Goddammit. 6 British soldiers killed in Iraq

[Vympel]

Bad day

[Col. Crackpot]

....<sigh>
won't be the last sad to say.

[Vympel]

But they were the first. What's really eerie is that since the 'official' end of the war, not a single British soldier was killed for any reason, including the ubiquitous vehicle, weapons discharge and munitions accidents (as well as one bizarre drowning) that have claimed the lives of the majority of US troops in country since the 'official' end (some 30 men or so).

[Sea Skimmer]

That is unfortunate; outside of helicopter crashes I believe this is the worst day for the British army in the conflict.

[HemlockGrey]

Of course, it's immensely relieving to know we've gone from an era where the worst day for the British army was losses in the thousands to an era where the losses of the worst day are less than 10.

Still, very unfortunate. Condolences to their families.

[Vympel]

What happened:

It began with some children throwing stones. It left a town turned into a battle zone and 10 people lying dead
By Patrick Cockburn in Amara
26 June 2003


It was nine o'clock on a hot and dusty morning in southern Iraq when six members of 156 Provost Company of the Royal Military Police arrived at the police station at Majar al-Kabir.

The soldiers were on a routine search for weapons, after British troops reached an agreement on house searches with the local leaders living on a plain south of Amara, about 210 miles south of Baghdad. But on Tuesday, their search set off a four-hour gun battle in which six British soldiers and four Iraqis were killed - the worst attack since the war on Iraq officially ended on 1 May.

Ali al-Atiyah, a senior lieutenant in a local militia that fought Saddam Hussein's government from hideouts in the marshes for a quarter of a century, said he knew there would be trouble when the British ignored the agreement negotiated with the tribesmen.

"They said they wanted to look at the type of weapons militiamen use," Mr Atiyah said. "They wanted to make a foot patrol. They were told 'it is unsafe for you to walk in the city, it is against the agreement. Maybe many problems will follow'."

At first the patrol heeded the advice, but then it started to move down the street. Soon children were throwing stones. The crucial moment came when one British soldier went into a firing position, pointing his weapon at a child. Mr Atiyah said: "A local man called Taissir Abdul Wahad thought the soldier was going to shoot and pointed his own gun and was shot dead by the soldiers. After the death of Taissir nobody could control their anger."

There is a certain amount of special pleading in this. Children may have started to throw stones but youngsters and adults soon swelled the crowd, which may have numbered 400. The first shot could have been fired from the crowd.

The soldiers then shot Taissir and another man dead. At this point, they were 300 to 400 yards from the village police station. Two soldiers were killed near the local agricultural college and the other four retreated to the police station.

Abbas Faddhel, an Iraqi policeman in the town, said angry townspeople fetched weapons and converged on the police station after the stone-throwing. One soldier was shot and killed in the building's doorway; three more were slain after gunmen stormed the police station and cornered them, said Salam Mohammed, 30, member of a municipal security force.

Mr Atiyah and another local leader called Faleh al-Sayid Sarwat travelled in an ambulance to try to rescue the four soldiers in the police station. But when they arrived the men were dead, and the number of dead Iraqis had risen to three. At least 13 Iraqis were wounded, one of whom died in hospital. Mr Atiyah and Mr Sayid told British Army officers what had happened before returning to collect the dead.

Mr Faddhel said that about two dozen Iraqi policemen who were at the station fled through a window during the battle.

As the shooting engulfed the town, Maitham Abbas, a 12-year-old boy, said he was shot in the shoulder as he stood in front of his school. "I saw the blood and fainted. I fell on the ground," he said at the hospital.

The area, 18 miles south of Amara, had become a battle zone. Earlier, a British Chinook helicopter had been hit by the local militia and eight soldiers were wounded.

There were no British troops in Majar al-Kabir yesterday. The police station is riddled with bullet holes and covered with broken glass and blood stains. The mayor's office also showed signs of a siege, with grenade shrapnel in a bathroom and damage from an explosion on the pavement.

A British military spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Ronnie McCourt, said the killing of the six military police, who had been training the old Baathist police force, was unprovoked. "It was murder," he said.

