Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Unlike the American troops, we look the Iraqis in the eye"
The Daily Telegraph U.K. ^ | 4-05-03 | Not attributed

Posted on 05/04/2003 3:04:58 PM PDT by WaterDragon

He counts his unit's kills meticulously, each one a tick in black pen on his khaki helmet which is, by now, bleached by the sun and battered from battle. Perched in the turret of his tank, just behind the barrel that is hand-painted with intimidating war cries such as "kill 'em all" or "I'm a motherf***ing warrior", he talks only to those Iraqis with the temerity to approach: he feels vulnerable without a 60-ton Abrams girding his loins. It is impossible to read anything in his eyes because they are always obscured by mirrored sunglasses.

Only in the safety of his unit's headquarters, behind barbed wire and protected by heavy weaponry, does the American marine take off his body armour and helmet. On the streets of Baghdad, out on patrol, he is wary and ill at ease.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allies; american; antiamerican; boorishness; british; drivel; iraqifreedom; mediabias; order; totalbs; troops
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-523 next last
To: Pukka Puck
The British alone were outproducing the Germans in aircraft by 1941. It would have taken longer, but I have no doubt that the British and Russians, with U.S. material aid, would have beat the Germans.
141 posted on 05/04/2003 6:30:05 PM PDT by stinkypew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
This is silly, all the reports from the military forums are of mutual respect, yet one silly article and everyone goes haywire

Basra was a different prospect to bagdhad, one thing people seem to forget is the uk commander on the ground recieved his orders from CENTCOM, ie orders of when to go in or not to go in was franks decision.

So, if the US command decided the best way was to provide water and food outside of basra and take it gradually, im prepared to agree with them, civilian casualties due to uk attacks were 91, obviously this tactic was not applicable to the much larger bagdhad, or it would have been used to minimise civilian death
142 posted on 05/04/2003 6:31:28 PM PDT by may18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck; MadIvan
Do you bother to read? The U.S. bypassed southern Iraqi towns and were also prepared to wait outside Baghdad. The commanders in the field sensed the opportunity was there and moved in. The Brits did an excellent job of handling Basra, their assigned target and the second largest city in Iraq.

Ivan, ignore any Brit bashing on this thread. Considering the major contributions by our stauch British allies ever since 9/ll, it's embarrassing.

143 posted on 05/04/2003 6:34:32 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; Pukka Puck
I see the Telegraph has accomplished its mission.
144 posted on 05/04/2003 6:34:36 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
"Anyway let the Telegraph show a little patriotic favoritism for their marines, if I remember correctly they got unfair criticism for waiting outside Basra until it cooled down."

That would be well-deserved criticism for sitting on their asses outside of Basra, waiting for the Americans to win the war before finally going into Basra only after we had taken Baghdad. With Baghdad in our grasp, resistance collapsed in Basra, making taking the city a snap for the Brits.

If, on the other hand, the Brits had taken Basra sooner, it would have helped to undermine the resolve of the Iraqi fighters to the north and would have made the American advance easier.

The Brits moved only thirty miles and then sat and waited while the Americans did all the heavy lifting.
145 posted on 05/04/2003 6:36:30 PM PDT by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck; MadIvan; WaterDragon
"The Telegraph, supposedly the most conservative newspaper in Britain, has published a series of drivel like this throughout the war."

Yes, the Telegraph is a very conservative newspaper. Indeed, it is.

To suggest otherwise, is nonsensical. I've been on liberal boards and said I was a DT reader and have been classed as a 'nazi' for reading same.

Do I like this article? No. But ~shrugging my shoulders~ over all, the Telegraph has been consistently supportive of the war on Iraq --- WELL BEFORE TROOPS WERE DEPLOYED, and well before other news media organs decided 'which way to jump' on the matter.

I'm in Ireland, and the Sunday Independent is the closest thing to the DT published in my country. In that I will see Gene Kerrigan giving me a liberal slant on an issue, and on the same page see Alan Ruddock lambaste him with good conservative ethic.

Nothing wrong with that.

After all, we are not sheep (at least, I hope we are not).

Pukka, if your critical thought lies on the basis of one article, I'm dismayed.

And besides...WHERE does everyone get off in not realising that this is a British newspaper, writing essentially to a British audience?

Friends, anyone who chooses to take lumps out of Allies does not see a bigger picture. It's like a cat fight in a gay bar!!!

The Daily Telegraph, is NOT the enemy. Believe me!

146 posted on 05/04/2003 6:36:55 PM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: stinkypew
Ahh yes...I forgot!

Hitler didn't have an alliance with the Japanese (whom the Brits were also fighting) that caused him to make the idiotic decision of declaring war on the US after Dec. 7.

