GCusack
26th May 2003, 15:53
This report was in the Sunday times, that my Dad reads, it was about the British Colonel Collins who supposedly Pistiol whipped a head teacher in Basra.
The reporter, John Swain, had follwed the Americans in action since Vietnam . The Americans are the once filling the law suit against Colonel Collins. He had just been talking about the American veiw towards war that No American will die, and because of this they treat the public of the country they invade, or 'liberate' as they put it, like sub humans. swain was investigating as to whether the Americans would be more accepted as liberators not over-lords if the removed their flak jackets and steel helmets and adopted the British approach to wear Berets and no armour.
The result is that not just in Iraq but in Bosnia and Kosovo today, American forces wear heavy body armour and helmets when the threat to them has long vanished. By contrast, British troops wear berets and keep their rifles at their sides — as they now do in Basra, Iraq’s second city.
This is not just a matter of choice, but a difference in military doctrine. British military doctrine is to take off the helmets and armour once conflict is over; the American doctrine is to keep them on at all times. This maintains a psychological separation from the civilian population, who are perceived as the enemy. Cut off in a “virtual America” — whether in their body armour, their tanks or their highly protected compounds — how can US troops build up a relationship with the people they are supposed to be protecting? The Americans’ soldier-saving approach to combat and peacekeeping operations, and the overwhelming military superiority which their technological edge has given US forces, have led to an extraordinary decline in American casualties in the years. Since 1975, when the Vietnam war ended, only about 800 American soldiers have been killed in combat and peacekeeping duties in the world.
But while the war in Iraq may be a shining example of a low- casualty conflict for Americans — an almost bloodless war for which they feel understandable relief and pride — the number of Iraqi civilian dead and wounded runs into the thousands. This has made Iraqis and many others resent any signs of US triumphalism.
The longer this unchecked American use of overwhelming firepower continues, the greater the risk that the Americans will lose the crucial battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, including those who were very critical of or hated the Saddam regime. The American military are playing into the hands of those who want the rehabilitation of Iraq under US and British occupation to fail.
What do you think? would the Americans have an easier time if the were no so detached from the rest of the world? If they did remove their armour would they have an easier time being accepted?
The reporter, John Swain, had follwed the Americans in action since Vietnam . The Americans are the once filling the law suit against Colonel Collins. He had just been talking about the American veiw towards war that No American will die, and because of this they treat the public of the country they invade, or 'liberate' as they put it, like sub humans. swain was investigating as to whether the Americans would be more accepted as liberators not over-lords if the removed their flak jackets and steel helmets and adopted the British approach to wear Berets and no armour.
The result is that not just in Iraq but in Bosnia and Kosovo today, American forces wear heavy body armour and helmets when the threat to them has long vanished. By contrast, British troops wear berets and keep their rifles at their sides — as they now do in Basra, Iraq’s second city.
This is not just a matter of choice, but a difference in military doctrine. British military doctrine is to take off the helmets and armour once conflict is over; the American doctrine is to keep them on at all times. This maintains a psychological separation from the civilian population, who are perceived as the enemy. Cut off in a “virtual America” — whether in their body armour, their tanks or their highly protected compounds — how can US troops build up a relationship with the people they are supposed to be protecting? The Americans’ soldier-saving approach to combat and peacekeeping operations, and the overwhelming military superiority which their technological edge has given US forces, have led to an extraordinary decline in American casualties in the years. Since 1975, when the Vietnam war ended, only about 800 American soldiers have been killed in combat and peacekeeping duties in the world.
But while the war in Iraq may be a shining example of a low- casualty conflict for Americans — an almost bloodless war for which they feel understandable relief and pride — the number of Iraqi civilian dead and wounded runs into the thousands. This has made Iraqis and many others resent any signs of US triumphalism.
The longer this unchecked American use of overwhelming firepower continues, the greater the risk that the Americans will lose the crucial battle to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, including those who were very critical of or hated the Saddam regime. The American military are playing into the hands of those who want the rehabilitation of Iraq under US and British occupation to fail.
What do you think? would the Americans have an easier time if the were no so detached from the rest of the world? If they did remove their armour would they have an easier time being accepted?