The US military in Iraq is young, dumb and clueless, according to a senior British officer:
"The US Army in Iraq has been accused of cultural ignorance moralistic self-righteousness, unproductive micro-management and unwarranted optimism in a magazine published by the army.
"The scathing critique of the US Army and its performance in Iraq was written by a senior British officer.
"In an article published this week in the army magazine Military Review, Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a program to train the Iraqi military, said American officers in Iraq displayed such 'cultural insensitivity' that it 'arguably amounted to institutional racism' and may have spurred the growth of the insurgency."
"The US Army in Iraq has been accused of cultural ignorance moralistic self-righteousness, unproductive micro-management and unwarranted optimism in a magazine published by the army.
"The scathing critique of the US Army and its performance in Iraq was written by a senior British officer.
"In an article published this week in the army magazine Military Review, Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a program to train the Iraqi military, said American officers in Iraq displayed such 'cultural insensitivity' that it 'arguably amounted to institutional racism' and may have spurred the growth of the insurgency."
We are now discovering the way in which this "liberating" army has fought this war. Spc. Tony Lagouranis (Ret.) was a U.S. Army interrogator from 2001 to 2005, and served a tour of duty in Iraq from January 2004 to January 2005. He was stationed at Abu Ghraib then joined a task force roaming the country looking for intelligence. He recently told PBS Frontline of the "culture of abuse" throughout Iraq. It was acceptable, condoned or ignored to treat Iraqi detainees however a soldier wished:
"The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture people in their homes. They were using things like…burns. They would smash people's feet with the back of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was serious stuff...I remember one guy who was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe on a humvee, and he had a pretty huge blister on his leg. Another guy, I don't know what they used to burn him, his legs. He was blindfolded so he didn't know either, but it looked like it might have been a lighter. He had some pretty big, [some] smaller blisters, but a lot of them."
This is the true face of the Iraqi occupation.
"The worst stuff I saw was from the detaining units who would torture people in their homes. They were using things like…burns. They would smash people's feet with the back of an axe-head. They would break bones, ribs, you know. That was serious stuff...I remember one guy who was forced to sit on an exhaust pipe on a humvee, and he had a pretty huge blister on his leg. Another guy, I don't know what they used to burn him, his legs. He was blindfolded so he didn't know either, but it looked like it might have been a lighter. He had some pretty big, [some] smaller blisters, but a lot of them."
This is the true face of the Iraqi occupation.
3 Comments:
Lagouranis explictly talks about the ways in which the Geneva Conventions were regarded as a joke and rountinely ignored. More and more Iraqis know this, suffer this and are fighting this. Hence (some aspects) of the insurgency. There is a price to pay for torturing citizens of a country.
As for bringing them to account, in time, probably some. But the internet and faster communication today allows more of the world to truly see what US 'liberation' is about.
After reading the paper, not just the bits The Age selectively quoted, you would find that Brig Aylwin-Foster does indeed see some issues with the first use of kinetic opposition to the insurgency, when several coalition allies such as UK and AUS would more than likely have used a psychological approach.
The decision by the US Army to revert to force in the majority of instances and the cultural thinking behind this decision is what the paper is about. Using this paper as evidence that the US policy in Iraq is wrong, and to bolster your case for immediate withdrawal of all troops is foolsih and definitely AGAINST the thrust of his argument.
Combating counter insurgencies is a delicate art, balancing the indiscriminate use of force by the terrorists against the undermining of their cause via political means. The US Army has commanders which have successfully integrated a public image of assistance along with a military threat of force, notably the areas around Mosul and parts of western Iraq. The UK contingent with it's vast Northern Ireland experience has quite successfully kept the threat of violence to a minimum in the southern Iraq delta region, through active patrolling and continual community liasion, actions which the ADF have continued with success. It's clear that some US Army commanders don't see this as a viable method to defeat terrorism.
Brig Foster goes to some lengths to detail the quite commendable work various US commanders have done, but is understandably concerned that some of their peers are failing to see the bigger picture.
Not suprisingly, this issue is being commented on by those here who couldn't understand an exit strategy if it was lit up with lights.
Stick to hating yourself Loewenstein. It's the only thing you're good at.
As long as Dibb is arguing the point, then hell, why have your own opinion?
Post a Comment
<< Home