British Commander Compares US Troops to Nazis

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621835663.html?from=top5

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."

I think that saying goes "War is diplomacy by other means". Just having superior firepower is not enough to resolve a conflict.

And another view on American blunders in strategy

Trail of blood leads back to American blunder: military experts

The seeds of the growing resistance were sown when the US decided to disband the Iraqi army in direct opposition to British policy, according to senior military and intelligence sources.

Just before the war, Britain's top military officer at the time, Admiral Sir Michael (now Lord) Boyce, directed his commanders to negotiate with senior Iraqi officers. The idea was for officers in the Iraqi army and Republican Guard to maintain order under British supervision.

British sources described the move to disband the Iraqi army as a huge error. The decision was taken by US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from right-wing elements in the Bush Administration, they say.

It is clear that British policymakers are still seething at the American decision. The British plan was based on intelligence reports, that many Iraqi commanders would switch sides as soon as British and US troops entered the country. Though the Iraqi army crumbled and fled before the invading troops, it was not too late, British sources insist, for the Iraqi units to regroup and help maintain order. But any chance of success that Lord Boyce's directive might have had was shattered by Washington's decision shortly after the war to disband the Iraqi army.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/07/1081326788920.html


I have heard that "sand-ni%%ers" is a common expression.

Finally, now that the US is in, who is going to help it out?

Who will rescue the US?
April 12, 2004

America is slowly learning that it is Iraqis who will decide their own future, says Martin Woollacott.

Since the end of the Second World War, a cycle of military victory and defeat has been evident in American politics. It has taken the country from the apex of its military strength in 1945 to near disaster and then qualified victory in Korea, and then to failure in Vietnam, victory in the Gulf War, and now to Iraq. In each phase, but particularly after Vietnam, the impact of defeat has been to set in train a rebuilding of American military strength and, eventually, its confident and sometimes over-confident reassertion in a new situation.

The formative years of the men who have shaped the foreign policy of George Bush's Administration were influenced by the humiliation of defeat in Vietnam, and by the idea that if only the country's military power had been properly exerted, without condition or obstacle, Vietnam could have been won.

Iraq has become a test case for this concept of untrammelled military power, and it is proving a difficult one. With the excitement of the armoured race to Baghdad now a distant memory, the Bush Administration finds itself face to face, perhaps even more than its predecessors in Vietnam, with what could be called the essential meagreness of the military instrument. It can be a key that opens the door for other kinds of action, but it cannot substitute for them. Playwright George Bernard Shaw observed that any political arrangement that depends on soldiers is not likely to continue long.

The truth in Iraq has, from the start, been that the American "occupation", like most occupations, has never meant any kind of close military control of Iraqi society. Even if close control was desirable, American and other coalition troops are not present in sufficient numbers - nor do they have the language and other skills that would enable them to exercise it.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/11/1081621832400.html

I was told off for metioning the poor language skills of the US in the conflict right at the start. Looks like I was right after all.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have heard that "sand-ni%%ers" is a common expression.

Sand-Niffers?

 

[charley_bigtime]

>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."

>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".




No holes in this one then.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Hey, at least the major fighting is over.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hey, at least the major fighting is over.

Yes, now it's just colonel fighting.

 

[corplinx]

Perhaps AUP should start a thread where he posts the latest theage.com article that suits his outlook instead of creating all these different threads.

 

[Kopji]

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.

hummm... I note he is not speaking from his base in Fallujah... Maybe this is from poolside in Bashra...

The British comments give the impression that they are willing to do whatever it takes to make it easier on themselves by deflecting Iraqi anger toward Americans. This does not sound like an intelligent long term strategy, although there is a lot of that going around lately.

It's occured to me more than once that maybe the British were only sending their really stupid big-mouth military people to Iraq.

Iraq (the old Arabic name for part of the region) was to become a British mandate, carved out of the three former Ottoman provinces. France took control of Syria and Lebanon. There was immediate resentment amongst Iraq's inhabitants at what they saw as a charade, and in 1920 a strong revolt spread through the country - a revolt that was put down only with great difficulty and by methods that do not bear close scrutiny. The situation was so bad that the British commander, General Sir Aylmer Haldane, at one time called for supplies of poisonous gas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/iraq/britain_iraq_03.shtml

Comparing Americans to Nazis seems a case of selective memory, the British once considered using poison gas on them. Those must have been different Iraqi's.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

This British commander should stop whinging about mistakes of the past and get on with the job. Sniping at our allies with a petted lip is not going to help matters.

 

[a_unique_person]

This British commander should stop whinging about mistakes of the past and get on with the job. Sniping at our allies with a petted lip is not going to help matters.

I think they are mistakes of the present that are going to make the future worse.

 

[c0rbin]

Weren't the Brits kicked out of the middle east earlier this century?

 

[Reginald]

Nothing like a bit of AUP unsubstantiated source posting to drive the wedge in is there?

The officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Ok let's assume that it was said, and by someone who actually matters. One person said this in an unprofessional outburst, and yet look how quick you mob mentality people are to start the ""Didn't the Brits...." ......."From a pool side"........etc.

He's unprofessional, should have his arse kicked, but the speed that people have leapt in to "Tar with the same brush" just, IMO give credibility to the very comments that were made in the opening post.

Sad, really sad.




Edited to add...


The man should resign if he wants to make these kind of comments. Hiding behind his rank is no sign of bravery to me.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

Edited to add...


The man should resign if he wants to make these kind of comments. Hiding behind his rank is no sign of bravery to me.

Damn right Reginald. The guy has a job to do and should be doing his best to get his POV across to his Allies, instead of whinging to the press and causing unnecessary friction.

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

I think they are mistakes of the present that are going to make the future worse.

Yeah but there is no point in saying "you shouldn't have broken te Iraqi Army up"

It IS broken up. So get on with what your paid to do and stop having a go at your Allies, or quit and go and take an office job in Daddy's firm.

 

[Clancie]

I so agree with this--and only wish the criticism would be more openly made.

I think one reason for this overdone philosophy toward thrashing opponents (one Bush shares with Sharon) is the total lack of military experience by any of those making our policies. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice has the slightest idea what war is about in reality. (And Powell, who does, is perceived as overly moderate--and is being very marginalized).

Even Robert Novak said that Rumsfeld is despised by the Pentagon. It must be frustrating to have policy set by the group of ignoramuses who are in charge.

 

[RandFan]

I so agree with this--and only wish the criticism would be more openly made.

I think one reason for this overdone philosophy toward thrashing opponents (one Bush shares with Sharon) is the total lack of military experience by any of those making our policies. Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rumsfeld, nor Rice has the slightest idea what war is about in reality. (And Powell, who does, is perceived as overly moderate--and is being very marginalized).

Even Robert Novak said that Rumsfeld is despised by the Pentagon. It must be frustrating to have policy set by the group of ignoramuses who are in charge.

Hey Clancie,

I wonder what you thought of the Clinton administration. He was so despised by so many military leaders that a number of them lost their positions due to criticism of the Commander in Chief. Clinton and many of his consultants were seen as draft dodgers who were openly hostile to the military. Clinton's first big gaffe was trying to deal with the homosexual issue.

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. And Cheney and Rumsfield have experience dealing with the military from 3 different administrations.

I personally doubt that they are seen as neophytes by many if any from the military.

 

[RandFan]

Nothing like a bit of AUP unsubstantiated source posting to drive the wedge in is there?



Ok let's assume that it was said, and by someone who actually matters. One person said this in an unprofessional outburst, and yet look how quick you mob mentality people are to start the ""Didn't the Brits...." ......."From a pool side"........etc.

He's unprofessional, should have his arse kicked, but the speed that people have leapt in to "Tar with the same brush" just, IMO give credibility to the very comments that were made in the opening post.

Sad, really sad.




Edited to add...


The man should resign if he wants to make these kind of comments. Hiding behind his rank is no sign of bravery to me.

I happen to agree.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Hey Clancie,

I wonder what you thought of the Clinton administration. He was so despised by so many military leaders that a number of them lost their positions due to criticism of the Commander in Chief. Clinton and many of his consultants were seen as draft dodgers who were openly hostile to the military. Clinton's first big gaffe was trying to deal with the homosexual issue.

Bush had far more experience than Clinton. And Cheney and Rumsfield have experience dealing with the military from 3 different administrations.

I personally doubt that they are seen as neophytes by many if any from the military.

When in doubt, you can always drag up the Clinton adminstration.

Have we mentioned that Clinton had sex and lied in this thread, yet?

 

[a_unique_person]

Yeah but there is no point in saying "you shouldn't have broken te Iraqi Army up"

It IS broken up. So get on with what your paid to do and stop having a go at your Allies, or quit and go and take an office job in Daddy's firm.

They were two different stories from different sources, I presume. However, I suppose it is better to just blindly stumble along towards a worse crisis, and not have anyone point out that maybe there are ways to prevent it getting worse. Heaven forbid that the US troops should stop treating the Iraqis as 'gooks'.

 

[peptoabysmal]

This British commander should stop whinging about mistakes of the past and get on with the job. Sniping at our allies with a petted lip is not going to help matters.

Wise words. I think there are some who would like to drive a wedge between the allies and are willing to support any lie or disparagement to achieve that goal.

I have seen the British military in action and I have to say that I agree there is indeed a thing or two we yanks could learn from them. The way this commander has gone about it, if the story is even true, is just wrong.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Wise words. I think there are some who would like to drive a wedge between the allies and are willing to support any lie or disparagement to achieve that goal.

I have seen the British military in action and I have to say that I agree there is indeed a thing or two we yanks could learn from them. The way this commander has gone about it, if the story is even true, is just wrong.

Absolutely correct. All criticisms and concerns should be referred up the chain of command, so that qualified and responsible people can begin to ignore them immediately.