American Soldiers out of Control in Iraq

[MOBIUS]

Too many Iraqi civilians are dying from U.S. soldiers sometimes resorting to deadly force in a reckless and indiscriminate way...

Iraq: U.S. Military Responses Imperil Journalists

Dana was the 12th journalist killed in action in Iraq since the beginning of the war in March, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists. Five of these deaths were from U.S. fire.

I know the job is dangerous - but for crying out loud!

This reminds me of the most lethal recorded friendly fire incident of the war...

In the line of fire

The convoy attacked was in the open in well marked non military vehicles...

Still, that is only journos after all...

Iraqi Civilians Fall Victim to Hair Triggers

If you're REALLY keen...!

But that doesn't mean that coalition forces should be allowed to operate with near total impunity, as they currently are. They are exempt from Iraqi law, and the military is not adequately investigating allegations of abuse. Thus far, the military has publicly announced only five completed investigations into civilian deaths in Iraq. In each case, the soldiers who fired were found to have operated within the rules of engagement.

I re-investigated two of the five incidents and found evidence to suggest the contrary -- that, in fact, excessive force had been used. In one, which occurred Aug. 9, soldiers from the 1st Armored Division mistakenly shot at an unmarked Iraqi police car as it chased criminals in a van. The Americans killed two Iraqi police officers. A witness said one of the officers was killed after he had stepped out of his car with his hands raised, shouting "No -- police!" A third police officer in the car was beaten by the Americans.

'Within the rules of engagement!!?'

The point is that if the US isn't going to accept the Intl War Crimes treaty (apparently with good reason!), then it MUST deal with its troops instead of whitewashing every friendly fire incident there is and letting the killers off scott free! If soldiers knew they could be punished for such negligence - perhaps less innocent people would die?

But this is not about money. The excessive behavior of American soldiers is creating animosity at least, and possibly even new recruits for the resistance. Not only individuals but whole tribes are swearing revenge, according to the interviews we conducted.

I met many Iraqis during my visit who were hopeful the U.S. would help build a democratic Iraq. But many were dismayed by the cultural insensitivity and aggression of some U.S. troops that were alienating Iraqis day by day.

Perhaps less US troops would die too...

This is probably the biggest blindside of the US forces there is - they seem incapable of dealing with this kind of operation...

There needs to be training - all UK troops are trained in this manner, and greater accountability for the consequences of such actions!

[MrFun]

Can't wait to see MTG unleash a can of whup ass on you.

[DinoDoc]

Seen too many of your hysterical threads to care.

[BeBro]

No banana, no good poll

[Defiant]

MOBIUS,
This is what they need to do, they need to get the Iraqi Police force and military running fast. Put them in the line of fire to quell their own people and the US maintains a supervisory role to make sure the Iraqi Police and military are within their limits.
You are right the US military is not designed to handle policing affairs it is for police. They are offensive in nature, not sitting duck forces.

And, civilian deaths need to be defined, in the latest ambush where 54 iraqis apparently died, the so called civilians picked up weapons and started firing on our troops.

Even if I had Sava next to me in my patrol and I saw a civilian grab their assault rifle and aim at Sava, I would shoot the "civilian".

[Pekka]

I'd like to remind you, that US troops are in a big city, active war part over, with resistance attacking many times every single day. People are questioning the whole thing all over the world, it's hot, a long way from home, appx 2 soldiers dying every day. You can't see the enemy, yet it attacks you daily. It has shown capabilities from executing textbook ambushes on road all the way to taking down choppers, and it is yet to see how capable they really are as they grow more relaxed in their thing, and more experienced.

Many of them have a situation where it is damned if you do, damned if you don't.

From what I see, they are still doing an excellent job. Casualties are piling up, civilian as well. But, looking at the situation as a whole, I don't think they are doing any worse job than others have done in the past, and that they are still operating in the level of professionalism.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Seen too many of your hysterical threads to care.

Seconded. Given the nature of his posts, coupled with the all-CAPS nick, I have this mental image of a frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic, raving at the top of his lungs. At all times.

-Arrian

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MrFun
Can't wait to see MTG unleash a can of whup ass on you.

Sorry to disappoint you. This is just a regurgitation of the same theme, been there, done that.

Besides, I have to get my ass across the border and have a pseudo "job" "interview" about doing some IT consulting work for a new prospective client.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Defiant
MOBIUS, This is what they need to do, they need to get the Iraqi Police force and military running fast.

Um, is that the Iraqi police force being gunned down for trying to do its job?

Did you read that account - one officer was executed after he surrendered!

But this was apparently 'within the rules of engagement'... Where are these rules - I doubt they say it is OK to execute members of your own side surrendering to you?

Put them in the line of fire to quell their own people and the US maintains a supervisory role to make sure the Iraqi Police and military are within their limits.

I agree wholeheartedly with you - but this was botched from the beginning, starting with disbanding the Iraqi army...

You are right the US military is not designed to handle policing affairs it is for police. They are offensive in nature, not sitting duck forces.

Perhaps the US military should take a leaf out of the British Army's book - this to me is an unacceptable state of affairs considering that this is precisely the type of training that is needed if the US wants to fight these types of wars...

And, civilian deaths need to be defined, in the latest ambush where 54 iraqis apparently died, the so called civilians picked up weapons and started firing on our troops

Even if I had Sava next to me in my patrol and I saw a civilian grab their assault rifle and aim at Sava, I would shoot the "civilian".

So would I, civilians will die in combat zones - that is an unfortunate fact.

The point is that although many civilian deaths cannot be helped - some can!

Those are the deaths I have a problem with - where there is a clear case of culpability on the part of the US soldiers. Like the police incident outlined above...

There needs to be some accountability.

[Defiant]

MOBIUS,
First it is a war, obvious I know. And the accountability is by the nation who commands the forces and that nation answers to the world if they indeed want to. No other force can measure our troops during a war. There are always "criminals" in the military, like anywhere else that get off on killing no matter what, we just hope to weed them out or arrest them and deal with them.
As for the police force, some of our boys have been put into unneccessary danger because of "traitors" within the police and military forces and that is another concern for the USA when granting these individuals with weapons and police powers, need to make sure they really are the good guys.

This kind of war is new for the USA and maybe the world and it is an extremely tough war to win but we have to. We will adapt, and overcome and perservere(sp), gotta love Clint Eastwood.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Arrian

Seconded. Given the nature of his posts, coupled with the all-CAPS nick, I have this mental image of a frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic, raving at the top of his lungs. At all times.

-Arrian

I expected better from you than to resort to personal insults - Dino I expect as it is his way, but you seem to be a reaonable poster.

I have not 'frothed' in this thread as you so eloquently put it, but pointed out certain 'inconsistencies' in some of the recorded civilian deaths - granted perhaps the thread title could have had a question mark at the end, but if soldiers are not being properly disciplined for excessive and indiscriminate use of force resulting in the deaths of civilians - are they not out of control?

No sir, the only frothing I can see is from you...

[Sandman]

If the US wants to achieve it's strategic objective of winning hearts and minds, that means not being so trigger happy. Yes, that will mean losing more soldiers. But if they didn't want to lose soldiers, they shouldn't have started the war. When your soldiers' primary objective is 'not dying', then you have no chance of winning the peace.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Defiant
MOBIUS, First it is a war, obvious I know.

Without wishing to sound pedantic, the war ended on May 1st because Bush said so...

But I do know what you mean.

And the accountability is by the nation who commands the forces and that nation answers to the world if they indeed want to. No other force can measure our troops during a war.

I am actually inclined to believe you there in the first instance - but only if that nation properly accounts for its own troops and that is the worrying part of the US not signing that treaty. Also, that statement of yours could bring into question the trials of obvious war criminals 'only following orders' - common sense should prevail.

There are always "criminals" in the military, like anywhere else that get off on killing no matter what, we just hope to weed them out or arrest them and deal with them.

Which is why they need to be dealt with - the only punishments I have heard of so far was some soldier running off to marry his Iraqi bride!

As for the police force, some of our boys have been put into unneccessary danger because of "traitors" within the police and military forces and that is another concern for the USA when granting these individuals with weapons and police powers, need to make sure they really are the good guys.

A real problem - which is why US forces (and Iraqi) need to be properly trained and accountable.

This kind of war is new for the USA and maybe the world and it is an extremely tough war to win but we have to. We will adapt, and overcome and perservere(sp), gotta love Clint Eastwood.

By my reckoning they have had at least a year to train their soldiers in this form of war and probably longer.

The thing is that if the Iraqis saw that there was proper justice, perhaps less of them might sign up to the resistance movement and less US soldiers might be in the line of fire.

What people like Arrian seem to ignore is the fact that what I am calling for might actually save US soldiers lives in the long run - sure that would be a sentiment that even he would agree with?

[Defiant]

Sandman,
I don't believe so, I don't give a rats ass about being nice the normal Iraqis, I believe in getting that country on a road to democracy from within their own. Their newly elected governing body can deal with the good will.

Then get the hell out of harm's way and supervise and only come in when necessary and get as many of our boys home and safe.

[Caligastia]

I'm not there, so I can't judge. I'd say they are probably trying to make the best of a bad situation. Your thread title is awful BTW. You make it sound like US troops are just indiscriminately killing Iraqis for the fun of it.

[Arrian]

MOBIUS,

It's like the boy who cried wolf. This thread, viewed in a vacuum, might actually be worthwhile. Maybe.

Anyway, you are right about one thing. I shouldn't be getting personal.

/me exists stage left.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Dino I expect as it is his way, but you seem to be a reaonable poster.