Initial reports said yesterday that British forces had issued a 48-hour ultimatum to local Iraqis to hand over the killers of the soldiers, but this was denied later as the military attempted to portray the shootings as an isolated incident. The root cause of the attack on the soldiers was the anger of tribesmen at the aggressive searches - with the help of sniffer dogs - for arms. It was only the latest in a series of worsening confrontations between people in Majar al-Kabir and the British Army.

Ironically, tribesmen in this area, close to the marshlands of southern Iraq, were famous for their prolonged resistance to Saddam and his regime. They regarded the searches as particularly unfair because they had captured Amara on 7 April, well before Allied forces arrived in the city.

Their leader is Abu Hatem Qarim Mahoud, a 45-year-old charismatic guerrilla commander who fought Saddam's government. The effectiveness of the local militia may have come from their long years fighting the Iraqi army.

The gun battle on Tuesday had nothing to do with the remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime, or his supporters, who were always far and few between in this Shia stronghold. But it has demonstrated the danger of trying to disarm tribesmen or enter their homes to search for weapons, the possession of which they regard as a fundamental right.

Local residents complained about the use of dogs by the soldiers and alleged that they pointed weapons at women and children. "As Muslims, we can't accept dogs at our homes," Rabee al-Malki told Reuters. Muslims believe that the animals are impure.

Others alleged, as many do in Iraq, that the soldiers were disrespectful towards women. "A British soldier held the underwear of a woman and stretched it. How can we accept this as Muslims and as Shias?" said Faleh Saleem, who lives in Majar al-Kabir.

Tensions had been running high since the weekend, when soldiers went into a village called Abu Alla, Mr Atiyah said. "Most people there objected to the search operation because it's against the tribal principle of owning a gun. They are used for tribal celebrations, funerals, fighting other tribes, protecting their cows and sheep and, most important, for fighting Saddam. Children started to throw stones at British patrols and broke a windscreen," he said.

On Monday, the leaders of important familes in Majar al-Kabir reached an agreement with the British troops.

Written in English and Arabic, it said that British soldiers would not enter the town except in an emergency. Weapons such as heavy machine-guns, mortars, anti-aircraft guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, grenades and weapons requiring more than one person to use them were declared banned. But it was also agreed there should be no searches for a month.

The agreement had a short life, Mr Atiyah said ruefully. He was surrounded by anti-Saddam guerrilla commanders to whom he occasionally turned to verify the facts.

The killings show the danger of trying to disarm Iraqis, something that Saddam never succeeded in doing. In the early 1990s he did try to buy up heavy weapons and one tribe near Amara sold him three tanks.

An official in Amara said: "Most of the Iraqi tribes - especially in southern Iraq - think that weapons are part of their life and are something holy. If they try to take them away again there will be trouble."

The US and British forces also appear to have underestimated the Iraqis' ability to fight after the swift defeat of the armed forces in the war. Iraqis say the the Allies' victory was easy because so few people in the country were willing to get killed for Saddam or his regime. Iraqis, such as the tribesmen around Amara, also have intense loyalties to clan, tribe and religious or ethnic community, which is usually greater than loyalty to the state.

Mysan province, of which Amara is the capital, is a politically perplexing place for the Allies. It is plastered with pictures of the martyred Shia cleric Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr, who was murdered by Saddam in 1999.

Abu Hatem's party is called Hizbollah, but it has no connection with the Lebanese guerrilla movement that fought Israel for many years. The Hizbollah leaders say they are very sorry for what happened and they are loyal to the Allies. But there is visible anger when they say they were ordered out of Amara by the US as soon as they captured it on 7 April, which led to devastating looting before they were allowed to return. One guerrilla commander said sadly: "We were the only Iraqi city to liberate itself and now this happens."

[BoredShirtless]

Aiming a gun at a child? Jesus fucking Christ.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Aiming a gun at a child? Jesus fucking Christ.

It's all lies by the locals. The claims made in there are simply ludicrous, with absolutely no logical grounding. I ask someone who reads that to ask themselves if the British, allowing their forces to behave in that fashion, would have really suffered no casualties up until today, while the USA, who's forces have never been imputed even by the most outrageous of sources to do such things, has suffered dozens of casualties? That defies any measure of common sense.

[Vympel]

It's all lies by the locals. The claims made in there are simply ludicrous, with absolutely no logical grounding.

Last time I checked, a warzone isn't a logical place.

I ask someone who reads that to ask themselves if the British, allowing their forces to behave in that fashion, would have really suffered no casualties up until today, while the USA, who's forces have never been imputed even by the most outrageous of sources to do such things

Fallujah. Dozens killed, scores wounded, is the most well-known, as well as numerous other incidents both during and after the 'war' when civilians were killed.

You also forget that the British deal predominantly with the Shi'ites, not the Sunni Muslims.

has suffered dozens of casualties? That defies any measure of common sense.

So basically you're saying because it hasn't happened before it couldn't have happened now? Er...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Last time I checked, a warzone isn't a logical place.

War is conducted rationally, at the least, that is the guiding principal behind the modern western conceptualization of War--and thus the described British actions contrast with what one expects the Rules of Engagement to have been, and in particular what one expects them to have been for them to have avoided such incidents in the past.

Fallujah. Dozens killed, scores wounded, is the most well-known, as well as numerous other incidents both during and after the 'war' when civilians were killed.

Civilians being killed in the course of military action is not the same as intentionally bringing about such a situation where those fatalities occur, and you should well know it.

So basically you're saying because it hasn't happened before it couldn't have happened now? Er...

No. I'm saying that the behaviour of the soldiers described is not consistant with Rules of Engagement/etc that would have prevented the British from suffering casualties during the occupation before this period in time.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's all lies by the locals. The claims made in there are simply ludicrous, with absolutely no logical grounding. I ask someone who reads that to ask themselves if the British, allowing their forces to behave in that fashion, would have really suffered no casualties up until today, while the USA, who's forces have never been imputed even by the most outrageous of sources to do such things, has suffered dozens of casualties? That defies any measure of common sense.

This doesn't mean that it didn't happen. For instance, if the British soldier thought he saw a weapon a bit more dangerous than stones and his gun came up or any number of the dozens of things that could have happened that the locals could have interpreted as aiming a gun at a kid.

But that is largely irrelevant to the events. This wasn't the soldiers fault because what happened was instigated not by a soldier inadvertantly pointing his weapon, if it did or didn't happen, but by the local fellow how pulled his gun on the soldiers.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I might add that this does not dismiss the possibility of their having behaved in that fashion--but I am going to dismiss eyewitness testimony (a notoriously unreliable source if there ever was one) that said they did. It's simply not consistant with the established pattern in the British Zone of Occupation, that's what I'm saying, and so the standard of evidence to overturn such ought be somewhat higher than eyewitness testimony.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This doesn't mean that it didn't happen. For instance, if the British soldier thought he saw a weapon a bit more dangerous than stones and his gun came up or any number of the dozens of things that could have happened that the locals could have interpreted as aiming a gun at a kid.

But that is largely irrelevant to the events. This wasn't the soldiers fault because what happened was instigated not by a soldier inadvertantly pointing his weapon, if it did or didn't happen, but by the local fellow how pulled his gun on the soldiers.

I'm arguing that this incident shouldn't be judged on that article at all, Gil, because what it states--purely on eyewitness evidence--is contradictory to a logical consideration of the British occupation so far. Some additional evidence for that evolution of the confrontation would be nice; unfortunately, we'll probably never know: From the way it sounds, those six soldiers were alone when killed, and naturally the people in the region now fear British retaliation.

One wonders if the bodies were in any condition for much of an analysis; one also wonders if the Iraqi casualty count is undereported, though against six men may well be accurate.

I suppose the question can only really be answered by how the situation evolves.

[Gil Hamilton]

Once again, it depends on the situation. If the British soldier in question saw something that looked like a dangerous weapon, his gun damn well better come up until he identifies what is the persons hands. That gun being raised for a second would be enough for that local guy to pull out his gun, at which point he was a threat to the soldiers and they shot him.

