British condemn US military tactics
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 04-12-2004 - 2:57pm |
By Sean Rayment
London
April 12, 2004
Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and disproportionate.
One senior officer said 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, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 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."
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, Slavs and gypsies.
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 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, the officer said.
"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."
The officer believed America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the insurgents.
"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."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=storyrhs

>" "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." "<
This is disturbing. It's the 'us' against 'them' mentality. Could this be that in Britain people from many countries mix together more than in most communities in the USA? Ofcourse with the exception of the US's larger cities
I did not post the article as "absolute truth", I posted it because often foreign papers have a different perspective--this is one. I find it hard to believe that the demonizing of "the other" has infected the military to such an extent that it is recognized by the British. I guess because I have always been tolerant of others, I assume tolerance is characteristic of most Americans. It distresses me that this is mot the case. Imagine how the Iraqi's feel. What is happening to this nation?
>" I did not post the article as "absolute truth", "<
I realize that. There are few absolutes in the news. ;)
>"
Ah yes, I miss the warmth and respect for differences. Too bad we can't learn from that example. Sigh
Blair and Bush Meet Today, With Iraq Seen as No.1 Topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/16/politics/16CND-BLAI.html?ex=1082779200&en=b3fa9931d5e97f29&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain meets with President Bush today to fulfill the role he has consistently adopted since the Iraq invasion began: giving firm public support for the American-led coalition's military actions, while trying to deal with the growing disquiet they have caused at home, in Europe and the Middle East.
As American and Iraqi civilian casualties have risen this month in the face of a Shiite rebellion and a conflict with Sunni Muslims in Falluja, and as more and more foreigners are being captured and held hostage, a united front between London and Washington is considered essential.
But in private 90-minute talks before a joint news conference at noon, and at a private lunch afterward, Mr. Blair was expected to voice his disquiet over the situation in Iraq.
One point on which he and Mr. Bush are in agreement is the need for a United Nations Security Council resolution on the transfer of power in Iraq. The outlines of such a plan were accepted by the Bush administration on Thursday, and Mr. Blair told reporters after a meeting with Secretary General Kofi Annan that it was important for the United Nations to have a larger role in Iraq before the June 30 deadline for a handover of sovereignty.
Critics of Washington's policies say that the United States' hard-line tactics after the killings of four American contractors in Falluja have only succeeded in increasing civilian casualties and uniting Iraqis against the occupation.
Britain's former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who quit Mr. Blair's government in 2001 in protest over Iraq, told the BBC that Mr. Blair would be "a false friend" if he "doesn't fairly bluntly put it to President Bush that he is pursuing policies in Iraq that are going to get into increasing difficulty there."
He stressed that Mr. Blair had "put a lot of his political capital on the line to support that relationship," adding, "President Bush owes it to him to listen today."
In an article published today in the newspaper The Independent, Mr. Cook said Mr. Bush was wrong to think he could make progress in Iraq by military means "regardless of political cost."
He added: "The most important job for Tony Blair today is to convince the Bush administration that they are not engaged in a military operation to beat a discrete enemy, but in a political exercise to win the hearts and minds of a whole people."
It is also likely Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush will discuss the Middle East peace process, and particularly the president's support for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to have Israel disengage from the Gaza Strip, while rebuffing the Palestinians' longstanding insistence on the right of refugees to return to land lost to in 1948.
The president's support, which represented a major policy shift for the United States, has come under widespread condemnation in Europe.