[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Skunk: "The difference in tactics can be striking. When Fox Company thought it spotted “enemy” in a group of buildings, it fired missiles and mortars at the “position” for four hours. The next day, when a British Patrol was fired at from a house in Umm Qasr, the six soldiers got out of their vehicles, approached the building on foot and arrested two gunman. The incident was over in ten minutes, and no civilian property was damaged. “For the Americans, there just does not seem to be anything between peace and all-out combat,” says a British officer. “Their military doctrine remains one based on the use of overwhelming fire power in every circumstance”. British soldiers, though, can draw on 30 years patrolling in Northern Ireland and several years spent on peace-support operations in the Balkans.” --The Economist, April 5th 2003, p.26 There are enough real stories highlighting the differences in the standards of training and tactics without needing to resort to 'urban myths' to prove the point.

And how do you explain the recent episode of a US Artillery company being attacked at night in Baghdad by a group of Iraqi snipers and managing to take them prisoner? While laying down supressing fire, a group of soldiers flanked the snipers positions on foot and brought them out unharmed. That doesn't sound like overwhelming firepower to me. An opinion expressed by ONE officer doesn't establish the premise as a fact.