Britain Angry with "Heavy-Handed" American Tactics

Just as in this country in November, election politics are taking over discussion about the Iraq war in Britain. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee released a report blaming the "slow pace" of rebuilding Iraq on the Americans:

U.S. troops in Iraq are provoking civilians and hampering rebuilding with an excessive use of force, British lawmakers said in a report Tuesday.

The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee also reported that the slow pace of reconstruction had fueled the insurgency in Iraq and suggested that the country had replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for terrorists.

"Excessive use by the U.S. forces of overwhelming firepower has also been counterproductive, provoking antagonism toward the coalition among ordinary Iraqis," the report said, echoing the concerns of British officials.

Some have complained that the U.S. military is too heavy-handed in Iraq, compared with British soldiers, who often patrol on foot and in berets instead of helmets in an effort to win the trust of local Iraqis.

Hmmm, a very nice wrong direction-logical fallacy that has cause and effect reversed. The members of this committee have come to the conclusion that because the Americans patrol in areas where most of the violence occurs, it is because they do so in such an aggressive manner that it just provokes the Pavlovian Dogs to fight. Or, the insurgents wouldn't dare to fire upon American soldiers if they were wearing berets instead of helmets. Who knew the insurgents were such fashion Nazis?

Instead, my counter-argument is thus: Americans are patrolling predominantly Sunni areas with helmets, tanks and big guns because there are some pretty sinister bastards there that already had the intention of trying to kill Coalition soldiers--American or British. When they uncovered the hostage slaughterhouses in Fallujah, they didn't find helmets on the bodies of people that were "provoking" them. I would speculate that the common denominator amoung the victims were that they were all unarmed and vulnerable at the time of their capture. So much for provocation.

This report seems to be a propaganda tool for the upcoming election in Britain. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee is comprised of the following members:

Member - Party
Donald Anderson (Chairman)- Labour
David Chidgey - Liberal Democrats
Fabian Hamilton - Labour
Eric Illsley - Labour
Andrew Mackay - Conservative
Andrew Mackinlay - Labour
John Maples - Conservative
Bill Olner - Labour
Greg Pope - Labour
Sir John Stanley - Conservative
Gisela Stuart - Labour

Seven of the eleven members are part of Labour party, who backed the war in Iraq, which has been increasingly unpopular in Britain. The predominantly Labour-comprised-committee did not condemn the decision to go to war, however they are trying to place the post-war problems squarely on the shoulders of the United States with the hopes that anti-Iraq war voters shift their vitriol from them to Uncle Sam. It's a very effective tactic that could secure some votes in the upcoming election; possibly too effective. If this meme sticks, it could be pretty difficult to get British support for any further engagements with the United States that may been in Britain's best interests.