← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust
Thread ID: 7161 | Posts: 11 | Started: 2003-06-06
2003-06-06 03:47 | User Profile
**"Trigger Happy" US Troops Undisciplined And Poor Soldiers, Brits Report Not "First Class", Says BBC Correspondent
6/5/03 12:44:20 PM Discuss this story in the forum London Guardian
Baghdad, Iraq -- [url=http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php]http://www.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_article.php[/url]? articleId=8231〈=en
Simpson berates 'trigger-happy' troops
05.06.2003 [15:49]
BBC news reporter John Simpson has hit out against the "trigger-happy" behaviour of US troops in Iraq and claimed he saved an old Iraqi man from being shot by gung-ho marines.
The veteran reporter, who spent time with American forces in Tikrit, praised British troops for their conduct during the war but said in an interview with Soldier magazine that the Americans "lost control".
"They lost all control - screaming, shouting and kicking people," Simpson said, adding that US soldiers' fear of snipers led to a 'shoot first, ask questions later' attitude.
"One of the marines shouted 'Snipers!' and put up his gun, pointing it at a man on a rooftop. I could see it was an old boy putting out a blanket to air and I said to him in a quiet voice that I would be the witness at his trial for murder if he pulled the trigger. He stopped," said the BBC reporter.
Simpson said he believed British troops had handled the situation better because of their years of experience in Northern Ireland, where he began his career as a reporter in 1969.
"The benefits from the army's Northern Ireland experience have been considerable. I saw that experience put to really good use in Basra. British soldiers didn't treat the local people like enemies, but like citizens that needed help. It was the same in Bosnia and Kosovo," he said.
"In Iraq you could see the stark difference between the way the Americans behaved and how the British did things. It was Northern Ireland that gave the British that experience and that edge."
The veteran foreign correspondent said the situation he experienced in Tikrit would never have arisen with British soldiers.
"They are so much in control. We have a first-class army, which is excellently disciplined. The American military culture does not have the business of careful control of firing weapons. If they took a leaf or two out of the British handbook they would do themselves and everyone else a favour," he said.
Simpson was wounded by US troops during the conflict in a horrific "friendly fire" incident that killed his translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed and 17 others, as well as causing 45 injuries.
Simpson filed a remarkable report by phone just minutes after the bomb landed on the convoy, breaking off at one point to tell a US army medic coming to his aid: "Shut up. I'm broadcasting... Oh yes, I'm fine - am I bleeding?."
The BBC later showed pictures of the tragedy shot by cameraman Fred Scott, who at one point is seen wiping blood from his lens, of Simpson and others running around trying to treat the wounded in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, while vehicles burned in the background.
Speaking about the incident in the interview with the Ministry of Defence magazine, Simpson recounted the horrific attack in detail for the first time.
"We were going forward with a convoy of Kurdish and American forces," he recalled. "As we approached a town several Iraqi tanks fired at us and the American commander called up an air strike. Two F-14s came in low and I saw the missile leave the aircraft."
It landed a few yards away, the explosion blowing up cars in the convoy, most of which were laden with ammunition.
"There was a lot of panic and unpleasant sights. People burning to death or staggering around with their insides in their hands. Our translator, Kamaran, had some shrapnel through the femoral artery and I don't think he stood a chance," said Simpson.
The rest of the BBC team travelling with Simpson when the attack happened sustained minor injuries and the reporter told of his pride in his team.
"My whole team behaved superbly, nobody lost it and I was very proud of them. They behaved in the finest traditions of the BBC."
Simpson, who sustained ruptured eardrums and remains deaf in his left ear, said he would like to see justice done for Mr Muhamed's family.
"We owe it to them to find out why it happened and to see if it's possible to avoid it in the future. And I'd like to see what disciplinary measures were taken. It is not a crusade but a desire to see what went wrong," said Simpson.
In the interview, Simpson also reminisces on his previous assignments and criticises both the US and British forces for their conduct during the siege of Sarajevo in the 1990s.
"It was terrible, horrifying and wicked. It was a war crime that went on for three years and was appalling. I didn't feel that Britain or the Americans came out of it very well, and I don't think the BBC covered itself in glory," he said.
ÃËñòî÷ÃÂèê: Owen Gibson/The Guardian
url: [url=http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=5227]http://www.overthrow.com/lsn/news.asp?articleID=5227[/url] **
2003-06-06 19:34 | User Profile
Yeah, yeah. I'm against this imperial adventure myself, but I know home-town cheering when I hear it.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=8220&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...f=19&t=8220&hl=[/url]
Them Brits are sure the opposite of "undisciplined"!
