The British distinguish between peacekeeping, counterinsurgency and peace-enforcing, and have techniques to match all. (Actually, when they were training us, they did point out that hardball tactics do have their place and they do use them if required even in peacekeeping). The Americans know only hardball. At least, officially. Some of the troops on the ground have figured out to moderate their approach when required, but at the risk of incurring wrath. I saw one TC get hollered at by the Battalion CO for removing his kevlar CVC in order to better hear what some local was trying to say to him…
H’mm, rather too many gross over simplifications in these posts. A bit of history might help.
During the '50s and '60 (ie overing the current generation of the most senior officers (CGS was commissioned in Dec 63)) the basic approach was provided in ‘Keeping the Peace’. This was heavily based on keeping matters calm in colonies, ie such things as riot control. However, also during the '50s the Brits defeated a reasonably full communist insurgency in Malaya (the circumstances in Oman were different but this too led to a Marxist defeat). The roots of success in this lay in the believable political solutions to prevent the insurgency gaining popular support, singular civil government and the tactical triumverate of police, military and intelligence operating together as close to seamlessly as possible. Think about political and military, etc confusion of Vietnam and weep.
Counter-insurgency success was and is encapsulated in the principles of ‘winning hearts and minds’ and of ‘minimum force’. Today the latter is closely aligned the the legal need for the ‘proportionate use of force’ and has always meant the ‘minimum necessary force’. The reasons for this are obvious (at least to blind Freddie), while killing active insurgents will have a degree of acceptance in all but their most hardcore supporters, killing ‘civilians’ unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time reinforces the insurgents’ propaganda line and promotes support for them. Ie it does exactly the opposite of what is required. We call this stupid where I come from (with adjectives often added). Minimising the force reduces the likelihood of collateral damage.
The next thing it that insurgency has never been defeated by focussing on the insurgents and using attrition tactics to achieve a degree of suppression. That is a fact and Iraq is no different. Of course if it may be that the US plan is to achieve enough suppression to enable a full transfer to Iraqi rule and then leave, hoping that the elected government will be magically accepted by allied departure. Or is able to successfully adopt counter-insurgency that will lead to success. We’ll see, but anything other than either of these results will be a US defeat no matter how much spin Washington applies.
Successful counter-insurgency means seperating the insurgents from the rest of the population in a way that the insurgents eventually recognise their cause is lost. All war is about psychological effects.
To do this it is essential that the counter-insurgent forces use their best endevours to interact with the population and appear non-threatening to them as part of winning their hearts and minds. Without doing this, mere acquiesence is not enough, the insurgents will survive and prosper. It’s interesting that one of the things that seems to have helped in NI is the Quakers bringing local people and soldiers together so that they understood each others perspective. It was this that seems to have led (or at least confirmed) to the military understanding of the downsides of wearing obvious protection, using SUIT/SUSAT as a telescope (and the many less formal contacts with the locals were revealing the same message).
Returning to the subject of Brit doctrine, while lots of people have focussed on the peacekeeping part of spectrum and publications such as ‘Wider Peacekeeping’ (which didn’t last long because too many officers thought its thinking flawed), CRW doctrine was published in 1969 (ie the aftermath of Aden which looks remarkably like Iraqi albeit on a smaller scale), revised in 1977 and replaced in 2001 by Counter-Insurgency. These publications all embody wide experience in too many places in the 50s and 60s, understanding the US failure in Vietnam and learning from the fairly robust action of the later part of the Balkans.
Of course in Iraq everyone is politely avoiding the real question. Whether the problem of the Sunni triangle was inevitable or a consequence of bad decisions and incompetance in the days and weeks immediately after the fall of Baghdad.
I have seen two film that also indicating a different approach. In the first was from TV new and showed a patrol form my Bn and a SNCO that know. They were moving by veh and on foot at he time of the attack and also on film. A number of grenades were thrown at the patrol but the attackers could not be seen. The explosions were seen on film. The patrol took cover and withdrew to await support in the form of a warrior. The enemy was not seen and no fire was return.
The second was a convoy of US MPs and PMCs driving through Baghdad. They were attacked by grenades, which could be seen exploding as they drove by. They started shooting, no targets were identified. Heavy use of automatic weapons were heard from the MPs. The vehicles increased speed and the fire continued for 30-45 seconds after the attack. They had travel about 500-600m at least from the point of attack. No casualties had been taken.
The first film I do not think I will see again, the second is out there and I will find it if I can.
Precicely. The Iraqis used chemical weapons on the Kurds AFTER Operation Desert Storm and BEFORE Operation Desert Fox. You just made my point for me. Something could be done, and the US and Britain did it.
I think you are wrong the Kurds were gassed long before desert storm not after.
Eyewitnesses have said that Iraqi warplanes dropped three clusters each of four bombs on the village of Birjinni on August 25, 1988. Observers recall seeing a plume of black, then yellowish smoke, followed by a not-unpleasant odor similar to fertilizer, and also a smell like rotten garlic. Shortly afterwards, villagers began to have trouble breathing, their eyes watered, their skin blistered, and many vomited–some of whom died. All of these symptoms are consistent with a poison gas attack.
Sadam did not have an NBC capability after GW1. He did not want the other Arab states to believe that he had lost them as they would not fear him. Not letting the UN prove that he did not have them was a game of bluff. If they could not prove he did not have them, then he possibly could have them. the bluff did not work as he did not believe the US would attack. For the US’s part they failed to allocate effective forces to the task, they disarmed and disbanded the Iraqi army, they did not have a plan for after the fighting, all are political problems.
The only person to come out f this sorry state is Powel who in GW1 I believed stoped the US forces going into Iraq as he knew they could not hold or control it without significant forces and a long time.
Honestly, I had not read that statement before writing my comment above: 