Comments on: Police and peacekeepers

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:32:14 +0000

Nope, Kevin, haven’t read ‘Crucible of war’. Should have done but haven’t. You might just be right about Fallujah, although we’ll see major ground fighting somewhere in Iraq in the next couple of months. In Fallujah, I’m hoping most of the bad guys run before the US troops get there, thus minimising casualties, but I’m sure there will be big ground fighting somewhere in Iraq in the next couple of months. I suspect a key factor in Fallujah will be if the rebels have managed to store enough drinking water, or have access to wells etc. If they haven’t, their supplies have been cut off for about a month now and they can’t keep going much longer. I will make one prediction: if the US either bombs Iranian nuclear facilities itself, or if Israel does so, the Shi’ite areas of Iraq will go up in smoke- a proper rebellion. I just say these things to cheer myself up…

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:04:37 +0000

Dan, I wouldn’t dispute that the two military cultures are very different. Thankfully I have no first-hand experience of these matters, but from what history I have read the differences may even pre-date the USA. (I’m sure you’ve read Fred Anderson’s Crucible of War, which highlights how alien the redcoat discipline seemed to the colonists in the Seven Years War.) When I tried to think of a case where the Brits behaved as the Americans are now doing the only one that came to mind was Iraq under the Mandate. Geography is destiny? The key point is that leaving aside morality and legality, bombing just doesn’t make sense. I have a theory, which is now about to be tested, that Fallujah won’t be attacked in a serious way on the ground. A compromise will be hatched. I know the CW is against me on this but I expect to see, within the next few weeks, a Crooked Timber post asking whether the bombing was just an election stunt. That’s how cynical I am.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 12:41:46 +0000

Kevin, I’m with you in saying that ‘Brits good guys- Yanks bad guys’ rhetoric is simplistic. But there does seem to be a lot of evidence that British forces around Basra haven’t had recourse to air strikes or ‘indirect fire’ (mortars and artillery). The line we kept hearing before Sadr kicked off was ‘the Brits have it easier because they’re dealing with Shi’ites’. Hmmm… Rhetoric aside, there are big differences in the two armies’ doctrine and training, going back before Northern Ireland to the UK counterinsurgency efforts in the Malayan Emergency and Oman, and we shouldn’t ignore them.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 04:41:12 +0000

I’d reply to you Jet, but I’m sleepy. Possibly tomorrow, though by then this thread might be dead. On the bombing of Serbia, which I don’t know much about, there’s no reason why an action can’t be both successful and also a war crime.

By: james

james — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:36:27 +0000

The bombing campaign used in Bosnia and Kosovo was also called inhuman and a war crime. It was also ultimately successful in end result. Again, it comes back to who pays the price of war. The original article called for higher military casualties / lower civilian. Current US philosophy calls for lower US citizen casualties.

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 00:29:33 +0000

There is a point to the above exchanges regarding Operation Motorman which I think needs to be brought out. The difference between Fallujah and Derry (or Londonderry if that’s your prefered version) is not that Yanks are blood-thirsty and Brits are humane. The difference is that the Bogsiders were seen as (troublesome) citizens of the UK. Like them or not, the UK Government would have to deal with them for a long time to come. The British Army wasn’t engaged on a humanitarian intervention in a foreign land. (“UK” stands for United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.) A big part of the problem in Iraq is that Americans really do not see Iraq as their problem in quite that sense. But they have made it their problem. If you compare actual conduct, America’s handling of Iraq looks very like Britain’s handling of Iraq between the two World Wars: not enough troops, bomber aircraft employed to show who’s boss. It didn’t work very well back then. Why should it work any better now?

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:32:12 +0000

james, “humanitarian” is an objective, not a method. Bombing attacks in the Kosovo campaign were problematic in my view (particularly the TV station bombing, but also misdirected attacks due to poor intelligence). I’m not aware of anything comparable in the case of Bosnia, and I’m certainly not defending the rules of engagement that produced Srebrenica. But I think it’s clear that, if NATO had bombed Belgrade or Pale in the way that the US is now bombing Fallujah, the campaign would have been a war crime.

By: james

james — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:04:12 +0000

Its ironic that Bosnia and Kosovo where chosen as an exemplified example of humanitarian intervention. Especially since both interventions where considered a complete failure when employing only the purely humanitarian intervention espoused. Bosnia is actually an example of why the limited military conflict does not work. Bosnia and Kosovo only turned around when US forces implemented NATO rules of engagement and an air campaign (bombing).

