who are the british to talk?

**astralis** · 15 Jan 06,, 10:11

http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...148722,00.html

Who are the British to Talk?
Opinion: TIME's Aparisim Ghosh argues that a British officer may be right about the U.S. military in Iraq, but his complaints apply to the British army, too
By APARISIM GHOSH

Posted Thursday, Jan. 12, 2006
In the brouhaha over British Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster's criticism of the U.S. military in Iraq, one important fact has been lost: the British are hardly any better.

In an article published in the current edition of Military Review, Brig. Ailwin-Foster rips into the American military, charging it with arrogance, self-righteousness and cultural insensitivity bordering on "institutional racism." These traits, he suggests, prevented the Americans from building productive relationships with Iraqis — they may even have helped fuel the insurgency that wracks the country today.

Having helped train Iraqi troops, Brig. Ailwin-Foster has had plenty of interaction with the American military. And, having myself watched the U.S. military from close quarters in Iraq for nearly three years, I find it hard to disagree with him. American cultural insensitivity was on display even in the minutes before Saddam Hussein's statue was famously toppled in Baghdad — remember the soldier who covered the statue's head with the Stars and Stripes? The Iraqis gathered in the square to celebrate the dictator's downfall took offense to that gesture.

The soldier quickly removed that flag — but the military has not always been so responsive to local sentiments in Iraq. I have witnessed scores of instances of American soldiers behaving badly toward Iraqis. But, I've also seen British soldiers doing the exact same thing.

British commanders (and the British media) routinely cite their country's colonial history as the basis of a superior understanding of Middle Eastern politics and people. Because the British once ruled Iraq, they must be better than the Americans at dealing with Iraqis today.

It is theory rooted in arrogance — and it is dead wrong.

For one thing, nobody serving in the British contingent in Iraq was even alive when it was part of the Empire, so Brig. Ailwin-Foster's fellow soldiers don't have any real colonial experience. For another, the British were hardly beloved as colonizers — they were booted out of Iraq, just as they were from most of their colonies — so there was no reservoir of goodwill awaiting their return.

In the first months after the war, the British media made a great deal of the contrasts between the British and American areas of control. While American soldiers were dealing with a nascent insurgency in Baghdad, forced to wear full body armor (when available) and shelter behind high blast walls, their British counterparts were patrolling Basra in soft caps and smilingly accepting cups of tea from roadside vendors. This bonhomie was claimed to be the result of that superior understanding of Iraqi culture. Never mind that managing mostly Shi'ite Basra was a picnic compared to running the much more heterogeneous and volatile Baghdad.

Still, things soon soured for the British in southern Iraq. The turning point was the June 2003 killing of six British soldiers in the town of Amarah after they had inflamed local sentiments by taking sniffer dogs into a mosque. You don't need any colonial experience to know that bringing an animal to a place of worship is likely to offend the worshippers — no matter what their faith.

It went downhill from there, to the point where the British are just as unwelcome in the Shi'ite south as the Americans are in the Sunni Triangle. An opinion poll conducted shortly before the Dec 15 elections showed that Basrans are overwhelmingly hostile toward the British. So how come the British suffer so few casualties, as compared to the Americans? That's mainly because, unlike the Sunni insurgents who attack the Americans in and around Baghdad, the Shi'ite militias in the south already wield political power — they may resent the British presence, but it doesn't stop them from running the cities and provinces as they please.

These days, Basra is practically run by Shi'ite militias, with the British only intervening when their own soldiers get into trouble — as they did last fall, when two soldiers were "arrested" by militiamen, requiring the British to mount a rescue operation. I have not been to Basra for some time, but friends there routinely report instances of British soldiers behaving in a hostile manner, even with those once-friendly tea vendors.

Bad behavior by British soldiers is no excuse for similar behavior by the Americans. The U.S. military would be well advised to take Brig. Ailwin-Foster's criticism seriously and train troops to be more sensitive to Iraqi culture and better behaved toward Iraqis. But it would be a good idea for the British military to do likewise.

**Trooth** · 15 Jan 06,, 15:32

An other wise interesting article ruined by :-

These days, Basra is practically run by Shi'ite militias, with the British only intervening when their own soldiers get into trouble — as they did last fall, when two soldiers were "arrested" by militiamen, requiring the British to mount a rescue operation. I have not been to Basra for some time, but friends there routinely report instances of British soldiers behaving in a hostile manner, even with those once-friendly tea vendors.

His credibility regarding seeing the arrogant behaviour first hand is established in the opening paragraphs. But now its just hear say.

The article may be entirely correct, but we can't tell.

