Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UK Occupation Methods in Iraq. Better than US?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
It seems, with the exception of the recent violence of the past few days, the UK troops(in comparison to the US) seem for the most part to have a much better working relationship with the populations of the Iraqi areas they occupy.

Should the US Military study and possibly apply whatever UK tactics and conduct that seems to be working?

For the UK experts, what is the UK Military doing differently?

Your thoughts?





[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Facefirst]




posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
British troops seem to actually befriend locals, as opposed to the US's "we are superior" attidude. I think that this builds up a better realtion with the locals, and thus helps us intellegence wise.
I think that the US should adopt the UK's policy on locals, and instead of giving such heavy punishments (see weaponry, topic "is this illegal") they should deal with the problems of the people. This would give the locals a much better attitude towards US troops, as they already have with the UK troops.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
I do thing the UK does have more experiance then the US in these types of situations.



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 02:38 PM
link   
The British Army spent years in Northen Ireland, so they have some training for urban environments. Most middle east countries are anti-american, so American troops have a lot more problems to deal with. I think the US army is doing a great job (for once)


[Edited on 8-5-2004 by infinite]



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
From what I have observed, it seems to me that the UK forces take a more practical approach than the US's heavy handed approach.

There seems to be some truth in the comrade approach as opposed to the US "superiority" approach.



*Disclaimer: I am by no means a military expert and am just voicing my opinions here. No disrespect to any armed forces personel here at ATS*



posted on May, 8 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
It seems, with the exception of the recent violence of the past few days, the UK troops(in comparison to the US) seem for the most part to have a much better working relationship with the populations of the Iraqi areas they occupy.

Should the US Military study and possibly apply whatever UK tactics and conduct that seems to be working?

For the UK experts, what is the UK Military doing differently?

Your thoughts?





[Edited on 8-5-2004 by Facefirst]


I think it is a bull#. The USA have also very few problems with the Kurds in northern Iraq. The people in Basra are Shii and Christians plus there are no important anti coalition religious leaders like Sadr (most of them are in Bagdad or Najaf).

[Edited on 8-5-2004 by longbow]



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

I think it is a bull#.
[Edited on 8-5-2004 by longbow]


No need for that. It is just a opinion presented, just as your view is.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Well,

It's all moot right now, as there has been a lot of fighting in Basra.

What a mess.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by glee
Well,

It's all moot right now, as there has been a lot of fighting in Basra.

What a mess.


But that is only recently, as of the last few days. I was wondering, as I asked in my first post, what were the UK people doing before that might have had a different result than the US. Of course, as pointed out, it might just be the different populations, as Iraq is made up of many different ethnic groups.



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I think you can't compare the two, because one, the British aren't in as many 'danger zones' as the US. They are down south where it's 'safer' and 'friendlier'.

Britain has deployed the second-biggest military force in Iraq after the United States. Most of its soldiers are based around the southern city of Basra, which has been relatively calm since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government one year ago, and British forces so far have suffered light casualties.
Washington Post

And two, the Birtish have about 13,000 troops, the US ten times that number (don't know exact figures). I think if things were reversed, the US would look more professional than the British. It's just in relationl to number of troops and where they are deployed. Maybe the British are given a lighter load because Blair is already in hot water for helping the US out, he doesn't need the daily dead like the US has.
So what UK Occupation Method are you talikng about? The one where you deploy 1/10 of the troops and only occupy pacified areas? I'm not knocking you or the British, I think they are great soldiers, but I am beginning to hear that question alot from less polite people than yourself.

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by curme]



posted on May, 9 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So what UK Occupation Method are you talikng about? The one where you deploy 1/10 of the troops and only occupy pacified areas? I'm not knocking you or the British, I think they are great soldiers, but I am beginning to hear that question alot from less polite people than yourself.

[Edited on 9-5-2004 by curme]


There was no method in particular that I was talking about. I was just exploring the possibility that maybe they were doing something different. Maybe a different approach to the whole thing?

Of course, you are right, there are many more US troops than anyone else and I do not know the particulars of the situation in Basra.

Part of my interest was spured on by an earlier thread that was about an Iraqi taxi driver getting his cab run over by a US tank after having been caught stealing wood. I was wondering if that kind of tactic and other approaches like it could be helping egg-on the locals into not liking the US more. ??

PS: I am not knocking the US by any means, my Bro is an officer over in Tikrit.






top topics



 
0

log in

join