Brits vs Americans - discuss

[TheEarl]

So you are under the impression that our presence in Iraq has a stabilizing, calming effect?

Lol cantdog - a very apposite comment. No I don't believe our presence in Iraq is having a stabilising effect. My POV was always that invading a country because we think their leader's a nasty person and shouldn't be in power is one step away from making them part of an Anglo-American empire because we know what's best for them. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a truly terrible man. So's Robert Mugabe. Do we invade every country for their own good? Maybe their idea of their own good doesn't coincide with our idea of their own good?

However, the fact remains is that we are there and we have supplanted Hussein. If we just withdraw now, saying "Sorry, big mistake. Bye!" then there is a power vacuum which another tyrant will fill and the death and destruction will have been for nothing. At least with Allawi there is a chance of a democratic regime.

Steve, I have no problem with most of what you last posted, e.g., that the US aids terrorists, and has done so for many decades.

As to the Earl's *big* question

Pure - I will apologise for this, it is a pet peeve of mine and you are about to get a rant. America is supposed to be a civilised, intelligent country. What the hell were your citizens doing paying for bombs to blow up one of your allies!!

But Earl, America pays for ordnance that is used
against itself!

(US, with Brits, helped arm Iraq; US armed the mujihideen in Afghanistan, that is to say, Osama and co.)

I think there's no easy answer, Earl, because of the old cliche: one man's terrorist is another's 'freedom fighter.' The US will, *while denouncing it* , continue to support 'terror' whenever convenient-- Reagan provided several examples, including Iran.

Pure: Yes, every country has armed a 'resistance' group at some time, because they thought it would help their foreign policy and then been astounded when it backfired. That's not what the USA did. It wasn't for your own benefit, it didn't weaken one of your enemies, or strengthen an ally. It was to secure the vote of Irish-American lobby or to support some misty-eyed and insupportable dream of a united Ireland. People gave to Noraid, knowing that their money would be used to kill people, but they had some fucking stupid dream of an evil Imperialist Britain invading N.Ireland and oppressing the poor population with our totalitarian government, whilst those valiant freedom fighters struggled to free their people.

The IRA weren't freedom fighters. Maybe they were at first, but they weren't fighting for their freedom - we weren't oppressing N.Ireland when they blew up Canary Wharf. They were stupid fuckbags who enjoyed blowing people up. And your politicans openly helped them, so as not to lose the Irish-American vote. The ordinary citizens and politicians of the USA murdered innocent civilians.

Can you tell me you're not in the least bit ashamed of that, or will you just brush it off as 'one of those things that every government does.' Maybe we British should start donating money to Al-Quaeda, simply because they're poor freedom fighters struggling to rid themselves of the yoke of those awful, awful Americans?

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

I liked that America. The competent America. The America that wasn't 100% focused on itself...Maybe 90%, but still, I was proud of us sometimes. I want it back.

I remember thinking, at the time, that Clinton's stand on the IRA would be remmebered - not only over there, but here. I didn't fully believe back then that we were too selfish to appreciated a leader who cared about the wider world.

To be honest shereads, Clinton won't be remembered as a man who took a brave stand on N.Ireland. For a lot of British citizens, it will never be a case of shaking his hand for being brave, more yelling at every previous president who killed innocent British and Irish civilians for a dream that never existed.

The Earl

 

[shereads]

However, the fact remains is that we are there and we have supplanted Hussein. If we just withdraw now, saying "Sorry, big mistake. Bye!" then there is a power vacuum which another tyrant will fill and the death and destruction will have been for nothing.

That's my feeling, too. We've permanently liberated 10,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed their country's infrastructure, and opened their borders to terrorism. That sucks. The only thing worse would be to walk away and leave millions of unarmed, unorganized survivors at the mercy of the mess we've made. They weren't all targeted for torture by Saddam Hussein. Some of them had things better than they do now. Notably, women and girls who benefited from living in a secular society. From their perspective, the very best we can accomplish will make their lives worse than they were.

 

[Pure]

I see, we stay for the sake of the women and kids. Like we stay in Afg'n.

Sher, what's your est. of the number of women and kids killed or maimed per day (for which the US is responsible), since the "mission accomplished."

Mine is 10/day (About 6000 over last 18 mos.)**

Ever check www.iraqbodycount.net ?

**Let us assume, FTSOA, that the deaths and maimings of maybe twice that number, of husbands, brothers, fathers is of no consequence.

 

[TheEarl]

Pure: And you are of the opinion that we should just pack up and go? Leaving anyone that can raise a private army to take control. The entire place would descend into civil war. Surely you can't advocate that?

On your notice of the women and kids killed and maimed a day, your point is vulgarly made, but well taken. It takes us back to the start of this thread. The US approach isn't working. Note the far lower civilian casualty rate in the British-controlled South and the corresponding lower levels of insurgency. There's a QED there.


Also back to the beginnings of this thread, it has been confirmed that 850 soldiers of HM Black Watch will take over previously American-held ground in the North of the country. Teflon Tony has assured Parliament that this movement has nothing to do with politicals; it is a simple military decision to free up American forces for an assault on Fallujah. The troops will be under British command and will follow a British approach, rather than the American one of shooting everybody and everything.

It does however, mean that we are jeopardising our position in this country. As Pure so delicately pointed out, the Americans have a reputation in Iraq (deserved or undeserved) for being callous bastards who care nothing about civilian casualties and who don't care about collateral damage as long as their aims are achieved. The British are slowly gaining a good reputation - we haven't made any grandiose military movements, we haven't antagonised the population too much and the few soldiers who saw fit to partake in some 'spoils of war' have been openly and quickly sentenced to 8 years in jail. Now we are risking that reputation by this troop movement - we are freeing up American soldiers for what will probably be a costly and terrible assault on Fallujah, which may end up with hundreds of civilian casulaites and probably the levelling of the city. In the eyes of some Iraqis, that's as bad as taking part ourselves.

Quote of the week: By Geoff Hoon (British Defence Minister) - The American missiles have pin-point accuracy and I don't expect there to be many civilian casualties. Hands up who believes him!

The Earl

 

[Pure]

Just to underscore a point that doesn't jump out in the last posting, but was the reason for the thread.

The Brits, I see in today's paper, have agreed--in opposition to some British persons' views expressed, here-- to send the requested troops into some "American" (american controlled) areas, to free up American troops for Fallujah.

"You like down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

 

[oggbashan]

The argument in Parliament has been about whether the decision to move troops was a military one, which has been stated frequently by Geoff Hoon, Minister of Defence, or a political one to help George Bush before his election.

It has been considered that George Bush could not send more US troops now because that would give ammunition to Kerry. British troop movements do not have that impact in the US.

The disproportionate numbers of US and UK forces means that moving the UK forces will add much less than 1% to the forces already deployed in the US sector.

The US, UK, and multinational sectors are an administrative arrangement.

Moving forces from one sector to another should be no big deal UNLESS their rules of engagement are different. They are.

OR that the decision is taken for other than operational reasons. There is still some doubt about that.

The Conservative opposition support the move as being a reasonable request to an ally from the US military commander in Iraq. They criticise the government's handling of the issue. That is a political, not military, matter.

How the UK troops will be received is debatable. It is expected that they will be targeted by insurgents trying to force a wedge between the UK and US. They may well kill UK troops but they will not alter the UK's objective of supporting the Iraqi interim government and the US to ensure free and fair elections.

Og

 

[TheEarl]

Just to underscore a point that doesn't jump out in the last posting, but was the reason for the thread.

Also back to the beginnings of this thread, it has been confirmed that 850 soldiers of HM Black Watch will take over previously American-held ground in the North of the country. Teflon Tony has assured Parliament that this movement has nothing to do with politicals; it is a simple military decision to free up American forces for an assault on Fallujah. The troops will be under British command and will follow a British approach, rather than the American one of shooting everybody and everything.

I would have said that jumped out well enough.

The disproportionate numbers of US and UK forces means that moving the UK forces will add much less than 1% to the forces already deployed in the US sector.

Not meaning to boast, but the Black Watch is better equipped and better trained than most of the US units in the area, which are inexperienced in general combat, let alone this kind of war. They're certainly better troops than any reserves the USA could call up at short notice. I think the US wanted quality, rather than just warm bodies to fill posts. Plus the BW is sending armored cars and other vehicles, which the US military is severely lacking.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

I have no objection to the quality of the Black Watch. They have a proud tradition to maintain.

The quality of some of our territorials in Iraq? Did you know that some of them are considered so untrained in weapon handling that they are considered too dangerous to be allowed onto an Army firing range?

They don't know where to point their personal weapon yet. However most of the 'untrained' are experts in other fields. We have expert water engineers, power station fixers etc. Who cares if they can't shoot straight (or at all) if they can deliver fresh water and reliable power?

Og

 

[Pure]

I don't have any problem with the soldiering quality of the Black Watch.

But it's worth remembering that all soldiers in this 'occupying' and 'liberating' position, esp. in the Sunni areas, have a job (other than staying alive), or better, an objective, which it is not possible to accomplish by military means (that are tolerable in the papers back home).

The Americans are stretched very thin, and the bad side of this sort of stop gap maneuver in that it preserves the illusion that there are enough American soldiers there to do the job (Rummy's doctrine)--within the times for which they enlisted!!.

 

[Pure]

this newspaper acct. is at variance with what's been said here, about the positioning of black watch. anyone worried?

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=574823


Black Watch ordered to join US cordon for assault on Fallujah

By Colin Brown Deputy Political Editor

22 October 2004The Black Watch regiment was yesterday ordered by the Cabinet to help US forces throw a "ring of steel" around Fallujah before an all-out assault on insurgents in the city.