Oh wait..yeah he did!
147 posted on 05/04/2003 6:39:03 PM PDT by Live free or die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: xJones
well said!
148 posted on 05/04/2003 6:40:10 PM PDT by Happygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: dandelion
Because the Brits are all a bunch of soft socialists now and they were men then.
149 posted on 05/04/2003 6:40:48 PM PDT by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Live free or die
Whatever, man. The argument was about fighting Germans, not their allies.
150 posted on 05/04/2003 6:40:59 PM PDT by stinkypew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
I just got back from 10 days in the UK and I must admit this article is very representative of the cool Britannia wind that is blowing over there right now.

It's not surprising though, as every single train station/HMV/bookstore I went into there were mass quantities of Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and "George Bushisms Vol. 2" promenantly on display. Hard left anti-American Americans are very chic there at the moment.

151 posted on 05/04/2003 6:41:06 PM PDT by Hazzardgate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: stinkypew
I am reading at this moment "Death Traps" by Belton Y. Cooper. An LT. Liason officer with an Armored Maint. Battalion with the 3rd Armor 1sy Army. He talks in depth about the shortcomings and all of the Sherman. As I said it was the best we knew of at the time. The Pershing came out of intelligence but the Sherman was numbers we had a turnaround time of 48 hours or less to replace damaged or destroyed tanks. No army before or since could match that. As a liason officer he had to make a report drive in the middle of the night in one jeep with a driver to get replacement tanks and bring them back. His men were repairing o in the field what they could.

But it is not the tank or armor but the TC (tank commanders)
the sherman was faster and the turrent was hydraulic or electric all the German tanks were manual traverse. Sit and fire and die. Move and shoot and live. All combat wins on shoot and manuever. The Germans master of the Blitzkreig, did not even understand this. The Blitz was about bypassing heavy defenses with armor and cutting its supply. Patton did that. We did that in Iraq. But the Abrahms shoots while moving. The Pershing was the first tank that could do that. The Sherman had to stop but technology came late for the Sherman. The later ones had 76mm higher velocity and ford V8 as oppossed to 75mm and radil engines.

The Pershings next gun would have been a 90mm high velocity but the war ended. The 105mm on mobile arty were good tank killers.

Germans used the all purpose 88's in arty and on tanks. More for uniformity. But the 88 was a hihg velocity round and a good one at that. The soviets on the other hand built then as they do now. The Ak47 Kal is made with tolerances so low that sand inside it does not effect it. Their planes and vehicles were made to take punishment of climate but had a dual effect of battle damage survival. It was not planned. It was residual. Build it to last winter in Siberia and it last longer in the field.
152 posted on 05/04/2003 6:42:43 PM PDT by Michael121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
"this article says nothing suprising"

True, but is is full of anti-American spin.
153 posted on 05/04/2003 6:42:51 PM PDT by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: EaglesUpForever; MadIvan
"4. The British pussyfooted around Basra for two full weeks, scared to venture into battle."

Now that is the honest to God truth!
154 posted on 05/04/2003 6:44:04 PM PDT by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
nod this makes me very sad ;<

Our soldiers fought together, watched each others backs.
Its one of many times the us and uk forces have stood shoulder to shoulder, going all the way back to WW2 and chosin reservoir.

Yet we have one silly article In 1 paper and this is what happens.

Newspapers write silly articles, the writer sees an "angle" to sell papers and follows it up.

Im quite shocked at the anti british feeling here, i thought our countries, and people were friends

155 posted on 05/04/2003 6:45:34 PM PDT by may18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
That was the plan.

If Franks had foolishly told them to force Basra they would have.

156 posted on 05/04/2003 6:45:40 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Pukka Puck
BFD
The Telegraph is one of the very few quality conservative newspapers in existence. Give them slack.
157 posted on 05/04/2003 6:45:59 PM PDT by gcruse (Piety is only skin deep, but hypocrisy goes clear to the soul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Criminal Number 18F
Thanks for your feedback.
158 posted on 05/04/2003 6:47:18 PM PDT by Grampa Dave (Being a Monthly Donor to Free Republic is the Right Thing to do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Michael121
Where did you read that the German tank turrets were all hand-traversed? I'm certain that the Panther and Tiger were electric, and it would have been well-nigh impossible to hand crank the turret on the Tiger II.
159 posted on 05/04/2003 6:47:27 PM PDT by stinkypew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes
"Do you think an article in the New York Times speaks for all of the United States. Trash the article, the source, but not the UK."

According to Madivan, the Telegraph is the best and most conservative paper in Britain. Have you read what the liberal British papers have written about us?

They are all a bunch of socialists over there now.
160 posted on 05/04/2003 6:47:37 PM PDT by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-523 next last

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

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson