PDA

View Full Version : US tactics in Iraq condemned by British officers



usmc4669
04-12-04, 09:43 AM
[IslamOnline.net

US tactics in Iraq condemned by British officers: Say the problem is that American troops view Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans". "Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful"
By Sean Rayment
Apr 11, 2004, 11:45

Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
One senior Army officer told The Telegraph that America's aggressive methods were causing friction among allied commanders and that there was a growing sense of "unease and frustration" among the British high command.
The officer, who agreed to the interview on the condition of anonymity, said that part of the problem was that American troops viewed Iraqis as untermenschen - the Nazi expression for "sub-humans".
Speaking from his base in southern Iraq, the officer said: "My view and the view of the British chain of command is that the Americans' use of violence is not proportionate and is over-responsive to the threat they are facing. They don't see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. They are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are. Their attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful.
"The US troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties between who supports what and who doesn't in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as the bad guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."
The phrase untermenschen - literally "under-people" - was brought to prominence by Adolf Hitler in his book Mein Kampf, published in 1925. He used the term to describe those he regarded as racially inferior: Jews, Slaves and gipsies.
Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their American counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".
The officer explained that, under British military rules of war, British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks similar to those being conducted by the US military, in which helicopter gunships have been used to fire on targets in urban areas.
British rules of engagement only allow troops to open fire when attacked, using the minimum force necessary and only at identified targets.
The American approach was markedly different: "When US troops are attacked with mortars in Baghdad, they use mortar-locating radar to find the firing point and then attack the general area with artillery, even though the area they are attacking may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area.
"They may well kill the terrorists in the barrage but they will also kill and maim innocent civilians. That has been their response on a number of occasions. It is trite, but American troops do shoot first and ask questions later. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers.
"The British response in Iraq has been much softer. During and after the war the British set about trying to win the confidence of the local population. There have been problems, it hasn't been easy but on the whole it was succeeding."
The officer believed that America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the "terrorists".
"The US will have to abandon the sledgehammer-to-crack-a-nut approach - it has failed," he said. "They need to stop viewing every Iraqi, every Arab as the enemy and attempt to win the hearts and minds of the people.
"Our objective is to create a stable, democratic and safe Iraq. That's achievable but not in the short term. It is going to take up to 10 years."

MillRatUSMC
04-12-04, 10:42 AM
You're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.
I don't see where this helping matters and it sure to split the coalition.
The Marine Corps is taking the same approach as our British allies in dealing with the problem.
Can you blame a young man or woman for taking a defensive point of view, fire first ask questions later, live to see another day.
These young troops are getting battle harden by seeing friends killed or wounded.
Also lack of support by the people we liberated by removing Saddam.
Makes some troops there question "Why are here in the first place?"
They know we're fighting a war on terrorism.
But to them it's survival first.
Can you blame them?
I always like these interviews on the condition of anonymity.
There's no one to blame or to take the heat for what is stated in these interviews on the condition of anonymity.
Wonder what our British Royal Marines have to say in response to what that British Officer said...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

Super Dave
04-12-04, 10:58 AM
To hell with the Brits..we do what me must do to accomplish the mission and safeguard our troops..PEDIOD!!

MillRatUSMC
04-12-04, 11:35 AM
Dig the source for the article above;
IslamOnline.net

They are achieving what they wanted, to starting fighting among the coalition partners.
That why, I kept it down, to say anything about a Nation that has stood by through all this.
Will play into the people we're fighting in this war on terrorism.
I can't speak for everyone here, my apologies to our British allies for words spoken in a time when one is angry...

Semper Fidelis
Ricardo

kentmitchell
04-12-04, 05:37 PM
Hell, it's the British mishandling that caused the whole mess, anyway. THEY invented Iraq by subdividing Mesopotamia.
Just carved it up like they owned the place. That's the reason the Kurds were left holding the bag.

usmc4669
04-12-04, 06:10 PM
super dave
s.d. your a killer alright what are you doing here. go get them. tell me l/cpl 4 years what went wrong.

Marine you are hitting below the belt, back off

d c taveapont
04-12-04, 10:54 PM
its all gone now. it was only a question since every one is all for war. my bad....the mouse

namgrunt
04-12-04, 11:35 PM
Interesting comparison of our men to Nazis, isn't it. Yessir, interesting indeed, right down to the use of German phrases to characterize the meaning. Untermenschen, my behind.

Even more interesting are the words used by the some Islamic scholars and practicioners for non-believers. Christians and Jews are called "pigs and apes". Another image common in the land of Jihad, is "Crusaders", to refer to westerners, particularly combat forces. I would say that real pigs and apes are below our human nature, and therefore, SUB HUMAN. So then, who is it that considers whom else as below human standards?

It is also allowable to kill "pigs and apes" without any offense against Allah. One example of this happened at the start of the last century. The Ottoman Empire, in Turkey, absorbed Armenia in its drive for expansion. A Caliph, or Khan, was placed in control of that area. When he was old and dying, he removed protected status of the Qur'an from all infidels, and ordered them killed. The result was the annihilation of over 1.5 MILLION Armenians. It was worst than Rwanda ever could be.

To this day, the government of Turkey denies it ever happened. To this day, there exists a blood feud between unconverted Armenians and Muslim Turks. It was a holocaust, brought about because an old dying Turkish governor wanted to erase the non-believers. This is the attitude of the radical Islamic enemies we face. Which of us can reason with such thinking intellectually?

0351teufelhund
04-13-04, 02:17 AM
MillRatUSMC, right on about the interview: this "officer" has no balls. he doesn't even give his name to be confronted about his opinions. coward. as for the Brits, they have been our strongest supporter in this war. i'm thankful to have such loyal friends over there w/ us and i doubt this spineless "officer" speaks for the rest of the Brits in iraq. as was said previously, i specifically doubt the Royal Marines feel the same way as this bum.