US tactics appalling, say British

[Chris OFarrell]

"US Tactics Appalling say British"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004...1621898368.html

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles...1621847374.html

Oh yeah. You go US troops. Great combat troops, they have absoloutly ZERO training of sense for the kind of situation they find themselves in today. They've wasted the massive public support they had when they nabbed Saddam.

On the bright side, the Iraqi people are uniting for SOMETHING.

[Darth Wong]

Nice links. Let me guess ... you use IE, right? Here's the correct link:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/ ... 98368.html

Relevant excerpt:

The officer, who would not be identified, 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 are not concerned about the Iraqi loss of life in the way the British are.

"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. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."

Although no formal complaints have as yet been made to their US counterparts, the officer said the British Government was aware of its commanders' "concerns and fears".

He explained that British troops would never be given clearance to carry out attacks such as the US helicopter gunship assaults on targets in urban areas.

"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 . . . it may be in the middle of a densely populated residential area."

While it was trite, "American troops do shoot first and ask questions later", he said.

Not surprising in the least. You must remember that they've been taking instruction on how to deal with this sort of thing from the Israelis.

PS. This is off-topic for the "what would you do" thread, so I'm splitting it to a new thread.

[Iceberg]

Why am I not surprised?

[Chris OFarrell]

Nice links. Let me guess ... you use IE, right? Here's the correct link:

Well IE and Firebird. I'm trying to break the habit of using IE, but its damn hard!

[Chris OFarrell]

For some reason I can't edit my post.

Here is the correct link to the second news peice.

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/200 ... 47374.html

[Rogue 9]

For some reason I can't edit my post.

Here is the correct link to the second news peice.

http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/200 ... 47374.html

You can't edit your post because you're in the News and Politics forum, where no editing is allowed.

As for that, yeah. U.S. armies have long been trained on how to fight a military war, not occupy a country. I suppose that makes better political sense (We're not imperialists, see? We don't even train our troops for the possibility!), but when something like this happens it causes problems.

[BoredShirtless]

As for that, yeah. U.S. armies have long been trained on how to fight a military war, not occupy a country.

Irrelevant. You don't have to be an occupying force to see urban warfare. What, do you think all military engagements occur in deserts? The US have built mock cities for urban warfare training. No excuses.

[consequences]

As for that, yeah. U.S. armies have long been trained on how to fight a military war, not occupy a country.

Irrelevant. You don't have to be an occupying force to see urban warfare. What, do you think all military engagements occur in deserts? The US have built mock cities for urban warfare training. No excuses.

You do understand that there is a difference between urban combat and occupation, don't you? Properly trained in urban warfare means you kill everything that looks like it might be a threat, because if you don't, your casualties will skyrocket.

[Rogue 9]

As for that, yeah. U.S. armies have long been trained on how to fight a military war, not occupy a country.

Irrelevant. You don't have to be an occupying force to see urban warfare. What, do you think all military engagements occur in deserts? The US have built mock cities for urban warfare training. No excuses.

Red herring if I ever saw one. Urban warfare =/= occupation.

[BoredShirtless]

You do understand that there is a difference between urban combat and occupation, don't you?

Urban combat is a subset of occupation, is it not? Aren't the occupying US military engaging "thugs" in Fallujah in urban combat? Occupation is irrelevant, it's a fact but is a red herring.

Properly trained in urban warfare means you kill everything that looks like it might be a threat, because if you don't, your casualties will skyrocket.

No kidding? And I thought it meant getting together for a tea party.

[BoredShirtless]

As for that, yeah. U.S. armies have long been trained on how to fight a military war, not occupy a country.

Irrelevant. You don't have to be an occupying force to see urban warfare. What, do you think all military engagements occur in deserts? The US have built mock cities for urban warfare training. No excuses.

Red herring if I ever saw one. Urban warfare =/= occupation.

I have serious doubts that you have. I wasn't equating the two, try again.

[consequences]

You do understand that there is a difference between urban combat and occupation, don't you?

Urban combat is a subset of occupation, is it not? Aren't the occupying US military engaging "thugs" in Fallujah in urban combat? Occupation is irrelevant, it's a fact but is a red herring.

Urban Combat is what you do when you take a place. Police techniques are what you use when you are holding it in a reasonably peaceful state. It is the grey area between the two that is a bitch, as peacekeepers will be slaughtered by insurgents, and everyone will be slaughtered if you use soldiers as the peacekeepers. Talk to the fucking British about North Ireland before making assumptions about how easy it should be to transition.

[Chris OFarrell]

You do understand that there is a difference between urban combat and occupation, don't you?

Urban combat is a subset of occupation, is it not? Aren't the occupying US military engaging "thugs" in Fallujah in urban combat? Occupation is irrelevant, it's a fact but is a red herring.