Plus, your argument seems to be based on the idea that it shouldn't happen and hasn't happened thus far, therefore it didn't happen now. That doesn't hold up logically.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Plus, your argument seems to be based on the idea that it shouldn't happen and hasn't happened thus far, therefore it didn't happen now. That doesn't hold up logically.

No, that isn't what my argument is based on, Gil. Sheesh. My argument is based on the fact that:

1. It is happening in the U.S. zone of occupation.

2. It was not happening in the British zone of occupation.

3. It - IE, casualties, and conflict with the civilian populace, are clearly undesireable.

4. The British Army is a different organization than the U.S. Army, and has different procedures.

5. If those procedures allowed for such actions as described--the patrol when it had been agreed not to take place, the pointing of a gun at a child who was not armed--it might be reasonable to assume that such behaviour among the British troops has not previously excited outrage (since there have been no previous incidents like this), and thus the actual sequence of events escalated for another reason--one that the source, especially, might have reason not to mention.

6. If those procedures did not allow for such actions as described, why change those procedures when the British occupation was clearly successful up to this point in time? That would seem highly counterintuitive, to say the least--the British, of all, are masters in treading lightly while in foreign lands.

That would in turn suggest that a different version of events might be more plausible, especially in light of the low credibility of the source.

[Vympel]

If those procedures allowed for such actions as described--the patrol when it had been agreed not to take place, the pointing of a gun at a child who was not armed--it might be reasonable to assume that such behaviour among the British troops has not previously excited outrage (since there have been no previous incidents like this), and thus the actual sequence of events escalated for another reason--one that the source, especially, might have reason not to mention.

That's saying exactly what Gil and I are saying your argument is- it shouldn't happen/ hasn't happened, therefore it didn't happen. Also, there's no reason to assume it *must've* happened before, there's a first time for everything, and also, merely to proclaim 'procedures' and say that's the end of it is just silly- these aren't robots they're human soldiers, and human soldiers make mistakes.

You ignore that the British administer a Shi'ite region of Iraq, and the town in question is a Shi'ite town. This alone can account for why the US forces have copped so much compared to the British.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If those procedures allowed for such actions as described--the patrol when it had been agreed not to take place, the pointing of a gun at a child who was not armed--it might be reasonable to assume that such behaviour among the British troops has not previously excited outrage (since there have been no previous incidents like this), and thus the actual sequence of events escalated for another reason--one that the source, especially, might have reason not to mention.

That's saying exactly what Gil and I are saying your argument is- it shouldn't happen/ hasn't happened, therefore it didn't happen.

Huh? Can you please explain how the quoted text relates to what you are saying (and are implying Gil is saying also)? Maybe I'm just stupid, but it seems that what you quoted refers rather specifically to the idea that the events did happen, but were not the cause of the incident. It was point six, which you did not quote, which might be more appropriate for you to raise the issue you just raised, in context with.

[Vympel]

I was sloppy with my quoting.

it might be reasonable to assume that such behaviour among the British troops has not previously excited outrage (since there have been no previous incidents like this), and thus the actual sequence of events escalated for another reason

You're saying that because it hasn't happened this way happened before, then it most likely didn't happen this way now- that's not a reasonable assumption to make. As I said, there's a first time for everything, there's no logical reason to assume that there must've been a previous time when a British soldier got a stone chucked at him (or was pelted with rocks who knows) and pointed his gun.

6. If those procedures did not allow for such actions as described, why change those procedures when the British occupation was clearly successful up to this point in time? That would seem highly counterintuitive, to say the least--the British, of all, are masters in treading lightly while in foreign lands.

Merely to proclaim 'procedures' and say that's the end of it is just silly- these aren't robots they're human soldiers, and human soldiers make mistakes, forget procedures, and get angry. And sometimes engage in complete barbarism.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You're saying that because it hasn't happened this way happened before, then it most likely didn't happen this way now- that's not a reasonable assumption to make. As I said, there's a first time for everything, there's no logical reason to assume that there must've been a previous time when a British soldier got a stone chucked at him (or was pelted with rocks who knows) and pointed his gun.

