The Iraq thread 4

[Balschoiw 0]

So you were part of anti-riot measures and were only wearing a shield ? I am quite confused now. When have you been deployed to Kosovo ? Wich unit ? You are/were Panzergrenadier, right ?

The riot gear used in Kosovo looks like this. It´s a rather complete riot gear that doesn´t leave open much spaces. As I said, i´m a bit confused now...Those stone throwers must have been snipers.

Quote[/b] ]What do you mean by radom fire?

Shots fired from a crowd either into the air or into your direction.

Quote[/b] ]I can't tell how it is DRIVING through a "stone-shower"...just know how it is standing in the 2nd row without a plexi-shield and recieving one outside a car.

At the time we were in the back of open unimogs or 5to´s sitting on wheat deliveries from the WFP or manning machinegun on TPZ or other vehicles. Stone throwing is a usual thing at routes that are used regularely. We had both. On vehicles,on foot, etc.

At that time we had no riot gear at all and still if you keep tight formation there was little chance that you got hit on exposed spots.

With the current riot gear used it´s really hard to hit someone on unprotected spots.

Quote[/b] ]I know, people like you don't feel any fear and would rather stand up and take a surf on the beach apocalypse now-style...(no comment)

Utter bull, but stonethrowers are something you get used to very soon. If you already get a panic attack when stones fly at you what will happen if the situation really turns serious.

Stonethrowers are nasty to an extend but certainly nothing a soldier trained for combat cannot cope with when wearing the appropriate gear.

Anyway this is really offtopic. -> PM still got some questions

[Thunderbird 0]

Coallition troops are supposed to be 'bringers of freedom and democracy' and not in anyway supporters of 'brutality' and 'cruelty', and you have to know that people who've to stand in front of mobs are especially trained to manage such situations in order to avoid overreacting or acting like mobs.

Even if there are worse events, I'm somehow shocked to see some people trying to minimize or to legitimate the 'no-professional' acts done by these soldiers and I'm afraid such incident would increase more the hatred over there.

Best Regards

Thunderbird84

[LennyD 0]

So you were part of anti-riot measures and were only wearing a shield ? I am quite confused now.

No need to be... no leader or section-leader of a human chain has a shield...i bet you know

Quote[/b] ]When have you been deployed to Kosovo ? Wich unit ? You are/were Panzergrenadier, right ?

The riot gear used in Kosovo looks like this.

Replied to your PM...won't give more details. With the details given you should be satisfied. Don't ask me to give you me shoesize. Find these investigative questions quite disturbing.

We had the old police type gear. The stuff you posted is the new type (not the old plain green crap). It still leaves quite a lot of your body exposed. Neck, inside of the arms and upper legs.

Quote[/b] ]Stonethrowers are nasty to an extend but certainly nothing a soldier trained for combat cannot cope with when wearing the appropriate gear.

Anyway this is really offtopic. -> PM still got some questions

Replied to the PM...with a due sence of regret and suspicion...

Training is one thing...the real situation s.t. different. I don't belive anybody telling he has no fear in those situations...the difference betwen a trained soldier is that he dosn't freeze and acts acording to training.

Lenny out.

[Baphomet 0]

As far as I'm concerned it seems there are a lot of factors both environmental and personal that contributed to what we've seen or heard of, as the case may be. It's definitely not their finest hour as soldiers.

Obviously in a country like that, tensions are running high what with the nature of spontaneous unpredictable attacks. That's going to wear on anyone psychologically. I can see them wanting to teach those kids a lesson. However I think it was done in an entirely wrong way. It would have been enough to detain them and scare them straight without violent methods. It's easy for someone to de-humanize someone when they're wearing a protective uniform looking very similar in a group. It's entirely another when you see that person face to face giving you shit and relating to them on a more personal level.

These kids didn't look older than 17, laying blows to a kid who is screaming and is thrashing about trying to escape harm is a very poor excuse, given the fact that it was a very one sided exchange. Those kids weren't ever any serious threat. As it stands, their experience and those witnessing it will simply reinforce hostility within those opposing the occupation, and your more rational average iraqi citizens who are just weary from this extented conflict. Basically making further enemies of the general population that could have been avoided.

However I do personally believe that these soldiers do not represent all coalition soldiers in Iraq. Generally I'd imagine most display a lot more professionalism and presence of mind to not do something that reckless.

[Monkey Lib Front 10]

Those kids weren't ever any serious threat.

What the news of the world did that was clever was not release the entire video which showed the mob throw homemade grenades or actual grenades at the compound and you can hear on the radio that they actually knew the one that did it and you can hear them coordinate and guide them to the one who threw it.

I'm not condoning what they did just saying.

[denoir 0]

Now, while I'm not defending the actions of the troops, I think the whole thing has to be taken into context.  First of all, they were throwing rocks.  Second, as far as I understand none of the kids were hospitalized, so the beating couldn't have been that bad.  Ultimately the soldiers couldn't have just done nothing about it as it would only invite more rockthrowing.  Perhaps it was an overreaction, but it was not an extreme one.

For comparison during the riots in Gothenburg at the time of the Bush visit, the police actually shot a stone throwing demonstrator.  Now that is an extreme overreaction.

The issue here is however more complex than just a question of brutality on the part of the soldiers.  Crowd control depends very much on the local culture.  For instance in Kosovo the working approach was always a show of force.  You'd just put a few tanks on the streets and the crowds would disperse.  From what I've heard, this won't work at all for instance in Africa.  On the contrary, a show of force would only provoke the crowds and escalate the situation.

I'm not sure what works in the middle east, but it is possible that this kind of brute force is required to control the crowds.  It might be a standard method and these guys just got unlucky because the incident was filmed.  While this kind of behavior may be appalling by Western police standards, it may be the practical approach in the region of dealing with riots.  If you look how the local governments in the region usually handle them, it is by no means more gentle.  On the contrary, as we have seen with the Mohammed cartoons demonstrations, the police have not hesitated to use tear gas or even shoot directly into the crowds.

[Baphomet 0]

One of them appears to be knocked unconscious...

Laying face-down with a substantial pool of blood larger than his head beneath him. I'd say that's a bit much. I've seen schoolyard fights on various media sites that looked more tame than what I saw on that video.

Regardless of whether or not some of them may have taken that opportunity to sneak a molotov or some kind of crude explosive device in amongst the stone throwing, it still reflects very poorly on the soldiers for picking out the ones that were tossing the stones and beating them to set an example.

Clearly those who would throw something that harmful as an explosive device would do so again, regardless of a beating, I would likely say they'd be pushed to further acts of aggression that aren't as obvious, and substantially more deadly. I believe there's a difference between a stone throwing teen, and someone who's trying to actively cause serious bodily harm. Not that rocks can't. However it's more an act of defiance in most cases. It's really doing more harm for coalition forces to react this way instead of catching those who were actually tossing improvised explosives and charging them with attempted murder.

And to be honest, the commentator on the film completely destroys any legitimacy an argument can have in their defence. You'd have to hear it. It's disgusting. He expresses an enthusiasm at their beating that I can only describe as perverse and hateful. It unfortunately makes the lot of them look like a bunch of bloodthirsty convicts by association. Not only are you instilling fear in people thinking those are who are occupying those uniforms, but also hatred as well. Even for those who would otherwise not be so quick to judge. Essentially inviting more lethal and frequent acts of aggression from the civilian population.

[denoir 0]

Well, if it was a case of outright brutality -- sadistic brutality, then it's a completely different story. I have not seen the video, but if it is as bloody as you describe then the soldiers certainly should be put on trial. Not just for the sake of justice, but because of the sake of the British armed forces. I do think that some degree of violence is justified against stone throwers, but it has to be reasonable and never executed with sadistic intent.

[Baphomet 0]

Check flurl.com

filecabi.net

putfile.com

even google video has it.

Any one of those with a marginal search will yield this video. It's everywhere.

You can't really appreciate the context of this incident unless you actually see/hear what I'm referring to.

I won't post any direct links since I don't want to be banned, but since those are essentially link repositories and general media storage sites. I think any moderately inquisitive person can find it.

I also noticed in the video, yes. At least one of the soldiers was wearing a face visor and shield similar to what Bal linked to. Upon further inspection, words can't even describe it. These grown men are strong enough to hold these kids down with one hand save for one that struggled to avoid injury, and yet you see at least two of them at a time kicking them in the chest against a wall and beating them with truncheons and throwing them into things. One of the kids gets "cherry-picked" essentially kicked in the groin from behind by a soldier as he is laying face down, pinned by another soldier. Much to the perverse elation of the commentator.

And I may add the commentator wasn't "added" this was some yahoo in the background mocking these kids pleading and screaming "please". He claims they were shooting at the soldiers. Which really. I have my doubts about. There are sounds that might be shots but there's no telling where from, and it's clear that these soldiers would not run up and grab these kids had they any firearms adolescent or not, a gun is a gun, and there would have been a hail of gunfire from the soldiers had there been a firearm visible on any one of those in the open. This more and more looks like some frustrated service-weary soldiers taking out their anger.

