You might be on to something there. Or, it might be that the American soldiers are targeted for heavy demonstrations as they represent the Great Satan. Or, it could be due to lack of training in handling such circumstances and the M.P.'s need to replace the ground pounders.

There are different ways to run with this. I doubt the individual soldier is thinking of court as our military has no problem bringing a soldier in front of a courts martial.

You can't really blame the soldiers if they responded in fear. They are at the end of a series of incompetant decisions.

Can the govt have so seriously underestimated the actions of Iran? Didn't they sit down and make many senarios and plan for each eventuality?

No it seems that they are bumbling around and digging a hole that will end up in another Cechnya.

It looks like Iraq will go down the path to an iranian dictatorship regardless of americas opposition, the only different will be in the number of bodies that will go over to get there.

Lets kill Saddam and his cronies and get america out. Then from a safe distance watch the whole thing settle down to a new equilibrium without making any more anti western feeling.



[Edited on 29-4-2003 by Netchicken]

You point,TC,about the size of the demonstrations is a fair one.

The danger is that each new demonstration will have a greater chance of becoming explosive and ending like this.

It is precisely because US troops are not thinking about the International court that this is happening.British troops are probably more aware and so more reserved.

US troops are accountable only to their comanders in an army that has a reputation for standing by their own.While real fighting is going on this "all for one and one for all"attitude is admirable but in peace it can mean cover up.

That is a whole lot of sense, Netty, and I hope you email the White House with that very good advice.

My only concern is this: The war on terror isn't over yet and there is still more work to be done over there (Yeah, Syria, I'm looking at you. I've wanted your butt for several years, now!!).

How can we get out of there, yet take care of business over there? Covertly, maybe?

Netchicken,If the US pull out now,without filling the political vaccumn,then the US will lose any support in the region for action similar to this.

The UN could take over but I doubt that would be excepable to Bush.

And then there is any financial return for a "liberated" Iraq.The war must be paid for.

[Edited on 29-4-2003 by John bull 1]

I haven't seen (and for obvious reasons wouldn't expect to see) details of the units involved; but some of it may be due to the fact that Marines are being replaced by new Army units who have, perhaps, had very little time to acclimatise. British units, on the other hand, have been there throughout and have had more time.
It may also be a feature of the geographical distribution of units.
To the best of Estragon's knowledge, British servicemen have seldom, in the last forty years, assailed the populace of England, Wales and Scotland except after the pubs have closed, on pay-day.
This has not quite been the case in Northern Ireland.

Good points all, especially about the wrong folks carrying out a police function.
This is something I'll give no benefit of the doubt on: while it's true that solders aren't trained to be riot cops, leadership means planning for contingencies, and there is evident fact to prove that kisses & flowers were all they planned for our troops to get thrown at them.

It could also be the troops have that orders to "subdue" the local population and make it subservient to whatever masters Bush has in sight for the Iraqi people.

I think the military planners have seriously underestimated the powerful effect of the Shiite mullahs on the Shiites. There will be many more "set ups" like the one here where the american military are put in a situation where they come out as oppresors. We are not talking about a people, middle class westerners, like ourselves, but poor, niave and easily influenced in the name of their religion. We have nly begn to see protests and 'uprisings'.

When they can muster easily over 1 million faithful to a festival they have enormous influence on an uneduacted emotionaly driven people.

Its a no win situation. These people will get their own way, the only way to overcome them is to do to them what basically they are doing to the military. Let them have their way and then subvert them from within.

Any policing actions will be twisted to show the populace that they are oppressed and imprisoned, and if you try to subdue them totally you are infact replacing Saddam and using the same power that he had.

Good governship admits when they have to change the gameplan. The current plan is obiously unworkable.

If the reason they stay is to recoup the money spent on the war then that will pay worse dividends in the future with charges of oppression and a gurilla war.

If its to continue the "war on terror" then that too can and as we have seen, has been easly redefined to mean whatever the power brokers in the pentagon wish.

If they offered to leave immediatly after getting Saddam and his cohort, then I bet they would be turned over within 24 hours. They could strip the country of weapons on their way out, just to protect themselves.

Iran itself is not a happy place I have been reading some background on it and the people there are ripe for a regime change themselves, such regimes only survive for a limited period. The lure of the west and affluence is too strong.

Well - sad indeed and thanks to all the 'peace keeping' missions our soldiers have been on in the past, to think that the US military isn't familiar with being 'police' isn't all that fair either. What I have read on this has been here in the forum and NPR - which the soldiers themselves (the ones there) spoke about the incident. Anyone else listen to NPR and here this same story and have any thoughts?