U.S. Tactics Condemned by British Officers
By Sean Rayment
Telegrah UK
Sunday 11 April 2004
Senior British commanders have condemned American military tactics in Iraq as heavy-handed and
disproportionate.
One senior Army officer told The Telegraph 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, who agreed to the interview on the condition of anonymity, said that 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. Their
attitude towards the Iraqis is tragic, it's awful.
"The US troops view things in very simplistic terms. It seems hard for them to reconcile subtleties
between who supports what and who doesn't in Iraq. It's easier for their soldiers to group all Iraqis as
the bad guys. As far as they are concerned Iraq is bandit country and everybody is out to kill them."
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, Slaves and gipsies.
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 to fire 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: "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. They are very concerned about taking casualties and have even trained their
guns on British troops, which has led to some confrontations between soldiers.
"The British response in Iraq has been much softer. During and after the war the British set about
trying to win the confidence of the local population. There have been problems, it hasn't been easy but
on the whole it was succeeding."
The officer believed that America had now lost the military initiative in Iraq, and it could only be
regained with carefully planned, precision attacks against the "terrorists".
"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.
"Our objective is to create a stable, democratic and safe Iraq. That's achievable but not in the short
term. It is going to take up to 10 years." |
