Makes you want to re-evaluate what constitutes a 'civilian casualty'. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/international/worldspecial/27AMBU.html Iraqi Soldiers Say It Was Fight or Die By DEXTER FILKINS IWANIYA, Iraq, March 26 — The aftermath of the firefight was a tableau of twisted Iraqi bodies, tins of unopened food and the dirty mattresses where they had spent their final hours. But the Iraqi private with a bullet wound in the back of his head suggested something unusually grim. Up and down the 200-mile stretch of desert where the American and British forces have advanced, one Iraqi prisoner after another has told captors a similar tale: that many Iraqi soldiers were fighting at gunpoint, threatened with death by tough loyalists of President Saddam Hussein. Here, according to American doctors and Iraqi prisoners, appeared to be one confirmation. The wounded Iraqi, whose life was ebbing away outside an American field hospital, had been shot during the firefight Tuesday night with American troops. It was a small-caliber bullet, most likely from a pistol, fired at close range. Iraqi prisoners taken after the battle said their officers had been firing at them, pushing them into battle. "The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," said a wounded Iraqi from his bed in the American field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight." As the American medics patched up the wounds of three other Iraqi soldiers, they said there was little they could do for the one who had been shot in the head. Much of his skull had come apart, and the medics labeled him "expectant," which meant he was expected to die. They gave him morphine, wrapped him in a green blanket and put him on a stretcher outside their tent. "We think he was shot by his own," Dr. Wade Wilde, a Marine surgeon, said. "If he had been hit by an M-16, it would have taken his whole head off. It seems like it was an Iraqi gun." As Dr. Wilde spoke, his eyes drifted to the Iraqi soldier, still clinging to life, on the stretcher. "We've tried to make him as comfortable as possible," he said, "and let the wound run its course." It is wild here near the front of the American advance, 110 miles south of Baghdad. The ambushes are more frequent, the Iraqi soldiers more desperate, the Americans more jumpy. At night, the perimeter of the American camp echoes with the sound of mortar fire and the yips of wild dogs. "The closer we get to Baghdad, the crazier it gets," Sgt. Robert Gardner, a marine at a base here, said. The American marines making their way up the Baghdad Highway through central Iraq came under attack at least three times in the past 24 hours. Two of the attacks, including those in which the Iraqi soldiers said they were shot by their own officers, followed a similar pattern. The Iraqis waited for the tanks and other armored vehicles to pass, then opened fire, as if hoping to hurt the American force but unable to match its heavier weapons. Twice on Tuesday, the Americans came under fire that way. The first attack came before dawn, when a convoy of marines came under fire from Iraqi irregulars. The details were sketchy, but American officers said they had taken several Iraqi militiamen prisoner, killed several of the Iraqis and lost none of their own. On the road north, the only sign of the encounter was a pool of blood on the side of the road. Hours later, during a swirling sandstorm, the American convoy again came under attack. A force thought to number about 150 Iraqis was waiting in trenches about 100 yards off the highway. That fight proved more deadly: an American marine was killed and another was wounded, along with at least a dozen Iraqis killed. Cpl. Chad Stroup was riding with a group of his comrades in a personnel carrier when he heard the banging of bullets on the vehicle's armored shell. His driver, seeking to avoid the fire, swerved and flipped the carrier into an Iraqi trench. Corporal Stroup and the others piled out the vehicle and ran for cover, somehow avoiding the Iraqi soldiers thought to be in the trench. The fight, he said, ended abruptly with American artillery fire. "There were two loud explosions, then it went quiet," he said. The scene after Tuesday night's battle suggested an Iraqi force that was not as spirited as some of those that American troops have encountered recently in Nasiriya and Najaf. Scattered through the Iraqi trenches was an arsenal hardly up to the task of slowing the American advance: a few hand grenades, some rocket launchers, three dozen magazines for Kalashnikov rifles. A pair of filthy mattresses and moldy blankets were thrown together in a pile. A dozen corpses lay splayed about in the ditch. Perhaps the only ominous articles were Iraqi gas masks strewn about the trench line. On the roadside, the Iraqi prisoners huddled together. Only a few had uniforms; most wore tattered clothing and battered shoes. They did not seem like men who lusted for battle. American marines guarding the prisoners said they had complained that their own officers had shot at them during the battle. "I have four children at home, and they threatened to hurt them if I did not fight," another one of the wounded Iraqis said. "I had no choice." Perhaps because of those accusations, the Americans had taken the group's leader, an Iraqi brigadier general, and sat him on the ground away from the others. By midafternoon, the marines were embroiled in yet another fight. This one was just three miles away, close enough for Iraqi mortar shells to fall near the American camp. A Marine battalion of about 600 men was dispatched to confront the Iraqis, and by nightfall the sound of artillery rumbled through the area. By nightfall, the marines, so often a picture of tireless and cocksure youth, were on edge. Around 8 p.m., a sentry guarding the base opened fire, and soon he was joined by a volley of rockets and machine-gun fire from a number of his comrades. Afterward, the area went still. Yet with so little light and so little certain, no one seemed to know whether the young soldiers had been firing at Iraqi intruders or the wild dogs yipping outside the camp.