**astralis** · 13 Feb 06,, 00:23

what the hell happened here? anyone know?

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/armyvideo.shtml

----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4705482.stm

MoD to probe Iraq 'abuse' video
News of the World
The paper said it obtained the footage from a "whistleblower"
The Ministry of Defence has launched an investigation into video images which appeared to show UK soldiers brutally beating a group of Iraqi teenagers.

The News of the World has published pictures from a video the newspaper says was shot in southern Iraq in 2004.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said the abuse, if true, was "unacceptable".

A military spokesman in Iraq condemned "all acts of abuse and brutality" by British troops, saying the allegations related to a "tiny number" of soldiers.

Alleged abuse

On the tape, described as a "secret home video", an unidentified cameraman is heard laughing and urging his colleagues on. It was apparently filmed for fun by a corporal.

The Ministry of Defence said it was aware of the allegations, which are being investigated by the Royal Military Police.

Speaking on the BBC's Sunday AM programme, Mr Brown said the "loyal, hard-working, decent troops" in Iraq would see the allegations as a "slight on their great work".

Those responsible would be brought to trial.

British military spokesman Flight Lieutenant Chris Thomas, based in Basra, said: "We hope that the good relations that the multi-national forces have worked very hard to develop won't be adversely affected by this material."

He said the newspaper's claims related "to only a tiny number of the 80,000 personnel that have served in Iraq".

We've satisfied ourselves that this is an absolutely genuine article
NoW editor Stuart Kuttner

Send us your comments

The tape allegedly shows a disturbance in the street outside what the paper calls a military compound.

Soldiers are shown chasing youths involved in the disturbance, dragging four of them into the compound and beating them on various parts of the body with batons and kicking them, one in the genitals.

The recording is said to show an attack lasting a minute, with 42 blows counted.

The News of the World said a soldier could also be seen kicking a dead Iraqi in the face.

'Shocking pictures'

Home Office minister Andy Burnham told the BBC: "The pictures are shocking and that's why I think the MoD are right and I'm pleased that they've said they'll carry out a full in depth and very quick investigation.

"That's what needs to be done so that people can have, we can find out the facts and we can make sure that if there is serious wrongdoing then there's appropriate action taken."

The paper claims it has established the soldiers involved were British, but would not disclose which unit or regiment were allegedly involved.

It said it has made exhaustive checks to establish the video's authenticity after obtaining the footage from a whistleblower, who they declined to identify.

Managing editor Stuart Kuttner said: "We've made enquires of the source, of people around the source, of military experts, of the Ministry of Defence and beyond.

British soldier in Iraq
The Ministry of Defence said it was investigating the allegations

"Given that there was a slip-up by a newspaper some time ago, we've satisfied ourselves that this was an absolutely genuine article."

The Ministry of Defence said it took any allegations of abuse very seriously.

The Army's chief General Sir Mike Jackson launched an inquiry last year into the issue of whether pre-deployment training was adequate.

Abuse allegations had damaged the Army but a cover-up would be worse, he said.

Three British soldiers were jailed last year after a prisoner abuse scandal at an aid camp in Iraq.

But photographs published by the Daily Mirror purporting to show soldiers from the Queen's Lancashire Regiment abusing Iraqi detainees were revealed to be fakes.

Officials at the International Criminal Court, meanwhile, have told lawyers for civilians who claim they were tortured by British troops in Iraq that they would not be bringing prosecutions.

**Officer of Engineers** · 13 Feb 06,, 00:47

The Good Captain Dave Angel would be the one to ask.

**lemontree** · 13 Feb 06,, 08:30

Originally Posted by astralis

what the hell happened here? anyone know?

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/armyvideo.shtml

----
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4705482.stm

Just a bunch of roiters getting thrashed by the British army. Whats wrong?....

**dave angel** · 13 Feb 06,, 10:33

its rioters getting the **** beaten out of them, apparently without any form of supervision.

the porno (yes! yes! yes!) voice track adds a certain something. looks like its the traditional post-riot slap being taken too far. much better to spread it about with more rioters getting a lighter slap - no martyrs and everyone treated the same - than this rather gratuitous display of 'we've got one, we're safe inside the copmpound, now, who's got the jump leads?'.

hope they, and the local NCO's/officers get hauled over the coals.

**Grundy** · 13 Feb 06,, 13:47

well what were they stoning the people who are there to protect the IRAQI's for, its a shame it only takes a handful of people to wreck their regiment and bring shame upon the british army, Does anyone know what sort of punishment the soldiers will get, Court Marshall??