2003-06-07 09:40 | User Profile
Originally posted by MadScienceType@Jun 6 2003, 19:34 ** Yeah, yeah. I'm against this imperial adventure myself, but I know home-town cheering when I hear it.
[url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=19&t=8220&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...f=19&t=8220&hl=[/url]
Them Brits are sure the opposite of "undisciplined"! **
I'm with you, my friend. All too many of these Brits love to assume that smug, oh-so superior attitude they're infamous for: "Well, what more can one expect from these damned colonials, eh what?"
I generally like the English, but some of them need to come down off their high horses - or be knocked off.
:angry: :thd:
2003-06-07 16:36 | User Profile
I cannot give a source other than many of the stories I heard when I was in the Army, most especially in Vietnam. Many of the old American colonels, never to make general, regarded the Australians and the New Zealanders, on a man for man basis far superior to Americans. I then greatly respected those men and still do. I strongly suspect they were right.
2003-06-08 08:49 | User Profile
Hackworth has said that the Australian troops in Vietnam were better trained & led than the Americans, but he didn't go so far as to slam his own people.
I won't dispute, however, that an Australian or New Zealand country boy makes a far better soldier than an "American" brown gutter rat or a suburban "white" punk from north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
2003-06-08 13:30 | User Profile
According to a knowledgable reserervist friend of mine, the British troops are better on a one-to-one basis than our own. The reason is that the Brits have emphasized a smaller, leaner and more select army than our own forces. This reservist who trains infantry also reports that British reserve troops on combined exercises with US troops get grades as high as our best units. This has been known for a long time, but is seldom bruited in the news or official reports. the American emphasis is on large numbers, unlimited equipment, and tech support. Many of the grunt troops are second rate.
2003-06-08 17:23 | User Profile
Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, compared the performance of the German and American armies in World War II and decided the Germans were distinctly better. So have many other authorities.
Van Creveld cited the great problem of American military philosophy was their adherence to the principles of accountancy.
N.B. Forrest> ** won't dispute, however, that an Australian or New Zealand country boy makes a far better soldier than an "American" brown gutter rat or a suburban "white" punk from north of the Mason-Dixon Line. ** I am not an expert on this, but I would guess the best troops (on average - to use some form of accountancy) are young men from the Appalachias. Another great problem of American troops is that they are so young. Young men aged 18 to 22 are just as strong as those aged 22 to 28.
2003-06-08 18:25 | User Profile
American troubles in this regard stem from taking men from all over the country and mixing them together. It seems more logical to train them militia-style so that men can fight with other men they know and share community ties with.
History bears this out. Most of the early heroes of the American Republic (including Washington) were militia-trained and had experience fighting with their friends. Washington was a young Colonel with the Virginia colonial militia. He got his first combat experience leading them in a contested area of Pennsylvania against troops of the French Empire.
Elite "we're all the same" thinking is to blame. We keep thinking we can take guys from Maine to Montana and toss them into one company where they'll become generic Americans. The evidence says that might not be such a hot idea.
2003-06-09 20:59 | User Profile
Edward Gibbon:
**I am not an expert on this, but I would guess the best troops (on average - to use some form of accountancy) are young men from the Appalachias. **
Hackworth agrees. He said that "country boys from the hills of Virginia & Tennessee" make the best soldiers - and that urbanites, well, suck.
Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld, compared the performance of the German and American armies in World War II and decided the Germans were distinctly better. So have many other authorities.
The Germans were better than everyone on earth at that time - including the British. When did the Brits whip them before the Americans came in? El Alamein is the only one I can think of, and Monty failed to reap the full fruits of that.
It makes perfect sense that young Ayran men who'd grown up in the Hitler Jugend would make superior fighters to the sons of jew-riddled "democracies".
2003-06-09 21:22 | User Profile
Edward Gibbon:
As the resident historian on OD maybe you can answer this question.
Who is the source of this quote: "You don't know war until you've fought the Germans."
A British general? An American general?
2003-06-10 14:50 | User Profile
seq > **Posted on Jun 9 2003, 22:22
Edward Gibbon:
As the resident historian on OD maybe you can answer this question. Who is the source of this quote: "You don't know war until you've fought the Germans." A British general? An American general? **
I am not a historian as such, but regard myself as knowing quite a bit about American reactions to war. I am quite sure the author of the above remark was a British general. I do not know which one. Sorry. But I have read it many times and if I find it, I will let you know.