Trigger-happy US troops 'will keep us in Iraq for years'

[T_i_B]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/15/wirq15.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/15/ixportal.html

British defence chiefs have warned United States military commanders in Iraq to change their rules for opening fire or face becoming bogged down in a terrorist war for a decade or more.

The Telegraph has learnt that the warning was issued last month in response to a series of incidents that led to the deaths of Iraqi civilians, mainly at checkpoints, after soldiers opened fire in the mistaken belief that they were being attacked by suicide bombers.

The warning is said to have taken the form of advice from senior officers who accompanied Gen Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the General Staff, on a recent trip to southern Iraq and Baghdad to visit British troops.

They attempted to explain that in their experience of post-war counter-insurgency operations it paid to adopt a low-key and less aggressive stance. According to senior British officers, US military operations are typified by "force protection" - the protection of troops at all costs - that allows American troops to open fire, using whatever means available, if they believe that their lives are under threat.

[Wright Patman]

1. I have said it before and I say it now

The policy of "shoot first, ask questions (maybe, if forced to) later" amounts to the same policy as deliberately murdering civilians.

If that doesn't "support the troops," so be it. I wouldn't want Chinese or Russian troops who had taken over parts of the U.S. mowing down civilians here so I won't support it there either.

If they have to be "force protected" at such a high and criminal cost to civilians, none of them should ever have volunteered for the military to begin with.

[MeDeMax]

4. recruitment numbers are down for a reason...n/t

[Journeyman]

6. An interesting perspective that doesn't get much attention . . .

So often, opponents of the war, and even its supporters, argue that enlistments are down because potential recruits don't want to die in a useless war. I wonder how many pass because they don't want to kill innocent people in senseless acts of random violence.

[leftchick]

2. Are the Brits really this naive?

Hello! That is the P-L-A-N! :eyes:

[yorkiemommie1]

13. Richard Perle's 'endless war for endless peace'

n/t

[indepat]

3. Soldiers put in harm's way will try to protect themselves: so to never

needlessly put a soldier in harm's way is the only answer to not killing innocent civilians IMHO.

[grytpype]

5. The big issue in the '08 election will be "how do we get out of Iraq?"

Seriously.

[Neshanic]

7. In 2012, and possibly 2016. When does the oil run out there?

[me b zola]

15. Here's a start...

Tell the American people that we are building 14 permanent bases in Iraq, quit LYING about their 'time-tables' for withdraw.

Next...STOP BUILDING THE PERMANENT BASES. The Iraqis know that we have no intention of leaving, and their country will settle down somewhat if they saw credible signs that we have no intention of occupying them indefinately.

Why Dem leaders are not speaking the truth about the * administrations foreign policy is a mystery to me.

[Robworld]

8. Most of the soldiers are trigger happy children

What do you expect from 18-20 year olds given guns and a superiority complex

http://www.dumdumgoestothecircus.com/

[Johnyawl]

9. Excellent point, Robworld

...I just wouldn't describe them as "children".

I was 18 years old when I enlisted in the Marines, and a year later I was in Vietnam. Hardly a child, but not quit an adult. I was armed to the teeth, not just with guns, grenades and other assorted munitions, but more importantly, with an attitude. No 19 year old has a superiority complex like a 19 year old Marine. The intensive training (and brain washing) is designed to make you confident, and aggresive. Those are qualities an individual soldier needs to survive, and win, in combat. I wouldn't change that one iota. What we are supposed to have is adult leadership, from the line officers to the President, that keeps those boys in check and doesn't needlessly waste them, or allow them to misuse the deadly skills that we've given them. We are sadly lacking that at the top, and it reflects all the way down the chain of command.

There's a (sadly true) joke that we repeated constantly during Vietnam, (and it may actually be older than that conflict) that is so appropriate today:

Q. What's the difference between the Boy Scouts and the Marine Corps?
A. The Marine Corps has guns, the Boy Scouts have adult leadership

[moondust]

10. Doesn't this support Italy's case

in the killing of Nicola Calipari?

[leQ]

11. if they were so 'protective' then where was the armour? (eom)

[kwolf68]

12. A decade?

That loud cheer you just heard was from the military-industrial complex.

[truthisfreedom]

14. bushco is operating out of fear. see how that works? they use fear to

manipulate us, and think they can use fear to manipulate everyone in the world, but it's their own fear of the number of troops dead rising at a rapid rate that keeps these insane policies in place ("force protection.")

if there was the slightest bit of morality to ANY of bushco's actions, agendas, or policies, we'd actually be moving forward as a country.

the only thing we can say that we're doing successfully in this country is:

1] emptying the US Treasury into the deep pockets of the military industrial complex.

2] ensuring corrupt rethug control of every branch of government for decades to come.

[Decay]

16. Support the troops people!

USA! USA! USA! :sarcasm: