From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Brin-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Hearts and minds Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 15:05:50 +0100
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/ 2003/04/02/do0201.xml
(Excerpt) "The British show the way to win Iraqi hearts and minds By Patrick Bishop (Filed: 02/04/2003)
As I write this, the sound of bagpipes is drifting across the desert. It should seem incongruous, but in a funny way it doesn't. This dusty corner of Iraq has heard the skirl before. The names of the dead of the Scottish regiments killed in the 1914-21 campaign are inscribed on tablets in the memorial that stands, strangely intact, only a mile or so from here.
Nearly two weeks into the campaign, the Brits are managing somehow to fit in to Iraq. It's hot and dirty, there's no beer and not all the natives are friendly. But they will make the best of it - "crack on", as everyone around here says.
The same cannot be claimed for the Americans. The further they advance, the less comfortable they seem with their surroundings, a condition that can have terrible results, as the killing of women and children at a checkpoint shows.
It is often the case in war that allies look askance at each other. But considering the British and American armies as they pursue Saddam, one is still struck by the differences in the way that they go to war. The styles and attitudes are so distinct as to sometimes make it seem remarkable that they manage to be allies.
The impression the American forces give as they thunder up Route Tampa towards Baghdad is that everyone outside their ranks is a potential enemy: certainly the awe-struck peasants whose nervous waves are met with blank stares; and possibly the "unilateral" independent news teams whose pleas for food, fuel and shelter are brusquely rejected.
Indeed anyone who is not in a uniform that they instantly recognise is seen as a threat. The other day, British soldiers who were working on the edge of a camp I was staying in were fired on by a passing American convoy, who thought it was easier to shoot than to ask questions." -- Full story at URL.
If the American troops were to let a single suicide bomber through one of their checkpoints, this article would have been entitled "Incompetent American Forces Asleep At The Gate". In the interests of full disclosure the correspondent should have also reported that wartime rules of engagement now apply to coalition forces. Instead, he gives the impression that American troops are taking their task seriously while the British are not.
Saddam Hussein's information officer called for a civilian jihad against the coalition forces yesterday. American troops have been told that *anyone* might be a suicide bomber. Considering the threat of Iraqi "4000 martyrs" that's been well-publicized here it is entirely appropriate for American troops to be extremely wary of Iraqi civilians that do not respond to directions like "Stop" when approaching a checkpoint. An Iraqi civilian who doesn't respond to warning shots is truly asking for trouble. This article irresponsibly ignores the greater context of the war and its portrayal of Americans as arrogant or out of touch simply because they don't wave to Iraqi children is ridiculous.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
