Why Aren't the Brits Killing Civilians?

Given the events so far this week it seems odd that the Brits seem to be getting such an easy run.

I think the British soldiers are in just the same position as the American soldiers and face the same dangers, but they are behaving differently. A lot of the American troops are 18-19 year old kids. They're justifiably scared, and operating on a deadly combination of testosterone and adrenaline. British troops are often in the military for a longer time than Americans, so are they likely to be more experienced of a higher average age?

Another thing I’ve also noticed in news clips is that British officers take their sunglasses off when they talk to people so that everyone can see their eyes. The regiments have been patrolling in soft hats, not all the battle gear the American soldiers wear; there have been football games between different regiments and the Iraqis. These sound like little things, but they can make all the difference for the civilian population.

I guess the only likely point of contention between Iraqis and Brits would be that David Beckham is not the best footballer in the world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:m: Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Its well known that us Brits are much more experienced and it seems more willing to engage in winning "Hearts and Minds".
I admit that this give us a twofold advantage, one that obviously we can get the situation under control much quicker before things get out of hand and of course theres the fact that there is not as much hostility towards the British to start with as there is to the US soldiers.
Even before the war many in Iraqi saw the UK as a friendly enough nation despite the Sanctions and the bombings :bugeye: and there was quite a bit of suprise expressed when the UK went after them with such blind, unflinching ferocity, or should i say blair went after them.

HOWEVER, it still doesn't excuse the US for their extremly poor and sometimes criminal behaviour.

When the Brits first swapped their helmets for berrets (a tactic learnt in Northern Ireland to show the residents we are not here to fight and we trust you and belive we have made this place safe enough to go around sans armour), but the US troops comments on this ranged from taking the piss to outright shock that we could be so stupid.

Unfortunatly whilst i Admit that it would be harder for the US troops to start winning Hearts and minds as there is some deep seated resenment to them the Brits manage to deal with being mistaken for US forces, with hostility, and the US has to start some time.
Instead they seem unwilling to start and they few attempts they did make at first, whilst sucessful, mingling with the children, giving out sweets and...pencils....this was all over shadowed by the fact they never had the trust, they seem to see all iraqi's as the enemy and are fingers on triggers at all times.

They even got to the point now that they are sending in troops in tanks first to ask locals to keep the kids away becuase they are seen as a danger and a nuisance before the troops move through.

Recently the US Troops taking 3 alleged theives prisoner, stripping them naked and parading them through the town with "Theif" written across their bodies in Arabic made them more enemies, one of them quoted "I hate them for this, all i want to do now is go home and find a grenade and throw it at them, not just the ones that did this all of them, I hate Americans for this".
Today suprise suprise a grenade attack injures 17 American Soldiers.
Im not saying they are related or the same guy but it's too close to dismiss.

I admit the way the US is at the moment many 17-18 yr olds are going into the Army for many reasons as the way the system is set up in the US it seems the Army is almost the best sollution for many poorer youths as a promise of money, food, life skills and qualifications in the face of mounting health and educational fees and the dumbing down of the education system and cuts in social welfare.
An army of this composition thrown into a foreign country, given the mentality and spiel rolled out in the US "Free press" and fed to these young minds is going to be scared, aggressive, untrusting and inexperienced, how they expect them to win hearts and minds i have no idea.
The US is good for all its money, it has so much equipment and technology and great numbers but they are just not equiped for any kind of peaceful or delicate ocupation or prolonged stay in a hostile environment.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Quite a few of the british soldiers have seen service in Northern Ireland. None of the US troops have seen anything remotely similar. Small example, but basicly that's the professional opinion coming from british soldiers in Iraq - the US troops are not professional enough, not well-enough trained and not experienced enough to do the job they're being asked to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I suspect it has nothing to do with the nature of the individual soldiers as they follow orders. If they are told to do things the Brittish way, they will.

 

It's probably more circumstances than anything else...after all, do we say that the Brits are clumsier with their equipment since they seem to have had more deadly accidents in the course of the war?

 

I was thinking more of those helicopters hitting each other and such...

 

By clumsily getting in the way of American ordinance?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Because the British are more civilized then their Barbarian counterparts.