By: jet

jet — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:49:56 +0000

Ye Gads, my first double post. I feel….so…..dirty. I beg a thousand pardons and will promptly whip myself with a wet noodle in repentance.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:47:06 +0000

Donald, I think we might share some common ground in that I believe invading Iraq was not the best solution to our problem. And I certainly think it is highest of hypocracy that there are still people starving in countries that aren’t exceptionally dangerous to distribute food in. But people are responsible for their governments. The Iraqis were responsible for Saddam. And I do not agree that US soldiers should extend every oppurtunity for civilians to leave an area the US has designated as the next combat zone and then go out of their way to save civilians that chose to remain at added risk to themselves. And there is nothing absurd about holding civilians responsible for their own evacuation. If the insurgents chose to hide behind the civilians, it is the civilians responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, especially if the US is letting them know what they are about to face. So there you have my point of view and that of many other people. US soldiers shouldn’t die because knuckle-heads want to save their house. Houses can be rebuilt.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:45:59 +0000

Donald, I think we might share some common ground in that I believe Iraq was not the best solution to our problem. And I certainly think it is highest of hypocracy that there are still people starving in countries that aren’t exceptionally dangerous to distribute food in. But people are responsible for their governments. The Iraqis were responsible for Saddam. And I do not agree that US soldiers should extend every oppurtunity for civilians to leave an area the US has designated as the next combat zone and then go out of their way to save civilians that chose to remain at added risk to themselves. And there is nothing absurd about holding civilians responsible for their own evacuation. If the insurgents chose to hide behind the civilians, it is the civilians responsibility to remove themselves from the situation, especially if the US is letting them know what they are about to face. So there you have my point of view and that of many other people. US soldiers shouldn’t die because knuckle-heads want to save their house. Houses can be rebuilt.

By: Donald Johnson

Donald Johnson — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:21:09 +0000

I wasn’t really serious about the NYC comparison, Jet, which I thought obvious. One hint comes in the last paragraph, which I began with “Okay, seriously”. I do think it’s absurd to hold civilians responsible for evacuating themselves so that the US can blow up whatever portion of their town they feel they should. I don’t know who these insurgents are—some are obviously murderous thugs and others are probably Iraqis who just want the Americans out. But they’re all in Iraq, not in the US, and it’s not real clear to me that we Americans have the right to blow foreigners up in their own homes, even if they’re too stubborn to move when we tell them. If we’re in Iraq for their good, then we shouldn’t be using helicopter gunships and bombs in urban areas. Unfortunately that means American troops would have to risk their lives instead. If Americans don’t want Americans soldiers dying in ugly street battles with guerillas, then we shouldn’t be there. If we insist on going around the world doing good, which seems to be the current justification for Iraq, there are ways of doing so that do more good and less harm, I think. A few million kids die each year in Africa, I hear, and we could help most of them (outside Darfur, Uganda, and maybe one or two other places) without shooting anyone.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 20:00:00 +0000

Donald Johnson, I think you need a better metaphor than NYC. NYC crime and Falujah are, ah, different in the extreme. Since this site is full of intelligent, thoughtful, resourceful folks maybe you can help me with something. I’m looking for stories where US forces used airstrikes in areas that hadn’t been ordered to evacuate. I’m interested in stories of Isreally style mid-night bombings on unsuspecting targets and US air strikes in areas not controlled by the insurgents/terrorists.

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:13:13 +0000

Fair enough, Kevin. I like your blog, btw, but maybe you could do something about the colour scheme… Marc Mulholland, meanwhile, should remember in future that ‘use of tanks’ is a false statement re ‘Operation Motorman’. The AVREs lacked guns and hence didn’t fire them. It is a very big stretch indeed to say they were ‘tanks’. ‘Use of tanks’ implies Budapest 1956, or at least Prague 1968. ‘Use of armoured bulldozers’ or ‘use of tank chassis without tank guns’ would be an accurate phrase, which I trust Mulholland will use in future.

By: kevin donoghue

kevin donoghue — Tue, 02 Nov 2004 16:41:50 +0000

Dan Hardie: “Call me naive, but why do you think I need to hand the cash over?” I don’t. A tank with no ammunition might still be called a tank, but since they didn’t have guns either (according to J. Bowyer Bell who has no obvious reason to lie about this) it seems fair to say they don’t qualify. Unless you think they do of course – that is what I meant by bringing your conscience into it. I just wanted to extract fifty quid from you for the benefit of some worthy cause. Call me Robin Hood, or whatever. Basically though, I was confirming your version of events. Is that so annoying?