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."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

<font color="#C4C1CA">
US soldiers training their guns on British soldiers... oh god, I can only imagine the toilet language that they got for that - must have been very funny to watch. :D
</font>

Eeeeek. Stop. No credibility. Read no further. Nothing this person has to say is worth hearing.

Besides, the statement alone is an absolute insult and untrue of everyone I happen to know currently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

.... against my better judgment I read the rest of it. I knew it sounded like an article from about 1 year ago -- and that was confirmed when I read the "hearts and minds of the people" phrase.

As for the whole mortar thing... maybe the US approach is best. Maybe the next time an Iraqi hears the "phooomp" of a mortar being launched next door, he'll grab his neighbors and beat the hell out of the terrorists/insurgents/freedom fighters to keep our bombs from landing in the general vicinity.

Ironwork Posters have condemned Skunk's posting tactics on Iraq as under-handed and trollish.

News at 11:00.

Djinn, nowhere in his post is Timber critisizing Skunk. He is addressing an opinion expressed by an annonomous source, and making an unfavorable judgement on that opinion based on the relative quickness the Nazi comparison pops up.

Now while Skunk and I disagree on ..... well alot actually, I will agree with his opinion that the American Military is less than proficient at Occupation Operations, than say, the Brits. Our forces are Combat Forces, not Occupation Forces.

Hmmmmm.... Interesting. I took Djinn's statement as a statement against Skunk and not me. I assumed Djinn realized I was directing my attacks at the author of the article and his ideas.

Skunk I could say something about the U.S. military seperated It's self from British military roughly 229 years ago, but I won't ;)

Night Stalker is right our military is a combat force not an occuping force, "Hale" we got salesmen to do that,ie: "carpetbaggers" post U.S. civil war. The U.S. military's purpose is to kick butt, they don't even have to take names if they don't want too. If anyone slaps this country, the U.S. military's job is to knock them down and ream'm without the benifit of vasiline ;)

[ 04-14-2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

I'll say something mean:

In rat-bastard sarcasm rhetorical fashion, of course.

It was in fact American soldiers who fired on crowds in India for peaceably protesting oppressive British Rule, and it was in fact American leadership that denied these citizens their basic rights...

Whose methods works the best to reduce violence, win the cooperation and favor of the genral populace and create stability? (in this current conflict, bringing up ancient history is *like* so irrelevant)

How so?

Tough guys eh?
Well, it's comforting to know that if that trend of opinion continues in your country you guys won't be a superpower by this time next century ;)

Ghengis Kahn kicked butt, but wasn't a good occupier. Now his once-feared people drive cattle in the steppe [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Oh very good points. No-one knows better than my own countrymen how to totally mess up and hurt entire nations - for sure. We made enough mistakes in the past to figure out what we should be doing in the here and now. It's just a shame to see another nation make the same mistakes that the British made in less enlightened years. Does every nation have to go through the same 'bloody' (in its literal sense) lessons?

Which brings me on to the context of officer's usage of the word untermenschen. All of those tactics are the kind used by British forces in its rather racist, colonial period - I think that he is making comparisions to British occupation forces in India etc, etc. It's not appropriate, it's a generalisation and frankly just plain wrong to colour the entire US army in such a way.

And in that foolish colonial period (India being a very good example), we soon learnt that when we engage in what effectively amounts to collective punishment, the victims don't beat the hell out of those we are attacking - they run to their neighbours and convince them to grab their guns and shoot back at the people shooting at them - and eventually they *will* beat off even the best equipped army.

My country has a two hundred year history of occupation and oppression - that's a lot of experience to draw upon. If its army says a particular tactic is counter-productive, belive them.

They've been in the same situation a hundred times before - they *know* what they are talking about.

[ 04-15-2004, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Okay, perhaps ancient history isn't so irrelevant. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 04-15-2004, 03:38 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Not so. Our forces are directly affected by the actions of your forces. We are intertwined.

What's truly sad is how some MUST learn in blood. There are certain lessons that just don't come out any other way. Human suffering is sometimes the only expedient to understanding. One of humanity's greatest flaws, to be sure, but Ghandi turned it on its head, reversing the process to positive results.

Awww, that's awesome Oblivion437. Now put away those dag-blasted guns of yours and do some passive resistance with us [img]smile.gif[/img]

WOOHOO - a convert :D

Well, the problem with passive resistance is, the need to see blood to teach the lesson is inexorably human, the answer to the question can't be spelled out for some. That's the reason I support armed revolution as a last-ditch alternative to the nonviolent (but active) resistance method. In the US, we happen to be under the leadership (truly under now, no longer represented by) of men who suffer from this particular character flaw.