With no meaning to take one side or another, we should add to that article that if you take money to be a soldier in the United States, the punishment for fleeing battles is death.
sigh, no editing....I mean that the punishment for fleeing battles when your officer says to stay and fight is death.
btw TheFreak, where exactly in that article do we see that "Iraq recruits its soldiers" at threat of death. All that article says is some Iraqi soldier got shot for wanting to desert a battle. Why should we interpret that any other way? That is exactly what we do in battle. Beware of war propoganda.
"The officers threatened to shoot us unless we fought," said a wounded Iraqi from his bed in the American field hospital here. "They took out their guns and pointed them and told us to fight."
Bob*, again, where exactly does that say anything about recruiting. That quote merely says the soldier refused to fight during a battle. That is punishable by death in the US Army, as well. I don't get it. That article says nothing about "recruiting." As far as we know, that soldier was on the payroll and wanted to desert a battle.
I agree with you heypartner. The article says nothing about how these soldiers were recruited in the first place. It only says that once recruited, they were threatened with death if caught deserting, which is a universal practice throughout the world including the US itself. We do know that many of the regular solidiers are conscripted but the article doesn't address or mention anything about how this conscription process is carried out. All in all, the title "How Iraq recruits its solidiers" does not accurately reflect the contents of the enclosed article.
The article states nothing about him being on the payroll. Where do you see that? As far as we know these are just civilians taken from their homes with the threat of harm to them or their family if they don't fight for Iraq.
Is this story better? <a HREF="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/03/27/briefing030327">British say Iraqis being forced to fight </a> <i> DOHA, QATAR - The U.S. and Britain are accusing Iraq of using threats and intimidation against family members to force its soldiers to fight. INDEPTH: Iraq: Military Strategy The British force commander says he believes many Iraqi soldiers are being forced to fight by the paramilitary units and other units loyal to Saddam Hussein. Air Marshall Brian Burridge claims these irregular forces are using brutal tactics. "They just see that the only way they can work this is to intimidate the regular army, who have already deserted. And they're doing that by exemplar executions; they're doing that by executing families of the soldiers concerned," he said. It's the same story from top U.S. officers. Brig.-Gen. Vincent Brooks says Iraqi paramilitaries are using death threats to coerce some people into fighting. "Our field commanders report that in the vicinity of An Najaf, as one example, Iraqi regime forces are seizing children from their homes, telling the families that the males must fight for the regime or they will all face execution." There's no way to independently verify these claims. The brutality of the Iraqi regime against its own people has been well-documented. But it's also clear that the U.S. and Britain would welcome any explanation for why the Iraqi military is putting up more of a fight than was predicted. </i>
Bob...I don't see anything conclusive either way, but the fact that it's restricted to "officers" would support the position that it is much more likely to be soldiers we are talking about than civilians...That would be the distinction of authority...Were it civilians, any soldier with a gun would have authority over them in this manner...Only soldiers would need to distinguish between officers and others.
Bob*, The Iraqi soldier says his "officer" told him to fight. Mango's article says "the [Iraqi] regular army has already deserted." If you desert, they can go arrest you and kill you in the US Army. As for the other quote in Mango's article, "There's no way to independently verify these claims. " just like it says. beware of war propoganda. deserting happens... deserters get executed... war is hell.
HP can't read this but what a crock of crap. The last deserter the US executed was in WW2 and there was a massive uproar...we don't execute deserters anymore. STRETCH IT HP !! DD
hp, I'd like to see any proof you have of American soldiers getting intentionally fired on by their own. Any evidence of American soldiers' families being threatened by their own would be welcome as well. I apologize for the 'recruitment' thing, it appears that was a little presumptious. Are you saying this isn't a story?
Anyone seen the movie "Enemy at the Gates"? What a gruesome opening battle. When the Russian men went out to fight, if they retreated they were gunned down by their own. That seems to inspire a very sharp learning curve. I think it's the same way in Iraq, but to another level. If they fight they probably get hurt/die, if they don't fight their families get hurt/killed. That has to pure hell. Sad.