The 850-strong 1st battalion, including three companies of armoured infantry, totalling some 500 men, equipped with 50 Warrior armoured troop carriers, is being ordered to hold an approach road into Fallujah, where extremists including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi _ who is believed to have murdered Kenneth Bigley _ are thought to have their strongholds.

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned over the war, last night warned Tony Blair that Britain will be associated with the blame if the assault on Fallujah resulted in heavy civilian casualties.

There are fears that the number of troops in Iraq is being increased under cover of the moves to replace the 1st Battalion, the Black Watch as the main reserve force, fuelling anxiety among Labour MPs that Britain will be sucked into a Vietnam-style war. Mr Blair denied on Wednesday in the Commons that the number of British troops in Iraq was being increased, but Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, refused to repeat that denial last night when challenged on BBC radio.

Patrick Mercer, the shadow Home Security Minister, accused ministers of "sneaking in the extra troops". He added: "Tony Blair has said he is prepared to pay the blood price. Let us hope that not too many of this battle group have to honour his words."

Mr Blair warned MPs to expect an upsurge in violence in the run-up to the January elections in Iraq. Dissident Labour MPs said last night they feared Britain would be asked again by the US to send more troops.

The role assigned to the Black Watch will also cause anxiety that British troops are being more closely associated than expected with the forthcoming assault on Fallujah. The Defence Secretary indicated on Monday that they would be relieving an existing US unit, but military sources said last night that was not the case. "The Americans are throwing a ring of steel around Fallujah, and are sending in Iraqi forces to do the close fighting. The British and American forces will be in an outer ring of steel," a military source said. "The Black Watch will protect an approach route to the city. They are not replacing an existing American force."

The number of British troops in Iraq is set to rise because the Black Watch will be replaced by an 850-strong force of the 1st Battalion, the Scots Guards with Warrior armoured vehicles.

The Prime Minister's official spokesman said Mr Blair secured the "unanimous" support of the Cabinet for his Iraq strategy. Whips headed off a full-scale mutiny by Labour backbenchers furious at Mr Blair for appearing to put British lives at risk to support George Bush in the US election.

Mr Blair saw a handful of the MPs in one-to-one meetings, including Anne Campbell, the Labour MP for Cambridge, who said he had persuaded her that it was for military, not political purposes. Eric Illsley, a Labour MP who supported the Government in a vote on the war, said: "I still think this is a symbolic gesture to help Bush. It would have been better to delay the whole decision until after the presidential elections."

 

[TheEarl]

Thanks Pure, hadn't seen that report. I'm bloody worried about that. I don't want British troops anywhere near what is likely to be the debacle of Fallujah. Even if the Americans win, they'll have lost the Iraqi hearts and minds and I don't want our troops even remotely associated with that.

On another note, I actually support the movement of more British troops into Iraq. The sceptics are right, the movement of 850 1st Battallion troops into Iraq is an stealth way of increasing our military presence without worrying the electorate, but I think it's a good thing. Britain can afford to 'win hearts and minds' because we are in control in our areas. Should we need to help the Americans more often and our forces become too stretched, then those hearts and minds could easily be lost. I'd prefer to have a redundancy of soldiers rather than too few.

And I'll second Ogg in saying I'd prefer to see more of the regular army rather than the TA (Territorial Army - it's a British reserve force made up of part-timers). They sound like something of a menace.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Bullshit!

Eeehaah!

I'd been married long time ago
If it hadn't been for old Cotten-eyed Joe

I'd been married long time ago
If it hadn't been for old Cotten-eyed Joe

Where does he come from?
Where does he go?
Where does he come from?
Old Cotten-eyed Joe

Where does he come from?
Where does he go?
Where does he come from?
Old Cotten-eyed Joe

What did I say?
Bullshit!
Say it again!
Bullshit!
What did I step in?
Bullshit!
One more time!
Bullshit!

Now you plays it fast and plays it slow
Everybody dues Cotten-eyed Joe
Now you plays it fast and plays it slow
Everybody dues Cotten-eyed Joe

Where does he come from?
Where does he go?
Where does he come from?
Old Cotten-eyed Joe

What did I say?
Bullshit!
Say it again!
Bullshit!
What did I step in?
Bullshit!
One more time!
Bullshit!
Little bit louder!
Bullshit!

 

[Pure]

Another bit about the Brits, Black Watch, etc. from
www.spiked-online.com

22 October

No shooting please, we're British

The storm over the movement of Black Watch troops in Iraq suggests the British elite is happy to support a war so long as it doesn't have to fight one.

by Brendan O'Neill


'Just say no.' That was the Guardian's considered advice to the UK government over the redeployment of British Black Watch troops from Basra to central Iraq to take the place of Americans who have to go off and fight insurgents. Defence secretary Geoff Hoon confirmed yesterday that 500 troops and 350 support personnel will move to the US sector, freeing up US soldiers to (allegedly) launch a new offensive against Fallujah (1).


But it wasn't only sceptical-about-war newspapers that urged a 'no' to the movement of Brits to a reportedly riskier part of Iraq; so did many of those who said 'yes' to invading Iraq in the first place, including members of parliament who voted for the war and military officials who have overseen much of the war. Some in the British establishment seem happy to support a war, so long as they don't have to fight in it.


The stink over the Black Watch redeployment reveals far more about the state of mind in Westminster than it does about the state of affairs in Iraq. Ministers, officials and journalists complain that the Brits will be at greater risk in central Iraq than they were down south - but what is the job of a soldier if not to take risks in a war setting, especially one that his own leaders helped to create? It is a profound uncertainty about the war at home, rather than any real rise in danger in Iraq, that has caused such consternation about the Black Watch movement.


The Black Watch troops are not being asked to do anything especially hairy, at least not by wartime standards. For all the talk of being dragged into a quagmire or, in the words of one report, being 'sucked into a Vietnam-style war' (2), in fact the soldiers are making a temporary move, expected to last around two months, to patrol an area 25 miles south of Baghdad. The US sector may be less pleasant than Basra, but the Black Watch are unlikely to come up against anything they haven't been trained for.


One reason why such standard postwar ugliness - whether it's insurgents firing at US troops in Fallujah or British troops being asked to patrol hostile territory south of Baghdad - can be discussed in such apocalyptic terms is because the coalition thought Iraq would be a walk in the park. They prepared for a war without much fighting or bloodshed or military engagement at all, with a strategy that stressed avoiding risky action and hand-to-hand combat. As a result of such wishful thinking, any kind of danger can come across as terrifying.


Consider Basra, where most of the Brits have been based for the past 18 months. Before the war coalition officials talked about Basra as a pushover. They hoped that the city's Shias would welcome Western forces with 'open arms', allowing the coalition to 'capitalise on any scene of liberation and beam it to a sceptical world' (3). The reality - a sometimes hostile and disgruntled population, with pockets of resistance here and there - now appears overbearing, not because these forces are any match for the British, but because the British didn't expect to encounter many hostile forces at all.


Indeed, the British response to hostility in Basra has been to retreat to barracks. In August and September, when there were clashes between British troops and supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Daily Telegraph reported that 'after three [British] deaths in as many weeks, the British army has stopped patrolling the streets of Basra'. They took to moving around in armoured vehicles, 'on patrols not more than 100 yards from base'. When Basra residents demanded the expulsion of 'al-Sadr's people', British Major Ian Clooney said: 'I can understand what the Iraqis are saying, but confronting violence with violence is not going to work….' (4)



One American general has reportedly denounced the British approach as 'risk-averse' and 'institutionalised cowardice' (5). Yet for all the claims that US forces are imposing their imperialist will on Iraq, their campaign too has appeared faltering and defensive. Much of America's occupation has been conducted from behind high walls or from helicopter gunships.


One report describes how hundreds of American troops spend their time in Saddam's old palaces or guarding the 'Green Zone' in Baghdad, a cordoned-off part of the city centre, massively guarded and for the exclusive use of coalition officials, only occasionally venturing out. Earlier this year a poll asked Iraqis what they thought of coalition forces - 77 per cent said they had never had an encounter with a soldier from the coalition (6). Indeed, it is striking that the supposedly more gung-ho Americans should need 850 Brits as back up. The Americans have 135,000 troops in Iraq. Where are they all? What are they doing?


In both the American and British camps, the talk of quagmires, of new Vietnams, of unacceptably risky redeployments, is not a rational response to what's happening on the ground, which is not any more grisly than what has occurred in other wars. Rather it's a product of the coalition's misguided belief that it could fight a war with the war bit taken out. This week the Los Angeles Times reported that President Bush apparently told televangelist Pat Robertson in private before the war started that 'we're not going to have any casualties' in Iraq; if this is true, it is hardly surprising that casualties, or injuries or risky redeployments, are seen as both unexpected and unacceptable.


The fuss over the Black Watch redeployment also points to deep divisions within the British elite over the war in Iraq. It appears that news of the redeployment was leaked by the military itself to the BBC, a week before the government planned to make an announcement, because military commanders are concerned about the 'prospect of a movement of [British] forces into the Sunni triangle', or of a 'sharp increase in military fatalities' (7). (Perhaps they also believe, like Major Ian Clooney in Basra, that violence solves nothing.)


Behind the Black Watch controversy lurks a clash between the government and the military. According to John Kampfner, political editor of the New Statesman: 'For all the public show of agreement between officers and their political masters, rarely in the recent history of the British armed forces can the disdain of the top brass towards ministers have been so open as it is now…. What exercises them more than anything is the idea that they are seen as willing tools of a prime minister who uses the military as the vehicle for his "delusions of international grandeur". These last words are not mine.' (8)


This is a quite extraordinary state of affairs - a government that apologetically redeploys troops while its apparently anti-violence military tries to scupper the plan. This shows the extent to which it was doubt and uncertainty at home that made the movement of a few hundred troops abroad into the storm of the month.

 

[TheEarl]

That is quite possibly the most ill-informed article I've read in a long long time.

It is a profound uncertainty about the war at home, rather than any real rise in danger in Iraq, that has caused such consternation about the Black Watch movement.

No, it's the fact that we don't want to associate with the Americans. The furore has been over whether it's for purely military reasons or political and also whether we want to follow American orders or continue our own policies.

They (the British) prepared for a war without much fighting or bloodshed or military engagement at all, with a strategy that stressed avoiding risky action and hand-to-hand combat. As a result of such wishful thinking, any kind of danger can come across as terrifying.

Yet the Scottish Grenadiers managed to uproot a terrorist group by charging with bayonets, thus avoiding collateral damage and completely eradicating the cell. This to me would seem more professional than the US approach of missiles and helicopter gunships to destroy everything in their path.

Before the war coalition officials talked about Basra as a pushover. ... The reality - a sometimes hostile and disgruntled population, with pockets of resistance here and there - now appears overbearing, not because these forces are any match for the British, but because the British didn't expect to encounter many hostile forces at all.

In fact the coalition fully expected the battle for Basra to be second only to Baghdad and were amazed at how little effort they had to expend to capture the city. Preparations for warfare were much more thorough than actually necessary. The resistance is far from overbearing in Basra - it is reported than the city is more than usually peaceful compared to the rest of Iraq. There are still terrorists, but they are being dealt with. I wouldn't call it overbearing.

Indeed, the British response to hostility in Basra has been to retreat to barracks. In August and September, when there were clashes between British troops and supporters of Moqtada al-Sadr, the Daily Telegraph reported that 'after three [British] deaths in as many weeks, the British army has stopped patrolling the streets of Basra'. They took to moving around in armoured vehicles, 'on patrols not more than 100 yards from base'. When Basra residents demanded the expulsion of 'al-Sadr's people', British Major Ian Clooney said: 'I can understand what the Iraqis are saying, but confronting violence with violence is not going to work….' (4)

Talk about quoting out of context. 'Stopped patrolling the streets of Basra' was actually a reduction of overt patrols. If there are snipers on your patrol route, and you know where they are, are you going to blithely walk into their 'kill-zone.' Or are you going to curtail your patrol until you can find them and remove them?

Expulsion of Al-Sadr's people. The report says it like it's such an easy thing. Here are 100 Iraqis. Pick out the ones who are Al-Sadr's people! Go on, don't be shy. Intelligence will root them out. This report seems to advocate steaming in with full force and killing anyone who might be a terrorist.

One American general has reportedly denounced the British approach as 'risk-averse' and 'institutionalised cowardice'

Translation: Those Brits don't go and blow up as many things as we do. They aren't making big military manouevres and killing people. Cowards!

Indeed, it is striking that the supposedly more gung-ho Americans should need 850 Brits as back up. The Americans have 135,000 troops in Iraq. Where are they all? What are they doing?

Mentioned earlier in this thread. If we know, then I'd expect a journalist should have done enough research to know. The US troops who are not on vital duties do not have the equipment or training to take over those posts.

The fuss over the Black Watch redeployment also points to deep divisions within the British elite over the war in Iraq. It appears that news of the redeployment was leaked by the military itself to the BBC, a week before the government planned to make an announcement, because military commanders are concerned about the 'prospect of a movement of [British] forces into the Sunni triangle', or of a 'sharp increase in military fatalities' (7). (Perhaps they also believe, like Major Ian Clooney in Basra, that violence solves nothing.)

My translation of the military commaders' quotes - They really don't want to be associated with the American approach and indeed - at the time - were fearful that they'd be under American command. This reporter's translation - they're all cowards.

I think I'll actually forward this post to the editor of that website with a suggestion that his reporters get more facts before writing such ill-advised and unknowledgeable articles.

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Simple, simple ideas. Yet they seem to be working. Crying shame that Col. Collins is retired.

The Earl



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3755940.stm

A very British occupation

Soft caps and a conciliatory approach are said to typify the British army's strategy in southern Iraq, in contrast to the more robust approach by the Americans. But, as British troops consider submitting to American command, the truth is rather more complex.

Eighteen months after the invasion of Iraq the words of Colonel Tim Collins's celebrated eve-of-battle speech still echo in the ears of British squaddies pacing the pot-holed streets of Basra.

"If you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory," Col Collins told the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish, in a pep-talk that stole the newspaper headlines as the invasion began in March 2003.

It's become something of a cliché that while American soldiers face murderous attacks almost daily, in the British patrolled south-eastern quarter of the country troops have fostered a more relaxed environment.

But the so-called "softly-softly" approach by the British is said to have provoked a backlash in some quarters, with an unnamed American general apparently dismissing it as "risk averse" and "institutionalised cowardice".

The true picture is far more complex.

Partly it's a matter of geography. From the start it was widely acknowledged that British troops would have a relatively easier job than their American counterparts in the central and northern belt.

The Shia Muslims in the south always had more to gain from the overthrow of the ruling Sunni minority in Baghdad.

However, the tidal wave of religious sentiment in the south, after years of suppression, has thrown up its own challenges. The uprising by Shia rebels in Najaf in August spilled over into the UK-patrolled sector - British bases in Amara and Basra sustained several hundred mortar hits between them.

In response the British fired 100,000 rounds of ammunition, recovered several tonnes of ammunition and are said to have killed "hundreds of Iraqis" in the process.

By and large, things have bedded down again, although the killing of two British soldiers in an ambush last month was a reminder of the constant underlying threat of violence. It brought the number of UK military casualties to 68.

Small things mean a lot

Troops in Basra are back on foot patrol, and in some instances at least, are sporting soft caps rather than hard helmets - headgear has come to be seen as a barometer of the threat facing the military.

Sunglasses and hard hats - the mark of patrolling US soldiers
Similar, sometimes almost negligible, factors have been credited with helping bridge the gap with locals. British soldiers tend to forgo sunglasses, enabling them to make eye contact with civilians, and they drive in soft, canvas-backed Land Rovers.

Even the way they hold their weapons - disciplined, but non-confrontational - has been noted.

Col Tim Collins, now retired from the army, likens the British approach in Iraq to its successful counter-insurgency efforts in Malaya in the 1950s, while the American style is more akin to Vietnam in the 60s, he says.

"You have to abide by certain principles as an occupying force. Set a time frame for withdrawal, act scrupulously within the rule of international law, separate insurgents from the mass of well-meaning people and win the hearts and minds," says Col Collins.

"The British approach has been to seek to address the causes of insurgency come what may. Regrettably, the Americans seem to be following the approach of increasingly bombing the locals into submission."

Devolved authority

The British approach is both cultural, and derived from lessons in Malaya and Oman in the 60s and 70s, and taught - counter-insurgency techniques are part of the basic training for soldiers and officers alike.

Conduct of British troops is scrupulously judged by Iraqis
A senior army officer points to key operational differences between the US and UK approach.

"While American soldiers are no less intelligent or have no less initiative they tend to rely on repetitive drills and operating procedures rather than what we call 'mission command' allowing the soldier on the ground to make a decision.

"We have a term - the 'strategic corporal'. A corporal is the lowest rank who can command a unit on the ground and yet they are taught right from the outset that they are allowed, even expected, to make important decisions in the blink of an eye."

Lower ranking US troops don't have that autonomy, meaning they are less able to tailor action in the fluctuating circumstances of a confrontation, the senior officer says.

While more hot-headed troops would almost certainly shoot on sight a man in civilian clothes who is wearing a gun, the British tend to be more circumspect, he says.

"We would be questioning whether that man might have been a policeman on his way home, a soldier about to report for duty - in other words, not always what it may first seem."

 

[Guest]

I think its quite natural for the Brits to come up and hold the easy ground under their own leadership. That frees up the American’s to whoop some more ass, and of course suffer the causalities from such action, excuse me….how many NATO troops have died so far?
Friendly fire is just part of war, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time…….well you’re fucked plain and simple, soldiers understand that more than the rest of you.
Leave war to the professionals and keep the politicians and meddlers out of the mix, yes that means you.

 

[scheherazade_79]

Friendly fire is just part of war, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time…….well you’re fucked plain and simple, soldiers understand that more than the rest of you.

Joke from WW2

When the Brits fired, the Germans ducked
When the Germans fired, the Brits and the Americans ducked.
When the Americans fired, everyone ducked.

 

[TheEarl]

I think its quite natural for the Brits to come up and hold the easy ground under their own leadership. That frees up the American’s to whoop some more ass, and of course suffer the causalities from such action, excuse me….how many NATO troops have died so far?

The ass in question probably mostly belonging to civilians as the terrorists will have fucked off before you attack. If you think Al-Zarqawi's going to hang about while you prepare to attack, I think you have another think coming.

Friendly fire is just part of war, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time…….well you’re fucked plain and simple, soldiers understand that more than the rest of you. [/B]

What about if you're in the right place at the right time and you still get fucked plain and simple? More British soldiers died from American artillery than from Iraqi during the actual war.

The Earl

 

[steve w]

So what's the opposite of "risk-averse"?

"Couldn't give a shit"?

Once again we see the gung-ho macho bullshit that surrounds so much US military and political thinking. The idea that the only way to succeed militarily is to smash everything to smithereens (including innocent civilians, some of your own allies' troops, and the infrastructure of a country) is pathetic.

The US treats every military action as a giant John Wayne movie. There is no trace of understanding of the need to keep the support of the vast majority of peace-loving Iraqis, who wish to have some semblance of their country left after the US troops have finished humiliating prisoners, abusing human rights, and treating every Iraqi (friend or foe) like something they've just stepped in. Just as there was no trace of post-war planning before they went in.

