should our ( mainly American) troops have received training/?

Question

gun happy and responsible for some war crime and revenge killings, we USA troops really "emotionaly " capable of a hearts and mind game in iraq.. look at the UK .. in most of their porvinces there is peace,, but in USA areas is where violence is the worst.. i think that is because American soliders thinks "shoots first and ask questions later"! not their fault.. they had no cultural training and even though there are a lot of intelligent there are a lot of how should i put it! Under par slodiers in Iraq.. think about it.. the normal infantry solider does not have good A level or a degree. ( but the officers usually have degrees and are vetted for leadership and intelligence etc..
|Cultural training would have solved a lot of probems for the americans.. respecting the iraq people and not flying their colours high with no iraqi flag beside it... **** would you like it if that happened in your country that was just invaded..

Answer 1

you have a very good point, but not put it particularly well....

the British troops, on the ground, and CPL's up, nave all had years of experience in places like Northers Ireland ETC ETC, and they are much better at patrolling, and reacting to people who are "normal" but in a dangerous area... the Americans dont have that invaluable experience at the lower levels, on the ground, that the British have.... Training just cant give you that experience..... the Americans are fine in war zones...... normal war (not that war should be normal), but not so good in built up areas with normal families living there and non combatants...... its NOT their fault though....

Answer 2

The American military men and women have a higher level of education than the civilian population. In most of the provinces the UK is in a safer place b/c we gave them the easier places to look after. This is b/c its our war, not so much their war.
If you ask me id say who cares who started the war, we are killing the terrorists who support the idea of killing people who do not believe in there religion and the UK falls under their targets. Especially after the subway bombings.

But make no mistake, although you are correct that the officers have a higher level of college education, the average infantry grunt, has a higher level of education than the average civilian.
More than that, they tend to have more common sense than any one else in the military, or any were else for that matter. You need it in the military these days. The "Thinkers" in the military are no longer safe in back of the fight but are every were do to the type of fighting we are doing over there.

Decisions are made on a smaller level, but with great importance. But the military does have some of Americas no so bright. But in something that brings in so many, how could there not be a few?

As far as them being trigger happy. Well that's a dead give away, you have never been in a hostile environment in Iraq. Did you know one of the tactics the terrorists use is to take away the weapons of the deceased, so it looks like we killed a civilian? On top of that, you have a gorilla force that deliberately attack you from highly populated areas, so its harder to shoot back at them. And they tend to take drugs so if you shoot and wound them, they wait till you come in close to give them aid (which is what we do with the wounded enemy) and then pull the pin of a grenade.

The drugs keep their hearts beating a few seconds longer so they have the time to wait for you to come over, before killing every one around them.

If the Iraqis are so insulted by us waving our flags, which by the way we don't do, then why do i see Iraqi citizens waving the American flag?

Answer 3

It is only a small percentage, a very very small percentage that have exercised a failure to use good judgement. Don't judge the 99.99 percent by the acts of such a small number of criminals (criminals who are investigated and prosecuted)

The Brits have the easy provinces. Heck, in early 2004 you could drive around those areas like you were driving around the block at home. The American troops have, and have always had the tough areas, the areas with the most Sunnis and the most sectarian violence. If the Brits and the Americans could swap places it would be the Brits taking and giving the lead and the Americans walking around buying trinkets at the Basra market. Of course the Brits would have to figure out how to get more than a small number of troops to a battle field.

Answer 4

The answer is absolutely yes. I am currently deployed in the Middle East and before we left the States we had two cultural awareness classes and over 40 hours of language training. Those individuals that deal more directly with the local nationals usually get more in depth training, however the training the basic troop gets is a bare minimum requirement. Each Soldier is given a card with the most common phrases written in English and the language of the country on it so at a bare minimum they can communicate. When it comes to language training and cultural awareness there is never enough preparation beforehand, but every little bit helps.

Answer 5

The fact of the matter is that the British got the 'safe' areas while the Americans took over the more dangerous ones.

And even then the British were so afraid of a fight that after Sadar was defeated in Najif they allowed him to operate out of Basra unhindered and rebuild his private army. As a result - we now have Sadar death squads murdering people all over Iraq.

Face it - if the British had done their job instead of backing down to Sadar and his thugs about half of the violence in Iraq would not be happening.

Answer 6

Your assumption concerning the cause for the higher violence in the American controlled sectors is wrong. The higher violence in those sectors is due to the fact that they are inherently more violent and cannot be handed off to other nations in the hope of keeping the coalition together. Think of it as being similar to the difference of being a cop in the country verses being an inner city cop.

As far as the flags are concerned, we remedied that quickly while many of the other coalition partners have yet to figure it out.

Answer 7

I think if the American disciplined services were trained even to a Pakistani, Thai or Cuban standard, America and the world would be a much better place.
When I say 'Disciplined service' I include police and to a lesser extent firefighters and paramedics.
The only time an American has used the term 'best in the world' and been right, was when the Governor of Alaska was talking about his Fire-Jumpers last year.
A force that follows the law above it's leaders, would also curtail much of the dangerous stupidity that occasionally goes on in Washington. Not that they should have refused to have gone, but they should have refused to torture - and been backed up by their superiors.

I agree with your statement that it is not their fault, they are (mainly) trying to do their best.

Most cop shootings in America are a case in point, very badly handled. But they think it is the only possible protocol in those situations.

(Edit) - in answer to the other answers.
Basra is easier than Baghdad, yes. The questioner is sympathetic to American soldiers, but laments their training.
How bad would Basra (the second biggest city) be if we bombed schools and houses, kicked in doors and tortured.
We bought the Basra peace with British lives, when an unarmed unit was surrounded by a mob and killed, we did not retaliate. We spoke to the tribal leaders and solved the problem for the future. You don't think the public wanted blood, we did, but we were mature enough to want peace more.
If Americans think this was our only option given our strength, think again. When it comes to the best, that place is miles from America.
Now America's inability to deal with the country is seeing Basra infiltrated by militia. Our dead for nought. It is this that sticks in the throat the most.
If Americans seriously think their forces are doing the right thing tactically, then there is no hope - they could not have got it more wrong if they had tried.
Other nations were not interested in occupation during the first Gulf War for precisely this reason, and they were going to use proper tactics.
Finally (and AGAIN) it is the attitude and training we are discussing NOT America(ns) intentions or values. We have already accepted that most want to do the right thing.

Answer 8

You just have no idea.
You're wrong, completely.
There are more American soldiers in Iraq than British, so it would make sense that more areas that have American soldiers there are violent, yes?
Shoot first and ask questions later is the way war USUALLY is. If someone is coming towards you, and they don't stop even when you ask them to in their language, you would probably assume that their intentions were hostile. That's what American soldiers do.
Many of my friends just came back from Iraq, and from your question, I know for a fact that they could outsmart you.

Answer 9

American military members have a higher percentage of educated people than the general population. I know many people enlisted and officers with a high level of education. There are alot of issues with what you said.

Answer 10

Brits have a 10th our troops and if they had to deal with the Sunni areas like Anbar they would be having the same problems we are. But thanks for sprouting useless junk, it is always good for a laugh.