It depends on context, I'd contend. Was what the British particularly more unusual than their standard operations before that period in time? If so, your point is valid. But it would seem highly irregular for such an incident to approach from nowhere and throw itself into the cauldron, if you will--from outside of the context of the situation on the ground--without some condition to cause it.

Merely to proclaim 'procedures' and say that's the end of it is just silly- these aren't robots they're human soldiers, and human soldiers make mistakes, forget procedures, and get angry. And sometimes engage in complete barbarism.

Agreed, on all counts. But the last two seem less likely in a situation where they had received far less hostility than the American forces--no comrades dead since the end of "major combat," no reason for anger with the local populace (at least of that extent), and certainly even less reason for a decent into barbarism.

So what was the context? Well, it's been implied that the soldiers might have discarded their armour considering the peaceful situation. That was clearly a mistake. Could that have had something to do with it? It might have made the reaction more severe, I will grant: Certainly, being pelted with rocks while out of armour would be more severe than while in it.

But why did the rock throwing occur in the first place?--was this a direct response to the violation of the agreement? Why did the soldiers ignore their agreement, especially considering the good relations before this incident? The context for that, especially, is poor, and the entire event is one that is strictly without a real context for the British zone, which has previously been one of tranquility, and success in reconstruction, in Iraq.

The account of the event, thus, does not fit into the established pattern. Now, this alone does not exclude it, as you do correctly point out! I fully acknowledge this. However, the account is based upon eye-witness testimony. And how reliable is eye-witness testimony, really? We know that six British soldiers were killed, but do we really know anything about the events surrounding their deaths?

We have testimony, essentially, from the leaders of the people who killed them. People who fear retaliation, and are thus inclined to be at least somewhat biased. Who's to say that unauthorized patrol didn't begin with a cry for assistance, a lure into an ambush? How is my speculation right there really any less credible than that of someone who, contextually, has far, far more of an agenda than I do--the preservation of village and life, perhaps? And that's the exact problem with eye-witnesses.

Now, it might be accurate. But at the moment I'm simply saying that we might as well totally dismiss it, because there's nothing, nothing at all, that renders it credible.

[Vympel]

Ok then we understand each other. Regarding the agreement, I gathereed from another report on the subject that they may have been entering people's houses looking for weapons. Don't know.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ok then we understand each other. Regarding the agreement, I gathereed from another report on the subject that they may have been entering people's houses looking for weapons. Don't know.

Definitive indications of the context (at least, reliable ones to the civilian observer) will probably best be found in if there is repetition, and if there is repetition, if it is only limited to that village, or at least to the Marsh Arabs, or is widespread in the British Zone.

[MKSheppard]

I've read up some more...seems the british are confiscating ALL kinds of
weapons, not just exclusively heavy weapons as the Americans are...

And they're trying to confiscate all the weapons in Basra, a southern
Shiite area that Saddam hated and wanted them to be all dead...

[Keevan_Colton]

I've read up some more...seems the british are confiscating ALL kinds of
weapons, not just exclusively heavy weapons as the Americans are...

And they're trying to confiscate all the weapons in Basra, a southern
Shiite area that Saddam hated and wanted them to be all dead...

Well do remember we live in a country where everyone doesnt have a right to own a gun/rocket launcher/flamethrower.....

[Shinova]

I've read up some more...seems the british are confiscating ALL kinds of
weapons, not just exclusively heavy weapons as the Americans are...

And they're trying to confiscate all the weapons in Basra, a southern
Shiite area that Saddam hated and wanted them to be all dead...

Let me guess, that's kinda counterproductive for the British to be taking ALL weapons from the Iraqis in their area.

[Keevan_Colton]

Let me guess, that's kinda counterproductive for the British to be taking ALL weapons from the Iraqis in their area.

I mean after all....its not like, taking guns away helps to prevent people getting shot or anything....
I know for sure, I'd love to patrol an area where everyone and thier grandmother has more firepower than rambo....