The truly worrying thing is that the US has done this time and again, and has totally failed to learn the lesson. Wonder why so many people hate you, guys? Look at yourselves. Look at how the "ambassadors of your nation" behave in other peoples' countries. You've confused necessary military action with senseless and counter-productive military bullying and a total disregard for rebuilding a society.

No doubt at some point you'll pull out of Iraq, congratulate yourselves on doing such a fine job, and then wonder why hundreds of millions of people think you're jerks. It'll all be a big mystery, won't it?

As for the British not wishing to fight - yeah, damned right. When a peaceful transition to civilian rule can be achieved by engaging with the people, taking action where necessary, but also showing yourself to be firm but fair, that's the way to go. Much better than training a bunch of naive kids to believe the only way to treat Muslims is to blow up their religious buildings, abuse them in prisons, or shoot a whole household and then try to work out if there was a terrorist there.

 

[Pure]

One question, steve,

Assume 90% of the Iraq action is conducted, John Wayne style, as you describe.

Do you really think the Brits--*esp if not confined to one area; i.e., are mixed in with the Americans*-- are going to come out with lots of hosannas, and *with success* in their mission. I.e, the whole American mission may fail, precipitating a number of nasty variations of full-scale insurgency, civil war, and chaos. Would that not likely drag down a small enclave of civilization run by the Brits, with it?

 

[TheEarl]

One question, steve,

Assume 90% of the Iraq action is conducted, John Wayne style, as you describe.

Do you really think the Brits--*esp if not confined to one area; i.e., are mixed in with the Americans*-- are going to come out with lots of hosannas, and *with success* in their mission. I.e, the whole American mission may fail, precipitating a number of nasty variations of full-scale insurgency, civil war, and chaos. Would that not likely drag down a small enclave of civilization run by the Brits, with it?

Pure: That has been a theme of the discussions all the way through this thread - if we support the Americans in this way, then our troops will be associated with any cock-ups perpetrated by those Americans. So far the British-controlled South has survived America's attempts to make enemies from the entire Iraqi population, but I do fear for our lads if the US makes Fallujah SNAFU.

The Earl

 

[fifty5]

Shit!

Thank God (even though I'm an atheist) that I'm not in charge over there.

Cyprus - and N Ireland - have taken how long to get sensible?

It's probably prejudice (by which I mean a tiny bit of knowledge, reinforced by lots of ignorance), but what I've seen of Islamic culture tells me that they, Islamic people, rate leaders (of families, sects, nations) more highly than do most UK and US nationals. If I'm right, then that puts them even more at risk of selfish leadership than 'we' are - and 'our' risk is pretty awful/awesome.

'Softly, softly catchee monkey" has to (IMHO) be better than a macho aproach, but that sort of self-restraint is bloody hard work - for the US, the UK, and for Iraqis.

Like I say, I'm bloody glad I'm not in charge - I suspect my temper would be far too short!

Eff

 

[steve w]

Pure,

You don't seem to have grasped the concept at all. Let me explain it again, simply.

1 The British and American approaches are fundamentally different.

2 The British approach respects human rights and the people of Iraq, and has been more successful in protecting them, and the future of their country.

3 The American approach is overly-aggressive, pathetically simplistic, and totally counter-productive.

If you'd followed my previous comments, you would be aware that I oppose the Black Watch regiment being anywhere near the American forces. Not just because some of our troops will doubtless be killed by "friendly fire", but because we run the risk of being tainted by the inevitable American approach. This approach will involve flooding the area with troops, shooting at anything that moves, blowing up religiously-important buildings, and missing the insurgents, who will have sneaked out long before Uncle Sam arrives.

I stand by my view that the US has no idea how to combat terrorism, either in this limited theatre or in the wider world.

Think about it - if the US does not understand how to defeat terrorists, and persists in counter-productive aggression that only provides fertile recruitment for terrorists, HOW DOES THIS MAKE THE WORLD OR THE UNITED STATES SAFER?

 

[Pure]

The US holds the key to paying off Blair’s debts

Peter Oborne

I was brought up near Warminster in Wiltshire, and love this quiet, unassuming country town. Its proximity to the Salisbury plain has ensured it the role of local garrison, a position viewed with at best mixed emotions by the locals. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s the Royal Irish Rangers, unable to serve back home, incessantly returned to Warminster. The Irish Rangers, since disbanded, were brave men and fine soldiers, but they instilled a reign of terror in the local pubs and nightspots that is remembered with a shudder to this day.

Now Warminster plays host to one of the British army’s most famous regiments, the Black Watch, or to be precise their families, for most of the men have been serving in southern Iraq. Over the past month or so a trickle of Black Watch soldiers has started to return to Warminster, preparing for the end of their tour of duty, their second since the start of the conflict. Then last week, with no warning, this Black Watch advance guard was ordered back to Iraq, and told they would be expected to stay beyond Christmas.