I'm not able to bring myself to bring myself to put forth the effort to take you seriously if you insist on regergitating the same things over and over.

[Tripledoc]

The problem is that I presume many American soldiers are frustrated and angry by what the current administration had promised, a quick victory and subsequent liberation, has not materialized. The administration used the oldest trick in the book to force soldiers to fight. As described in Sun Tzu one has to trick soldiers in a position where they cannot retreat and where the only option is to fight, otherwise they will not fight. Therefore Iraq is a de facto battlefield and on a battlefield people die, soldiers and civilians alike. And there cannot be any retreat, since that would mean defeat. The confusion arises from the administrations entirely political decision to declare the war over. And the press has since been trying to explain that the war is in fact not over. If it was still officially a war my guess would be that the civilian casualties would not be such an issue. After all many more civilians died during the invasion than has since died. This explains why the American military will never wage a succesful campaign against any poor nation. Since what is in fact war will for political reasons be described as peace to the domestic audience.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I'm not there, so I can't judge. I'd say they are probably trying to make the best of a bad situation. Your thread title is awful BTW.

Yeah, I already mentioned that I should perhaps have put a question mark at the end of it!

You make it sound like US troops are just indiscriminately killing Iraqis for the fun of it.

Now, before you go puttin' words in my mouth, I was only saying an unspecified number were out of control - no fun was mentioned and words like 'indiscriminate' were lifted from a respected American Human Rights organisation (even MtG quotes them!)...

[Defiant]

MOBIUS,
We have a colonel on trial right now for shooting two rounds over a enemy's head to get him to reveal his buddies hideout so our boys wouldn't get ambushed. We take crimes pretty seriously here, most of the nation thinks it is absurd to try and court marshall this colonel and I agree he shouldn't be. But yet, his career is over but he saved American lives. I will save American lives first and worry about the rest later.

NO, our soldiers are not trained for policing, that is why the army called in the NYC police chief for help, this is flaw that I admit to in our Iraq war, we were not prepared to handle the policing after the swift initial warfront. But nobody could have anticipated this action, not even MTg. They are doing the best they can.

[Sprayber]

Why dont you and Davout and che combine your three threads into one and save a little space here on poly. Unless of course you all couldnt agree to share the spotlight.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I expected better from you than to resort to personal insults - Dino I expect as it is his way, but you seem to be a reaonable poster.

Sorry, that's kinda an ironic statement. 'I expected better than personal insults from A, but I'll just levy a personal insult at B instead' .

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm not able to bring myself to bring myself to put forth the effort to take you seriously if you insist on regergitating the same things over and over.

As I suspected - if you can't spell the word, doubtless you have no idea what it means...

This is the first time I have ever devoted a thread to the supposed indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians by US forces during peacetime.

Now don't trip over a dictionary in your haste to find this mythical creature to which you allude...!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Now, before you go puttin' words in my mouth, I was only saying an unspecified number were out of control

In any army there will be an unspecified number who will be out of control. I would be more inclined to criticise the behaviour of those who have been attacking US troops. Surely they are more 'out of control' than the blokes in the US army.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Caligastia
In any army there will be an unspecified number who will be out of control. I would be more inclined to criticise the behaviour of those who have been attacking US troops. Surely they are more 'out of control' than the blokes in the US army.

Cal, that is a given - but perhaps potential recruits could be prevented from joining them by the US army appearing to be less trigger happy...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Sorry to disappoint you. This is just a regurgitation of the same theme, been there, done that.

Besides, I have to get my ass across the border and have a pseudo "job" "interview" about doing some IT consulting work for a new prospective client.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by MOBIUS


Cal, that is a given - but perhaps potential recruits could be prevented from joining them by the US army appearing to be less trigger happy...

I doubt that would be much of a factor. It's not like the US army is going on a rampage of civilian killings or anything. I think any reasonable Iraqi would understand that accidents are going to happen when you have an occupying force with people taking pot-shots at them all the time.


As Defiant pointed out, the US military are not the ideal police force. The sooner an Iraqi police force can be sorted out the better.

[Sarxis]

I want to see a thread headed with, "Could Iraqis be doing more to ensure their own safety?"

That'd be a good discussion.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Sprayber
Why dont you and Davout and che combine your three threads into one and save a little space here on poly. Unless of course you all couldnt agree to share the spotlight.

I feel personally insulted that you associate my thread which aimed only at providing a new piece of information without any kind of negative commentary, with the ceaseless, tireless, unjust and boring american bashing uttered by the two other posters.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Sandman
If the US wants to achieve it's strategic objective of winning hearts and minds, that means not being so trigger happy. Yes, that will mean losing more soldiers. But if they didn't want to lose soldiers, they shouldn't have started the war. When your soldiers' primary objective is 'not dying', then you have no chance of winning the peace.

Second that