"British forces are greatly experienced in peacekeeping in the Balkans, and in other experiences, in working with populations. It's easier to do that by not being overly aggressive," a government official told AFP.

The comment came after The Times newspaper reported Wednesday that there were "tensions between Britain and the US . . . as British commanders voiced their dismay at American soldiers' heavy-handed tactics."

A main surprise for US-British troops invading Iraq since March 20 has been the amount of resistance they have faced from Iraqi troops and failure of civilians to rise up to greet their arrivial.

Both US and British commanders have said that winning over the Iraqi population is a necessary part of their overthrowing the dictatorship of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

The Times said British commanders were aghast, however, after US troops fired on a civilian vehicle at a checkpoint Monday, killing seven Iraqi women and children, after a string of "friendly fire" incidents in which US forces killed five British troops and alleged harsh treatment by the Americans of Iraqi prisoners of war.

In contrast, British troops have taken off their helmets and were patrolling in berets to show a friendly face in pacified areas of southern Iraq.

William Hopkinson, an analyst at the London think tank Chatham House, said that while US military doctrine is maximum force protection for troops at all time, the British were "prepared to take more losses" in order to win over local peoples.

He cited situations, such as in the Balkans, where "the Americans patrolled in four armored vehicles together while the Brits tended to go about in shirtsleeves."

Hopkinson contrasted the US approach of maximum force where "you take a town by flattening it" or, as the British were doing in Basra, south Iraq, "you send in snatch squads to get resistance leaders, and then you patrol the streets."

"This is something straight from Northern Ireland and peacekeeping in the Balkans and the colonial era before that," Hopkinson said.

The government source said that in all fairness it must be said that the US troops were mainly focused on taking the campaign towards the north, and eventually Baghdad, while British troops were involved in more pacification tasks, although there was fierce fighting in Basra.

"Clearly there are difference between any nations, different ways of doing things," the source said.

"The safety of our personnel is very important but we have to bear in mind the requirements of the local population and have to be balanced," he said.

He cited the example of British Gurkha troops taking off their combat gear to do pacification operations in East Timor.

"These people had been intimidated by thugs. The last thing they wanted was more people in uniform being aggressive," he said.

SPACE.WIRE