Having Walked a Mile in Their Boots

The Spectator offered readers interesting insights into urban warfare Saturday when it published the views of a British soldier with experience in intelligence in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Writing under the pseudonym Daniel Yates, the soldier explained that routine military practices have triggered shock and outrage in Gaza:

"Urban warfare is complicated, disorientating and utterly confusing even in conventional operations. When an enemy, such as Hamas, is willing to dress in civilian clothing, attack from legally protected sites and use civilians as human shields it becomes fiendishly difficult."

Israel's use of white phosphorous is among the most criticized practices in the three-week Gaza battle. Yates wrote that reflexive cries of war crimes are misguided, and that British forces use white phosphorous "almost daily" in Afghanistan:

"White phosphorous is used because it provides an instant smokescreen, other munitions can provide a smokescreen but the effect is not instant. Faced with overwhelming enemy fire and wounded comrades, every commander would choose to screen his men instantly, to do otherwise would be negligent."

Similarly, the outcry that Israel attacked ambulances may be missing significant context. The British Army repeatedly encountered ambulances moving fighters and weaponry around Basra, Yates wrote.

Yates wasn't in Gaza, but he has been in war against jihadis who know few will speak up when they hide behind civilians or otherwise violate all of the rules of war their adversaries follow.

Reader comments on this item

Realities

Submitted by Dennis Landry, Jan 27, 2009 09:01

I would like to hear more from Mr. Yates and even more so from Israeli troops who were on the ground in Gaza.

It is and always has been easy to level ideological criticism: It is especially so for anyone who has not faced the confusion, fear and uncertainty of military action. Evidence to that occured just yesterday in The White House briefing with longest serving corrospondent int he room Helen Thomas asked her question this way; 'Why are we sending more troops to Afghanistan.......to, you know, kill more people."

The very idea that some manner of surgical approach to conflict is possible ranges somewhere between inane and insane. Especially so in urban combat where combatants cannot be clearly identified. This was even more so the case in Gaza where Hamas strategically and tactically counted on the presence of civilian human shields To approach a realistic view of the situation is possible but one must dig for it our mainstream media simply will not report it a degree apporopriate to the cirsumstance.

We are faced with "symptoms" reporting such as the situation with the ambulances. It has long been the case that emergency vehicles were used by Palestinians and other insurgent movements to move supplies and troops, there is nothing new here. Any experienced reporter in the region is aware of it and yet nothing deeper than the occurance is reported, despite the long and consistent history of this tactic. The same was the case with UN installations yet the outcry continued unabated.

We need more "push back" from governments, media and organizations such as IPT, Jihad Watch and others. We need to deluge media outlets that do not engage in non ideological reporting. We need to hear from the people on the ground. We need to be smarter and more perceptive. The absence of reasonable analysis and perception carries jeopardy for us all.

Comment on this item