Urban Combat is what you do when you take a place. Police techniques are what you use when you are holding it in a reasonably peaceful state. It is the grey area between the two that is a bitch, as peacekeepers will be slaughtered by insurgents, and everyone will be slaughtered if you use soldiers as the peacekeepers. Talk to the fucking British about North Ireland before making assumptions about how easy it should be to transition.

I would dirrect you to the examples of East Timor, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands, where (mostly) Australian Troops were able to very effectivly ENFORCE the peace and restore order, without the need for massive firepower or body counts. In conditions from Urbern warfair to jungle fighting.

Word is that the US wanted preaty much the entire Australian army to deploy to Iraq for peacekeeping duty post invasion. And why they are so interested in building a joint training facility over here, for training their own infintry in these situations.

[consequences]

Urban combat is a subset of occupation, is it not? Aren't the occupying US military engaging "thugs" in Fallujah in urban combat? Occupation is irrelevant, it's a fact but is a red herring.

Urban Combat is what you do when you take a place. Police techniques are what you use when you are holding it in a reasonably peaceful state. It is the grey area between the two that is a bitch, as peacekeepers will be slaughtered by insurgents, and everyone will be slaughtered if you use soldiers as the peacekeepers. Talk to the fucking British about North Ireland before making assumptions about how easy it should be to transition.

I would dirrect you to the examples of East Timor, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands, where (mostly) Australian Troops were able to very effectivly ENFORCE the peace and restore order, without the need for massive firepower or body counts. In conditions from Urbern warfair to jungle fighting.

Word is that the US wanted preaty much the entire Australian army to deploy to Iraq for peacekeeping duty post invasion. And why they are so interested in building a joint training facility over here, for training their own infintry in these situations.

So the U.S. military recognised a deficiency, and sought the expertise of those with practical experience, both as a stop-gap measure to fill a gap they couldn't, and to rectify the situation in the long-term, and this is a problem why exactly? Leaving aside the fact that Bush should have delayed a year to allow the appropriate training to happen.

[BoredShirtless]

You do understand that there is a difference between urban combat and occupation, don't you?

Urban combat is a subset of occupation, is it not? Aren't the occupying US military engaging "thugs" in Fallujah in urban combat? Occupation is irrelevant, it's a fact but is a red herring.

Urban Combat is what you do when you take a place. Police techniques are what you use when you are holding it in a reasonably peaceful state. It is the grey area between the two that is a bitch, as peacekeepers will be slaughtered by insurgents, and everyone will be slaughtered if you use soldiers as the peacekeepers. Talk to the fucking British about North Ireland before making assumptions about how easy it should be to transition.

I never said it should be fucking easy, don't put words in my mouth. This is the point; the US military is engaging in urban combat. Do you deny this?

[Chardok]

I never said it should be fucking easy, don't put words in my mouth. This is the point; the US military is engaging in urban combat. Do you deny this?

Of course they are engaging in Urban COMBAT. Let me ask you this: What would YOU have said mortared position do? Smile and have a couple guys trot out to the place the mortar radar located? Ask them to stop? Nope. They are firing on positions from densely populated areas, then they should think about what will follows. Same for the fuckwits who fire from mosques. Level (The mosques), I say.

I say good for the Americans. American artillery and airstrikes are accurate enough to allow for attacks inside urban environs with a fair amount of precision.

HEY! Here's a question: How come the iraqis didn't "Rise up" against Sadaam like this? Because he quashed rebellions with violence of action, no doubt. See? I knew these morons only responded to excessive force. Fucking dipshits.

[The Kernel]

Alright Chardok, let me ask you something. If a bunch of wacko militia men decide to take over a building in downtown Chicago and hold the entire building hostage while simultaneously shooting at the police, is your solution to call in an airstrike and level the building?

Get this through your head: WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THESE PEOPLE. We are currently occupying their country which means that their citizens are under OUR protection which means you don't go around leveling buildings with civilians in them. I don't care if they are holding civilians there hostage for the purposes of shielding themselves, you cannot simply blow up structures with people who are under your jurisdiction and claim you are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

If you think this situation stinks, well I fucking agree with you. That's why we should never have put ourselves in this position to begin with. But our troops are there and unless you decide to suspend the rights of the Iraqi citizens (you know, the ones we're supposedly upholding) then you can't indiscriminately kill them or else we become no better then fucking Israel.

[Chris OFarrell]

Of course they are engaging in Urban COMBAT.

In a dense CIVILIAN area which is densly populated by Non Combatants

Let me ask you this: What would YOU have said mortared position do?

Isolate the location of the hostile battery with millimetre wave radar and have either a Helicopter Gunship fly in and apply precise effective fire (as in cannon, not frigen Hellfire) to neutralise the threat, without fucking destroying half a city block filled with the very people WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE LIBERATING FROM HORROR AND DEATH!