 

The Barbars were not a part of this campaign, however...


http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/barbars.html

 

5 entries found for Barbarian.
bar·bar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bär-bâr-n)
n.
1. A member of a people considered by those of another nation or group to have a primitive civilization.
2. A fierce, brutal, or cruel person.
3. An insensitive, uncultured person; a boor. See Synonyms at boor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Barbarian

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah. I thought you capitalized on purpose.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Winning the "hearts and minds" of the people is not something the US troops(the ones there, anyway) were trained for. I agree that Britain's experience in Ireland would make them, on whatever levels these decisions are being made, better equipped to do this. Perhaps if our troops start learing these lessons very soon, we can stop the negative trend.

 

Been to Northern Ireland recently, have we?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The point was that the UK troops are better trained, not that they are better at "winning hearts and minds" ...

 

Is it the military's job to win hearts and minds, anyway?

 

I think it's the little things as Goofy says. Even removing the sunglasses as they are known to be intimidating. I believe that the British Army trains with dealing with the public. There are so many ways is gaining a peoples trust. Also the fact that the UK hasn't been blamed in killing civilians (market pace bombing, not saying it was the US, that remains sceptical though) may have a great deal to do with it.
And some the UK's more experienced troops were sent there including, as we've all heard many times, the famed Desert Rats. And from experience, many UK soldiers tend to be older than their US counterparts. And the UK tends not to send kids to war. My father was denied chances to go to Iraq during the First Gulf war as he was too young...or was it too fat. I may be thinking Falklands here. Oh well :bugeye:

Edit to add: It's not just Northern Ireland, there's South East Europe among other countries (I'm too tired to name them now)

 

I suspect it might be because there are far more British troops in the south, an area that is probably more grateful of liberation, due to Saddam's policies.

 

A thought

Mabye America an Britain are playing the whole good cop bad cop routine.

 

why are the british not killing civilians

It is a matter of experience in internal security, and the job in hand in Iraq is now internal security. The British have over 30 years experience in Northern Ireland and the lessons learned have been passed on so that they do not become lessons forgotten.

I am a former British soldier with experience in Northern Ireland so I speak with some ' expertise'.

Dressing down goes a long way, to calming the civilian population, and when they are calm there is less scope for accidents. The discarding of steel or kevlar hemets and the wearing of berets or similar headress has a calming affect that is impossible to over estimate. Foot patrols ( forget mobile patrols, mobile patrols are for reacting to incidents) armed with small arms (ie simply rifles) rather than heavy weapons particulaly rocket launchers also reduce tension. Sun glasses and personal graffiti (ie. 'born to kill' scrawled on flack jackets) does not help.

Ensuring that you 'look the part is also vital'. troops must wear headress when in view of the locals, they must look the part, if you look 'mean' and if you come across as confident, calm and in control then you are halfway there. if the locals get the idea you don'y know what you are doing then you are in trouble.

The British get close to the civilian population whilst the Americans keep them at arms length.

The war is over so heavy tanks should be withdrawn from populated areas and soft skinned (hummers) supported by armoured cars be provided as support to foot patrols. Tracked vehicles (all tracked vehicles) are regarded as tanks and can cause an awful lot of hostility while wheeled vehicles ( even those with heavy firepower) are often accepted without a problem.



ATTACKS ON COALITIAN FORCES

FORGET NORMAL COMBAT OPERATIONS THE COALITION FORCES ARE NOW ENGAGED IN INTERNAL SECURITY OPERATIONS WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.

If attacked the US troops must (repeat must) identify the attacker. THIS MEANS SEEING WITH YOUR OWN EYES AN ATTACKER WITH A WEAPON. Return fire must only be contemplated if there is a reasonable chance of 'taking out' the attacker without hurting civilians. when returning fire you must fire only SINGLE AIMED SHOTS. (FORGET AUTOMATIC FIRE) not only does it endanger other people but it is a waste of ammunition.

The ideal news communique is as follows, TODAY GUNMEN FIRED THOUSANDS OF ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION AT OUR TROOPS. OUR FORCES FIRED TWO (2) ROUNDS IN RETURN AND BOTH ROUNDS HIT THEIR INTENDED TARGETS. THE BODIES OF TWO GUNMEN WERE RECOVERED.

If you have to you, you simply take cover and let the attack peter out without shooting back. but when possible return fire with maximum violence. Patience is a virtue and patience is the key to internal security operations.

 

The purpose of a military is to kill people and break things, as Rush Limbaugh would say. The use of military personnel as police officers and babysitters for third-worlders is a fairly recent phenomenon.

 

Galt: I think you're right.