Army families are accustomed to constant disruption, tearful partings, the loneliness and isolation of barracks life. These families are often rooted in a regimental tradition dating back generations, and possess a stoicism and honourable resilience quite incomprehensible to civilians. But the casual callousness with which this regiment, which faces extinction thanks to the latest defence review, has been treated defies belief. Against all precedent, some of the Black Watch families are starting to protest publicly, though there is no doubt that the regiment, led by Lt Col. James Cowan, will serve with valour and high morale wherever it is sent.

Geoff Hoon, a wretched Defence Secretary even by the degraded standards of the Blair administration, denied on Monday that any decision had been made about the redeployment of British troops in answer to a request for reinforcements from the US. This assertion, like so many of Hoon’s public utterances, has been treated with contempt by almost everyone involved. Indeed, Hoon contradicted himself within minutes, tripped up when answering a question from the hitherto innocuous Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge. When she inquired what consequences would follow if Britain turned down the US request, Hoon replied, ‘We will have failed in our duty as an ally.’

This answer showed that the government must already have committed to sending troops, a move that is regarded with consternation by some senior soldiers. I am told that General Sir Mike Walker, chief of the defence staff, is alarmed by the new perils this might involve, and he is in any case disturbed by the chronic worldwide overreach of the British armed forces.

Walker has been undermined by Major General John McColl, the British representative in the main US command HQ in Baghdad. McColl was sent to Baghdad partly in order the mitigate criticisms that Britain had no serious input in the Iraq command structure. In practice he has come to see the conflict through American eyes. He believes that a British presence alongside US troops is essential if the increasingly bitter differences within the coalition are to be resolved. This view is by no means shared by every British commander in Basra, but the important thing is that McColl has the ear of Tony Blair and has not felt the need to use Mike Walker as the vehicle for his representations.

In the end the decision is down to the Prime Minister. Downing Street protestations that the US request has been made at an operational level are disingenuous. There has already been at least one demand for British front-line assistance in Fallujah, probably more. It was turned down. These decisions about British troop deployments are political, and everyone knows it.

That is why Monday’s Commons statement from Geoff Hoon was such a break point. The ill-tempered debate that followed marked the long-delayed moment when Labour MPs turned on the Blair government for its inflexible support for George Bush.

The point, made by many backbenchers, that 600 Black Watch troops will play little more than a symbolic role within a 130,000-strong US presence in Iraq is a little unfair. US forces are very tightly stretched thanks to the failed Cheney/ Rumsfeld doctrine of minimum force, and the presence of the superb Black Watch fighting force will come as a welcome reinforcement. Nevertheless the request for troops so very close to a knife-edge US election has at the least a strong political overtone.

So Tony Blair faces a dilemma. He can deliver for his closest international ally George Bush, or he can head off an insurgency on his back benches, but not both. Some Labour MPs have been saying that this issue could bring down the Prime Minister: imagine the reaction if British soldiers started to suffer serious casualties in the new, more dangerous area of operations.

The problem is complicated further by the burdensome financial arrangements entered into when Tony Blair purchased his new Connaught Square house. He is reckoned to have incurred a £2.5 million debt, massive by any standards. It is not known who lent him the money, or on what terms.

Whatever the truth, it is clear that the United States holds the key to paying it off. The Prime Minister has apparently dismissed the notion of an instant memoir. But the remunerative US lecture circuit, where his wife Cherie has already dipped her toe in the water, is another matter.

One of the overlooked aspects of the Bush family is the way it looks after clients and retainers. One manifestation of this by no means unattractive syndrome is George Bush Snr’s patronage of John Major, who has been made a millionaire many times over thanks to his senior role in the Carlyle group, the hugely well-connected private equity group which on Tuesday announced a staggering $6.6 billion cash payout to investors.

John Major’s American role means that he is rarely seen in this country these days, and it is far from unreasonable to speculate that the former British prime minister’s failure to air his private reservations about the Iraq war is linked to his intimate connection with the Bush family. There is no reason why, one day, Tony Blair should not expect a similar reward.

There is no doubt at all that any decision by Tony Blair to deepen British involvement in Iraq will strengthen the special relationship yet further, supposing that were possible. But there is no question, either, that every extra British soldier sent to the Iraq theatre will increase our Prime Minister’s earning capacity in the United States once he has left office.

Tony Blair has yet to declare his private financial interest in the deepening of the Iraq war in the register of Members’ interests. Downing Street spokesmen would protest, with good reason, that this is entirely reasonable: any suggestion that a British prime minister could be influenced, even subconsciously, in such a way is scandalous. It is worth remembering, however, that when the Prime Minister framed the new code of conduct for ministers five years ago, it insisted that ministers should take ‘systematic steps’ to avoid conflicts of interest, whether they were ‘actual’ or merely ‘perceived’.

© 2004 The Spectator.co.uk