Or I would have patterns of UAV's flying above the city, radio in the coordinates of the attacker and get them to follow the hostiles as they withdrawal. As most people would be SMART enough to know, a man portable mortar in the back of a pickup will be LONG gone before counter battery fire arrives. With this, Intelligence can hopefully build up a clear picture of safehouses, weapons caches and staging points. Which then at night, special forces troops move in and attack, capturing or killing the insurgents, without sending a dozen kids off to the hospital as well.

Smile and have a couple guys trot out to the place the mortar radar located?

Oh please, don't be a jackass. *I* would expect the soldiers to use their bloody brains and realise they are SUPPOSEDLY in Iraq to liberate the people, not turn the entire city against them by spraying a dozen innocent peoples intestines over the sidewalk along with some diehard Barthest.

Ask them to stop? Nope. They are firing on positions from densely populated areas, then they should think about what will follows.

THEY HAVE YOU IDIOT! They know EXACTLY what they are doing. They are getting fools like you to blast on back with overwhelming firepower, probably not killing the people who shot off the rounds, but certainly blasting apart a few people trying to simply survive.

And you MIGHT want to note the fact that the majority of people in Fallujah are poor bastards who don't have anything. In addition to killing off a heep of their family, you've destroyed their house and probably their livelihood, so now they don't even have a place to sleep, no food, NOTHING. Iraq is in a crap of a state, there is no Government, no security net, NOTHING. So you've generated a massive amount of rage from people who may have lost their sons, daughters, mothers, thanks to the people comming to "liberate" them. And where do you think this rage go's? Oh right, into picking up an RPG and blasting away at the US troops!

Oh WONDERFUL idea there...

Same for the fuckwits who fire from mosques. Level (The mosques), I say.

You simply don't get it do you? You don't have the first clue about Islam, (which is the religion that the vast majority of Iraqi's follow BTW). You’re not going to cower the people by blowing up Mosques or lead to a reduction of hostility, your going to DRAMATICLY INCREASE the level of armed opposition. You’re going to have a call for Jihad that the people are going to respond to, because you ARE blowing up Islamic holy sites. Your playing RIGHT into the religious fanatics hands! Your looking to turn it into what Iran was 20 years ago, a fanatical Islamic state with a massive hate of the US! The puppet Government will be overthrown when the US leaves as they can't stay there forever, and you will be left with a Government that WILL develop WMD and WILL give them to Osama to fight the Great Satan who killed thousands of martyrs in the great war of occupation! Is that a future you WANT?

Are you just THAT ignorant?

I say good for the Americans. American artillery and airstrikes are accurate enough to allow for attacks inside urban environs with a fair amount of precision.

'Fair Amount of Precision'. Your an idiot. A 155 mm Howitzer is not a frigen popgun! DO you have ANY kind of idea of the damage one of those things does, when detonating in a non hardened urban area? Oh I'm sure the fire mission will be quite accurate, but that’s not the problem. The PROBLEM is the people who are in all those buildings AROUND the place the Mortar fired from about to be blown into meaty chunks by Uncle Sam. Have you seen what Israeli (and the Palistian states are not in a free roving uprising through the streets like the people in Iraq are) Hellfires do to bystanders when fired at some Hamas leader? Look at the Hamas spiritual leader a month or two back they offed. I cry no tears for the murdering prick, but they could have EASILY killed him off with a sniper rifle from a distance without a problem. Instead they use an ANTI TANK weapon and surprise surprise, seven others were killed as well which just INCREASES the rage.

HEY! Here's a question: How come the iraqis didn't "Rise up" against Sadaam like this? Because he quashed rebellions with violence of action, no doubt.

Right so the US is going to start carpet bombing Civilian neighbourhoods, fire VX Gas libearly used on entire cities to kill a few? Rangers are going to start machine gunning everyone they see? Green Berets are going to start kidnapping people in the middle of the night, torture them to death, then return the mutilated corpse to the relatives (well not the IMEDIATE relatives, they would be killed as well) for burial?

THAT is how Saddam maintained power.

We're supposed to be the GOOD GUYS remember? Who have a professional army who hold themselves, under pain of DEATH, to uphold a standard of Moral and Ethical service to their Country?

Do YOU want to tell Wilkens to get his ass into Fallujah and start gunning down kids with his .50 Cal? Please, I'd like to see what he says back...

See? I knew these morons only responded to excessive force. Fucking dipshits.

Yes you are. Funny how Excessive force against Civilians has solved every insurgency we've seen in history and brought said nation firmly on side, like in Vietnam, WW2 France...oh...wait....hey lets look at modern day Israel! Their tactics have sure as shit gotten peace in the region! Oh darn…

[BoredShirtless]

Alright Chardok, let me ask you something. If a bunch of wacko militia men decide to take over a building in downtown Chicago and hold the entire building hostage while simultaneously shooting at the police, is your solution to call in an airstrike and level the building?

