UK Panel: U.S. Troops Too Heavy-Handed

Guardian Unlimited

Tuesday April 5, 2005 12:01 PM

By ED JOHNSON

Associated Press Writer

LONDON (AP) - U.S. troops in Iraq are provoking civilians and hampering rebuilding with an excessive use of force, British lawmakers said in a report Tuesday.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee also found that the slow pace of reconstruction had fueled the insurgency in Iraq and suggested the country had replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for international terrorists.

``Excessive use by the U.S. forces of overwhelming firepower has also been counterproductive, provoking antagonism toward the coalition among ordinary Iraqis,'' the report said, echoing the concerns of British officials.

<snip>

``We conclude that to date the counterinsurgency strategy has not succeeded. This may reflect an overriding focus on a military approach to the detriment of political engagement ... While negotiations with al-Qaida and foreign fighters are out of the question, it might be possible to address some of the Iraqi insurgents' grievances through political negotiations,'' the report added.
More...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4914592,00.html


Edited to clarify mention of a need for negotiations with insurgents.

I think negotiations are better than the use of force, if they would work. At this stage in the war I honestly feel most Iraqi's just want us gone. I'm not sure how negotiable they are willing to be on that point.

ignoring the fact that British troops have had their fair share of abuse scandals... anyhow, the Brits have nearly the same casualty rate as the US (1540-87 out of 112-8.3 thousand troops), so the idea that the British areas are somehow quieter because of better policing is a bit of a fantasy IMO.

Does that include the 20 or so in two aircraft crashes ? If so, the actual "on the ground" casualty rate is somewhat lower.

Actually if it also includes the deaths caused by Americans its even lower than that.

friendly fire incidents and helicopter crashes and stuff. You are right that 87 deaths is a statistically fuzzy number, but I don't see how one can construct an image of the Brits being attacked less from it.

Take it as you will....

http://www.operations.mod.uk/telic/casualties.htm

It lists 91 deaths by my count, on a second quick count around 30 of them are due to accidents, "friendly fire" or illness.

Thats about a third. I don't know if a third of that 1,500 are the same. 500 deaths due to accidents ?

US
Hostile fire deaths total = 1176
76.3%
Non-combat related deaths total = 366
23.7%


UK
Hostile fire deaths total = 59
67.8%

Non-combat related deaths total = 28
32.2%

http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx

icasualties is the best on the web for this.

By Jason Beattie Political Correspondent, Evening Standard
5 April 2005

Iraq has become a breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists because of the handling of the country after the war, a report says today.

The foreign affairs committee of MPs believes the heavy-handed tactics of the US-led coalition forces have turned many Iraqis against them.

The MPs claim the instability in Iraq is one of the reasons why Britain and America are losing the war on terror. They say the danger posed by al Qaeda has been made worse because of the coalition's policies.

"The continued incidence of attacks as well as the risk that Iraq is providing a breeding ground for terrorists of the future suggest that the war against terrorism is far from being won," the report says.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/17709992?source=Evening%20Standard

a war on a word in the first place. Ironic, isn't it?


http://www.kliljedahl.net

We don't make anything, fix anything, help people with anything and now we Don't even do the news. Other than consuming natural resources, bullying and waging war, what exactly does the US do for the world?

Jay

tell you you be acting like Übermenschen, Houston, I think we have a PROBLEM.