The best guess I can offer is that the two bangs you hear could have been from some opportunistic individual taking shots at soldiers in riot gear chasing down a pack of rock tossing kids. It makes sense that someone may even orchestrate something like that to bait soldiers into the line of fire. However that still leaves these kids, lacking common sense (as often most adolescents do), in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The commentator sounds demonic, I'm not religious at all, but honestly that's the best word to describe it it's beyond malicious. I really feel bad not only for these poor little buggers. However for the rest of the british soldiers that will be unjustly associated with... that obviously unbalanced individual, and the actions of those overzealous soldiers. It's a true disservice to what the coalition forces are trying to accomplish over there, which is partly to not get killed, and maintain a semblance of order on top of tracking down the REAL perpetrators of violent acts be they insurgent or not.

An excerpt from a BBC news article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4708866.stm

Quote[/b] ]Soldiers were shown beating and kicking youths in an attack which is said to last for one minute, with 42 blows counted.

I would still like to know more information on the entire incident and what those two or so bangs off in the distance exactly were.

[harley 3 1185 0]

Let's not forget that every so often the IDF guns down and kills rock-throwing teenagers, yet they hardly get comparable media attention.

I'm not quite sure why the British "craploids" have it in so much for the average British squaddie. Is it an indirect attack on the Government which sent them to Iraq in the first place? Surely by now the average numb Briton must have realised that EVERY time you show any sign of abusing an Iraqi, or a Muslim, or Islam for that matter, there will be serious consequences which will endanger everyone in that part of the world.

I'm sure all ex/serving soldiers here are aware how much a kick from an army boot hurts - even if its a tap, it still ain't nice. You kick someone full pelt with a size 11 army boot and you are not going to get up easily that's for sure. And raining blows from wooden nightsticks helps no end.

Two questions here strike me; did the "children" deserve such a beating, and if they did deserve punishment why was it being administered by a bunch of troops? The RMP are paid to be bastards - let them handle the cruel and unusual torture techniques.

On the other hand if I was a British troop getting rained on by bombs and rocks, I would have very little patience, and as someone above said, those kids "were in the wrong place, at the wrong time."

The News of the World should be ashamed of itself - the army's being downsized and over-extended all the time - how is this kind of negative exposure supposed to help the troops do their job better; sure, it'll give them more work when all the Basra locals have watched the footage on Al Jazeera and decide to have a riot, and then the police refuse to cooperate.

<<Washes his hands>> God help the British Army, and curse the News of the World.

[Avenger556 0]

That video is 2 years old.

[bn880 5]

Everyone knows that it's old.

[denoir 0]

I think that this might be the beginning of the end. And if not, this is the way it will end:

Scores die amid Iraqi shrine fury [bBC]

In a region where religion is this important to the people and where you have a bunch of sects, which per their religious definitions consider that members of the other sects to be heretics and infidels, there is only one possible outcome. You may try to force democracy upon them but ultimately their religion will win and the whole region will implode in sectarian warfare. I can see no other future for Iraq. I'm actually impressed that they've managed to sort of get the long so far. This specific incident may not be the one causing the ultimate collapse, but I can bet money that the whole thing will end in a similar fashion.

[Jinef 2]

Hmmmm .... how best to start .....

Ok a little background knowledge on soldiers.

Soldiering in war is one of the most emotional experiences anybody can undergo. Soldiers are required to heighten their feelings of hatred and aggression to allow them to shoot, bayonet and strangle the 'enemy', they are required to overcome a natural resistance to killing via conditioning, indoctrination and psychological distancing.

Conditioning:

In British infantry training, you keep the soldiers tired, cold and hungry. You beat them regularly when they make mistakes and you keep them in constant fear of failing their fellow trainees. When in this state soldiers are using their mid-brain instead of their fore-brain, meaning that instead of interllectual reasoning they are using the more instinctive natural reasoning.

The reason behind this is that you want your soldier to be able to shout out contact reports, reload his weapon, fire on the enemy and do movement drills while he is utterly scared shitless and he simply cannot think.

This conditioning allows your soldier to operate in combat.

Indoctrination:

Unit, Mission, Country ...................... Yourself

You will lay down your life for those in your section.

Your section will lay down their lives for the mission.

The mission serves the country.

You do not serve yourself.

Psychological Distancing:

Dehumanising the enemy:

"Slopes/Dinks/Gooks/Ragheads/Argies/Hun/Bosch/Krauts"

These names are used to distance soldiers from the enemy's humanity. It is so very much harder to take the life of a human being than it is to take the life of a dirty fucking raghead.

Moral Distancing:

"The terrorists attacked America, they killed innocents."

It is often easier if soldiers are able to take the moral high ground, again distancing themselves from the enemy, seeing them as immoral, injust etc. Soldiers can then torture, kill, rape as a means to 'justice' ... quite ironic.

Cultural Distancing:

Anything in the enemy's culture which varies from the soldier's culture can be used as fuel for the hatred needed to kill.

There are a few others, however you get the point.

Humans are not meant to kill humans, soldiers need to overcome this natural resistance and in doing so they lose their own humanity to some extent. This has been proved so many fucking times throughout the centuries that is suprising that people still don't seem to get it.

In conclusion:

A bunch of civilians watching that video can very easily see it as barbaric, I see it as barbaric. Simply because we are not there...

If I envision myself there and the emotions of hate and the effects of adrenalin, then I see it so very differently.

Just try and envision for yourselves ....

You are a British Infantry soldier, in Iraq. You have been forced to go to Iraq, you are told that you are here to help however the Iraqi people seem intent on sniping at you, throwing rocks and planting bombs.

You are 200 metres from the crowd. You are scared for your life and more scared that you will fail your section. If seperated from your section you could easily be overpowered and taken away to have your head chopped off. Your section commander gives orders for a snatch ...... you don't even think. You are running towards this angry mob and they are throwing rocks at you ...... at this point you really want to just stick your IW on cyclic and cut the fuckers down, however unfortunately you follow orders.

You really really hate these people. You have to, because if the section leader orders you to shoot you need to have 0 seconds hesitation. You grab a few juveniles who were chucking rocks at you (At this point you would like nothing better to chop their heads off on public TV; and then nuke the entire middle east.) however your section leader wants to rough em up so they aren't capable of throwing rocks tommorow. All this hatred is funnelled into those kids.

Unfortunately, once the section has disbanded and the unit returns to the UK, the group bond which fueled the hatred and the blood lust dissolves. Soldiers are haunted by what they have done as part of groups, or what they have done under the influence of conditioning and adrenalin.

If you have a really good sense of empathy and vivid imagination you will find that when you watch the video again you might be smiling at the commentary, laughing from time to time. I certainly laughed at a few points.

I know some of you will read this and think one of two things:

1. "Jinef is a sadistic bastard."

2. "Jinef is right on the fucking money."

Some feedback would be lovely.

[bn880 5]

1. "Jinef is a sadistic bastard."

2. "Jinef is right on the fucking money."

Some feedback would be lovely.

3. "You are nutjobs"

But we already knew that, of course the real blame always lies in the ones who start wars, that's the only way to prevent all this shit in the first place. What else can be done, nothing really unless you plan to rally 20-100 million people somewhere to overthrow a government, US. UK etc...

[Tovarish 0]

2. "Jinef is right on the fucking money."

Not to condone what happened, but that's probably the best post I've read on the psychology of the average combat soldier

[EiZei 0]

Am I starting to see a pattern here?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet....howFull

Quote[/b] ]

Ahmadinejad blames US, Israel for shrine attack

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blamed the United States and Israel on Thursday for the blowing up of a Shi'ite shrine's golden dome in Iraq, saying it was the work of "defeated Zionists and occupiers."

[theavonlady 2]

Am I starting to see a pattern here?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet....howFull

Quote[/b] ]

Ahmadinejad blames US, Israel for shrine attack

You think this was just practice to blow up domed structures in the region?

There's a thought.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]1. "Jinef is a sadistic bastard."

2. "Jinef is right on the fucking money."

3. Jinef actually has not taken part in peacekeeping/enforcing training

4. Jinef has no firsthand experiences

First of all. The british army is no draft army. Units that are to be deployed to conflict regions have to join special trainings on methods of behaviour and localization for the decided spot of mission. This includes ROE training and specifically training on interaction with civillians and riot control.

Experiences gained from last missions do influence that training.

Units psychologically unfit are not allowed to join missions.

The trainings are selective. If you fail the training situations you will not be sent abroad.

It´s not part of the british training doctrine to generalize. It´s part of the training doctrine to specialize on situations that you will face in mission countries. This includes protests, riot situations, tricky situations like picking agressors from a crowd, idenbtifying and tracking lead rioters and the process of extracting them from a crowd with a minimum use of force to not fuel the situation. You´re drawing a wrong picture here. The british military training teaches it´s soldiers to distinguish and be rather defensive than offensive in situations like the one in the video.

That´s why you have a chain of command. If the grunt is unsure of what to do he has to rely on his squad leader to take the right decisions, while this does not mean that illegal orders have to be followed blindly. If you receive an illegal order like "Rape this women" it is your obligation not to fulfill this order. This is what you get taught. The british army over the last years had quite a good reputation for it´s peacekeeping abilities and sensitive approach towards local habits and procedures.

This is why they are respected in a lot of countries and even train other nations units on peacekeeping and methods of military behaviour. Incidents like the one in the video are not the general modus operandi of british troops. It´s a breakdown of basic rules and a failure of the chain of command.

If psychological influence is directing a team, the team gets worthless and ineffective.

The british troops are not in Iraq to fight the civis. If anger is transported on some juiveniles there´s something going very wrong. Usually such incidents point out flaws in trainings and on-spot leadership. The training for such situations is quite extensive in the british army, so the leadership on spot failed badly. I guess it´s not the standard behaviour of british troops, it has to be labeled as acts of a few, but such incidents have to be taken serious and need to find their reflection in training and special awareness has to be put on leaders to avoid such mishaps.

It´s too easy to just sum it up as the result of pressure or psychological stress. You will have to deal with stress almost 24 a day when you´re on a mission. That´s what you are trained for and that´s what you get the money for. A unit needs to have some kind of inbuilt selfcontrol. This means that the soldier right next to you should be the first to tell you if you do something wrong. If there is no selfcontrol you´ll get what you see on the vid. There´s no control at all. And this is the moment where misbehaviour endangers your complete unit. The juveniles get released after beeing badly beaten up, they run to daddy and he calls his friends and they decide to take revenge for what the troops had done to their kids to reinstate their honor.

You will end up in a spiral of violence faster than you can say 1,2,3. And this does not only endanger your own unit but every soldier wearing a british uniform. Your reasoning is to simple.

There is a responsibility you have and while it may be a good feeling to get loose of your anger on some juveniles the backslap

will come. And the backslap will be harder than some thrown stones.

The iraqui juveniles are not responsible for your own psychological deficits.

[Messiah 2]

Have any of you actually served and trained with the british military?

[Daniel 0]

I find all this pretty interesting seeing as I'm currently planning and making a British OFP campaign. Are there any more views on the British infantry?

*cough* Messiah *cough*

[Blake 0]

Quote[/b] ]Soldiers are required to heighten their feelings of hatred and aggression

I think you've watched too many war movies...

Quote[/b] ]The great Christian cathedrals in Europe had the same symbolic power when they were built, and still do for the devout.

But as far as most secular Europeans are concerned, they are places that tourists shuffle around in the summer.

BBC put the shrine bombing well into context. But currently the secularity is being crushed by rising fundamentalism, sometimes I wonder if strong dictatorship and nationalism of the past would have been better instead of this uncontainable carnage. Looks like Kurds are distancing themselves more and more from the mess of mid-and southern Iraq.

[EiZei 0]

And I have thought so far that the trend is to make warfare as sterile and desensitized as possible as opposed to making your troops have some kind of heightened sense of superiority and rage. Hell, just look how military terms with negative connotations have evolved in the last 50 years. (*cough* shell shock *cough*)

And the kurds.. judging by the history and my personal observances (plenty of kurdish immigrants here) they are a fairly secular bunch if you compare them to their "neighbors". Even one of their main resistance groups is fairly leftist-nationalist (PKK).

[Messiah 2]

Daniel @ Feb. 24 2006,14:44)]I find all this pretty interesting seeing as I'm currently planning and making a British OFP campaign. Are there any more views on the British infantry?

*cough* Messiah *cough*

my views of the british military are soley for myself... seeing as i've never served, trained or done anything more than shot a cadet rifle and run around the woods at night, i find that my 'knowledge' on the subject isnt something i wish to share seeing as i've not been there or done that, even though i've spent countless hours chatting to current and ex forces when going about my duties in UKF.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Are there any more views on the British infantry?

You can review the Joint Warfare publication 3-50 that relates on peacekeeping/enforcing missions here:

Military Contribution to Peace Support Operations

Most of the conclusions and changes to prior doctrines have been a result of the UNPROFOR dilemma and lessons have indeed been learned.