False analogy fallacy. Chicago is not under occupation, nor is the United States fighting an insurrection. But forgetting your analogy, you still wouldn't call in an airstrike on a civil building in a period of "real war" or a war against insurgents for two reasons:

1. It's immoral
2. Geneva conventions

And that's not even including winning hearts and mind of the occupying [or defending] civil populace.

Get this through your head: WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH THESE PEOPLE.

You are never at war with the civil population. What's the difference whether this was urban combat against a proper Iraqi army, or insurgents? Fundamentally, nothing.

We are currently occupying their country which means that their citizens are under OUR protection which means you don't go around leveling buildings with civilians in them.

The Geneva Conventions would prohibit that kind of thing, even in a "proper war".

I don't care if they are holding civilians there hostage for the purposes of shielding themselves, you cannot simply blow up structures with people who are under your jurisdiction and claim you are bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

Again, going back a year when Baghdad was still standing, those ROE's would have been in place.

[The Kernel]

False analogy fallacy. Chicago is not under occupation, nor is the United States fighting an insurrection.

And that changes what exactly? How does an insurrection or an occupation release us from our commitment to protect the Iraqi civilians? They aren't identical situations, but attacks against civilians are no more justified in Iraq then they are in my Chicago analogy, thus it is not a false analogy.

[BoredShirtless]

False analogy fallacy. Chicago is not under occupation, nor is the United States fighting an insurrection.

And that changes what exactly? How does an insurrection or an occupation release us from our commitment to protect the Iraqi civilians? They aren't identical situations, but attacks against civilians are no more justified in Iraq then they are in my Chicago analogy, thus it is not a false analogy.

You're right, I was rash to point out the differences without looking at the properties of the analogy and Iraq. I even agreed with you in so much as I fleshed out why attacking with minimal regard to civilian safety is wrong in both an attacking and occupying war. Consistency is definitely not my middle name.

[Newtonian Fury]

Here's a much more scathing British view.

US tactics condemned by British officers
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 11/04/2004)

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."

[Darth Wong]

Quite frankly, the above attitude is exemplified quite nicely in Chardok's posts. Look at Chardok's post and notice how he treats all Iraqis as a unified group, making no real distinction between combatant and noncombatant; in his mind, Iraqis are simply "they". A monolithic group to which you can ascribe collective actions ... and collective punishment.

[The Kernel]

Quite frankly, the above attitude is exemplified quite nicely in Chardok's posts. Look at Chardok's post and notice how he treats all Iraqis as a unified group, making no real distinction between combatant and noncombatant; in his mind, Iraqis are simply "they". A monolithic group to which you can ascribe collective actions ... and collective punishment.

I am much more disturbed by the somewhat general feeling by many Americans (and even some members of this board) that an Iraqi life is somehow worth less than an American one. This I believe is what leads to the lack of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

[Knife]

Quite frankly, the above attitude is exemplified quite nicely in Chardok's posts. Look at Chardok's post and notice how he treats all Iraqis as a unified group, making no real distinction between combatant and noncombatant; in his mind, Iraqis are simply "they". A monolithic group to which you can ascribe collective actions ... and collective punishment.

I am much more disturbed by the somewhat general feeling by many Americans (and even some members of this board) that an Iraqi life is somehow worth less than an American one. This I believe is what leads to the lack of distinction between combatants and non-combatants.

I think you read too far into it. When dealing with American V Iraqi in weather one is more important than the other, I think most American's would err on the side of the Americans but I doubt that it goes so far as to think that Iraqi's are 'sub human'.

What leads to the lack of distinction between combatants and non-combatents is the fact that the troops are fighting an insurgency on irregulars where they don't wear uniforms. When fighting people who look like the civilians, mistakes will be made (obviously not with the Arty though).

As to the OP, more or less counter battery fire is a little bit much in my opinion though I'd like to see what type of built up area we're talking about.

Chris OFarrell had an interesting idea with the UAV's though time and resource consuming. For the guys in the field, it would be hard not shooting back at some asshole lobbing mortars at you but the guys have to know by now that alot of these mortar attacks are designed to draw such counter attacks by the Americans for bad PR such as this.

If anything, on site troops should make an effort and a scene of clearing civilians out of the area and a visible effort to help repair the damage done by such an attack. Perhaps it would generate enough 'good will' to start getting some intell in on the attackers.

The only way I see such attacks stopping is to make an enviroment where the insurgents can't operate without getting reported in on or troops raiding storehouse and depriving the insurgents of men and resources to conduct such an attack.

I understand Chardok's setiment and hell, in some circumstances, I totally agree with him. The mosque thingy mostly in mind. But in this situation, a knee jurk counter strike won't help in any concievable way.