**dave angel** · 13 Feb 06,, 14:26

Originally Posted by Grundy

well what were they stoning the people who are there to protect the IRAQI's for, its a shame it only takes a handful of people to wreck their regiment and bring shame upon the british army, Does anyone know what sort of punishment the soldiers will get, Court Marshall??

for whomsoever was in charge - i'll not use in control - its a career-ending move. the voiceover boy will be found sharpish because he took the video - assuming the voiceover was 'live' - so he can't be too difficult to find, the blokes doing the bashing will be reasonably easy to find as well, duty logs etc..

not sure what the punishments will be, beating people up in a riot isn't exactly a war crime but it reasonasbly clear it went a bit far.

on the other hand the soldiers will be able to point to their weapons and say 'we showed considerable restraint, grenades were being thown but we didn't top the feckers'. could work the other way though, had the lads been a real threat the soldiers could have shot them, not shooting would suggest they weren't a real threat.

people have the right not to want foreign soldiers in their country, regardless of how much good those soldiers may be doing.

**Bluesman** · 13 Feb 06,, 15:06

Great. Perfect. We sure needed THIS, right about now.

I sympathize with the troops, as you all know. But I am a MISSION GUY, and this is sure not helping things along. These troops - and I say this as an advocate of the troops, in almost all things - have hurt the mission, and by so doing they endangered the lives of their mates.

Every time something like this happens, it sets us back all over again, and crawling out of the hole is hard work.

And dangerous, too.

Dammit. Disappointing, and discouraging.

Prang 'em hard, Brits.

**lemontree** · 14 Feb 06,, 04:13

Gentlemen the only thing wrong is the guy who shot the video and and it was allowed to go out of the unit lines. Desperate times require desperate measures - measures which will not always be politically correct.

Most army units have a policy of checking baggage when troops go on leave. In the case of a video it is not too difficult to check the contents before the "johnny" it get out of the unit gate. This is mainly done to ensure that no "capture" arms and munitions are imported by troops returning from an operational areas.

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 Feb 06,, 04:45

Originally Posted by lemontree

Gentlemen the only thing wrong is the guy who shot the video and and it was allowed to go out of the unit lines.

Captain,

I see clear violations of both the GC and the QR&O in that video. It's frustration pure and simple resulting in a discipline breakdown. Smacking a few loud mouth teenagers ain't going to help things any.

**lemontree** · 14 Feb 06,, 07:42

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Captain,

I see clear violations of both the GC and the QR&O in that video. It's frustration pure and simple resulting in a discipline breakdown. Smacking a few loud mouth teenagers ain't going to help things any.

Sir,
We don't really know why those boys were pulled into the compound?....The troops on ground know better. Its better to thrash them and let them off than filling up prisons.

The politically correct way was to arrest them and send them into prison, then they would meet more hardcore jihadis out there and when they get released after a couple of months, you'll have brand new ideologically wrapped jihadis.

**Officer of Engineers** · 14 Feb 06,, 09:56

Originally Posted by lemontree

Sir,
We don't really know why those boys were pulled into the compound?....The troops on ground know better. Its better to thrash them and let them off than filling up prisons.

"Killing the chickens in front of the monkeys" would require you showing the monkeys you mean business. Not hiding the fact from them. As things are shown, this was even hidden from the rest of the company. They eased up big time when the rest of the company entered the compound.

Originally Posted by lemontree

The politically correct way was to arrest them and send them into prison, then they would meet more hardcore jihadis out there and when they get released after a couple of months, you'll have brand new ideologically wrapped jihadis.

That's not their decision. That is mine. Who said that I will send them to be brainwashed. There are other techniques that are borderline legal but can be used to scare the crap out of them.

1) Blindfold them.
2) Tell them you're going to chop off their hands.
3) Use a big stick to hit the table but not their hands and splash cold water on them the same time you whack the table.

**Parihaka** · 14 Feb 06,, 10:27

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

1) Blindfold them.
2) Tell them you're going to chop off their hands.
3) Use a big stick to hit the table but not their hands and splash cold water on them the same time you whack the table.

Oh now that's just plain mean

**lemontree** · 14 Feb 06,, 11:13

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

"Killing the chickens in front of the monkeys" would require you showing the monkeys you mean business. Not hiding the fact from them. As things are shown, this was even hidden from the rest of the company. They eased up big time when the rest of the company entered the compound.

Sir,
I did'nt get to see the last part, however, you are correct on the subject, (I am needlessly arguing with you).

Thread: who are the british to talk?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

who are the british to talk?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Your Thoughts on David Icke?

A new, better U.N.

British troops in 5-day chase of Taliban

Gun battle after British helicopter is shot down.

Topic For Hongkongfeuy

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions