US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[dieseltaylor]

John Kettler has suggested I repost the link here aswell as the GF as it is perhaps more relevant to you lot : )

web page

[Sgt Joch]

very intersting...

The economist seems to think the British Army can walk on water...

[Bigduke6]

It's not that long, it's only a couple of pages. :confused: Good article though, Wahabi fundamentalists in the Lousiana woods, gotta love it.!

[Sirocco]

In a recent comparison of the British and American approaches, “Counter-insurgency lessons from Malaya and Vietnam,” John Nagl, a retired American marine officer, argues that Britain's relative expertise was not merely the result of its imperial history. In Vietnam, after all, America had ample experience of acting as an occupying power. Moreover, in both Malaya and Northern Ireland, the British were at first heavy-handed and unsuccessful. The difference, says Mr Nagl, is that the small British army was able to learn from its mistakes and change, while the bigger American army was not.

It was interesting that previously there was a real resistance to that the UK had a greater understanding of these issues even on this board with some US posters. Whenever some misfortune befell the British the cry went up "well, they don't do it any better, after all!". But hopefully lessons really have been learned through this experience, and remembered.

[Battlefront.com]

I read most of that report and found much of it bunk. First of all, the British have been sitting in the relatively safe and calm south of the country. They aren't in Fallujah. It is also completely false that the Americans weren't trained or instructed in ways to reduce civilian casualties. It is true that they weren't adequately trained, or equipped, to deal with crowd control. Especially crowds that were purposefully pushed forward with gunmen concealed within their numbers (or on roof tops) such as the one the reporter mentioned in Fallujah.

As far as blunders, the British have their fair share to deal with as well. Early on there were some pretty serious problems in Basra that the British forces percipitated. Including a shootout with friendly police forces. There was the more recent "jail break" where the British Army attacked an Iraqi prison to free two of its soliders after the Iraqis accused them of shooting civilians. True or not, the resulting military action was a fiasco that included an APC being burned up and its crew jumping out with uniforms on fire.

I'd also like to point out that historically the British have had a pretty dismal record of occupation success. India and South Africa in the first half of the last century, the American Colonies two centuries earlier for example. The problems in many African countries today are directly linked to British occupation policies that ultimately failed. And of course the British were ejected out of Israel too. The Troubles in Norther Ireland have been another sore spot for decades (centuries really), which included numberous total screw ups by occupation forces or covert actions that made things worse. So on and so forth.

Now, don't take this the wrong way. I'm not saying that the US forces have done a great job with occupation and counter insurgency operations. In fact, I think pretty much everybody can agree that they have not. At least not consistantly. And certainly their civilian masters have been downright incompetent in their policy making, repeatedly getting everything just about everything about as wrong as can be. MANY things need to be changed, and are changing, as quickly as possible in order to win the war.

However, to write an article that makes the Brits look like a gold winner while the Americans were lucky enough to so much as qualify for the race... that ticks me off. Sounds a lot like the attitude in WWII that still prevails today (having gone to school while living in London I know it still does). That writer needs to dismount from his high horse and take a closer look at British military history before he pens another article.

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

Steve you may not agree with the article but your grasp on history and the British Empire seems more than a little askew.

"British ejected from Israel" only too eager to leave I think you will find.

Your reference to African countries makes me curious as to which African countries have been blessed with good government in the last 100 years. As you say it is not the British ones tell me which ones have been OK.

To more recent history the "jail break" I understand that the "police" were not to be relied upon to keep the men safe. To see who is correct will no doubt come out in time ... however if this helps you

Basra breakout: army statement

By Times Online

Full statement by Brigadier John Lorimer, the Brigade Commander of the 12 Mechanised Brigade

"I want to speak to you about yesterday’s events in Basra.

"During the morning, two British soldiers were detained at the Jamiat police station in Basra. Under Iraqi law, as MNF (Multinational Force) soldiers, they should have been handed over to the coalition authorities. The Consul-General and I asked repeatedly for this but it did not happen.

"During the day we went to exhaustive lengths to achieve the hand-over of the soldiers. And in fact, as a result, we understand that the Iraqi Interior Minister personally ordered the release of the soldiers. However, that order seems to have been ignored.

"From an early stage, I had good reason to believe that the lives of the two soldiers were at risk and troops were sent to the area of Basra near the police station to help ensure their safety by providing a cordon. As shown on television, these troops were attacked with fire-bombs and rockets by a violent and determined crowd.

"Later in the day, however, I became more concerned about the safety of the two soldiers after we received information that they had been handed over to militia elements. As a result I took the difficult decision to order entry to the Jamiat police station. By taking this action we were able to confirm that the soldiers were no longer being held by the IPS. An operation was then mounted to rescue them from a house in Basra.

"I am delighted that the two British soldiers are back with British Forces and are in good health. We will be following up with the authorities in Basra why the soldiers were not immediately handed over to MNF as Iraqi law (CPA Order 17) says that they should have been.

"I should put the scale of yesterday’s disorder into context. British armoured vehicles being attacked by a violent crowd, including with petrol bombs, makes graphic television viewing.

"But this was a small unrepresentative crowd (200-300) in a city of 1.5 million. The vast majority of Iraqi people in MND(SE) are law abiding and value the contribution made by coalition forces to maintaining stability and security.

"Minor damage was caused to the prison compound wall and to the house in which our two soldiers were held.

"It is of deep concern that British soldiers held by the police should end up being held by militia. This is unacceptable and I should stress that we won’t hesitate to take action against those who are involved in planning and conducting attacks against coalition forces.

"Looking ahead, I should stress that the situation in Basra is now calm.

"We will continue to work closely with local authorities to maintain this calm, and with the Iraqi security forces whose capabilities we are helping to develop. It was a difficult day yesterday, but we have put this behind us and will move on."

[TheTris]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out perceived British historical blunders in relation to an article on how the American army is learning to deal with counter insurgency operations more effectively, Steve.

The article seems well researched, and the feel of "The Brits did this better" comes from sources in the appropriate branch of the US army, among others.

As a Brit reading it, I was struck by the comments on how now that American's are training more for this, their training involves hi tech pyrotechnics and acting lessons from Hollywood, whereas the British training is much lower budget.

Does that make me happy? Well, I'd rather the British army had the high tech stuff too. But I'm pretty sure they don't. Americans just do that stuff better. To me, an American deputy chief of IO, and a retired American marine (not a country reknowned for it's lack of patriotism) both saying that America hasn't learnt these lessons as quickly as the British is enough to convince me it's probably true.

Finally, if two of my men were captured by the police, not handed over to the correct authorities, and then given to a local militia group, and we managed to save them without losing a single guy, I'd be pretty happy. Casting this event as a terrible blunder is extremely disrespectful to guys who put their lives on the line and did, in this occasion at least, a fantastic job. Regardless of their nationality.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I read most of that report and found much of it bunk. First of all, the British have been sitting in the relatively safe and calm south of the country. They aren't in Fallujah.

Yeah, nothing apart from the locals but the Iranian border to worry about, what an absolute doddle that must be.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is also completely false that the Americans weren't trained or instructed in ways to reduce civilian casualties.

It may be absolutely false, but it is certainly not completely false, as video evidence of some dramatically fifth-rate VCP drills has shown.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snips] the resulting military action was a fiasco that included an APC being burned up and its crew jumping out with uniforms on fire.

I invite you to consider how many civilian dead there would have been if an American unit had been involved in such an incident.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'd also like to point out that historically the British have had a pretty dismal record of occupation success. India and South Africa in the first half of the last century,

Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with 20th century history will know that in each of those countries the real trouble started after the Brits left.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

the American Colonies two centuries earlier for example.

Cynics might even suggest that the same applies there.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The problems in many African countries today are directly linked to British occupation policies that ultimately failed.

Errh, name one.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And of course the British were ejected out of Israel too.

Palestine. And withdrew in accordance with the UN mandate and partition plan. What else do you suggest should have been done?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The Troubles in Norther Ireland have been another sore spot for decades (centuries really), which included numberous total screw ups by occupation forces or covert actions that made things worse.

"Numerous screw-ups" is just a different way of saying "more experience". As I've pointed out elsewhere, since 1945 the British Army has deployed on more of this kind of operation than the US Army has, with the USMC somewhere in the middle, so it's no surprise that the ability of each force to undertake this kind of thing should be in proportion to their experience.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

However, to write an article that makes the Brits look like a gold winner while the Americans were lucky enough to so much as qualify for the race... that ticks me off. Sounds a lot like the attitude in WWII that still prevails today (having gone to school while living in London I know it still does).

What, Eastenders not appropriately grateful for American assistance during the Blitz? How terrible!

All the best,

John.

[Ardem]

Sorry Steve but your American pride hurt that someone could do it better then you.

Please the Brits are a class A act and always have been. You guys go in guns blazing and wonder why people shoot back.

You could say the Iron Triangle in Vietnam was a safe zone, but when the Aussies went in it wasn't, it was only with the right attitude first up and correct attitudes of the soldiers that turned the Australian held province into a relative calm province. Then there was the South Koreans they also did a good job.

For me I totally see the direction of the author and I think it only a positive step forward for the American Army force that I think tend to rely on their brawn instead of brains, if they can change some attitudes for its all for the good.

A good soldier is not always about how quickly they can kill people.

[ December 23, 2005, 02:31 AM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The Troubles in Norther Ireland have been another sore spot for decades (centuries really), which included numberous total screw ups by occupation forces or covert actions that made things worse. So on and so forth.

Steve

Naturally this wasnt helped by US based support of the IRA during much of this time (NORAID etc).

Only after the US was itself the victim of large scale terrorism was a stop finally put to this shamefull practice.

[Nidan1]

Compare the level of symbolism for a tribal organization like the Iraqi insurgency to have killed Americans as compared with killing British.

The level of animosity directed at American troops in the middle east, whether they are performing their missions in a politcally correct manner or not, has to be higher than that directed against other nationalities just from the plain fact of the negative rhetoric that comes

from the tribal leaders in the first place.

Add to that the fact that even American media is hostile to the American military in a lot of cases, and you are already going into a mission with two strikes against you. (sorry for the baseball reference)

I admire the professionalism and competence of the British forces. They have always impressed me with their capabilities and courage.

The world is changing, along with the traditional missions of our military forces. America is the super power, we trained for thirty years to face down the Warsaw Pact, now we have to deal with smaller lower intensity conflicts...you all expect to see this done in the space of a couple of years.

The military is an organization comprised of people, not unlike a corporation or even a web forum, where many people have different and often conflicting opinions about the way things should be done. New ideas and techniques sometimes take a long time to be implemented, often with a lot of pain in between.

In today's world the mission of the military has become to save lives, rather than take them...it seems like a contradiction in terms, but look what is being posted in this thread. These opinions are a reflection of what people are saying all over the world. A military force has to win a military objective without killing people, but yet most of the tools they bring to do the job are lethal.

An entire mindset readjustment is needed here, not just a few tactical and operational tweaks,

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Sorry Steve but your American pride hurt that someone could do it better then you.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Please the Brits are a class A act and always have been.

Agreed.

You guys go in guns blazing and wonder why people shoot back.

Go back to 1982...and the Falklands War...do a little reading.

You could say the Iron Triangle in Vietnam was a safe zone, but when the Aussies went in it wasn't, it was only with the right attitude first up and correct attitudes of the soldiers that turned the Australian held province into a relative calm province. Then there was the South Koreans they also did a good job.

The Iron Triangle was not a Province, and while I salute the support of our Aussie brothers in Vietnam, they certainly did not subdue the Iron Triangle single-handed as you suggest. Read about Operation Cedar Falls for a start. The South Koreans terrorized Vietnamese civilians with their heavy handed ways, and certainly made no attempt to win hearts and minds. They were more of the "guns blazing" type, as you suggest the Americans to be.

For me I totally see the direction of the author and I think it only a positive step forward for the American Army force that I think tend to rely on their brawn instead of brains, if they can change some attitudes for its all for the good.

I don't think this statement is accurate. While change is good for any organization, the American Army has tried very hard to limit wanton destruction, in the areas in which it operates.

A good soldier is not always about how quickly they can kill people.

Maybe, maybe not....this is where the global change of mindset comes in. Do we teach our soldiers to be warriors or social workers or a combination of the two.

[ December 23, 2005, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Battlefront.com]

I see the "Americans are wreckless cowboys who are completely out of their depth, while the Brits are beyond reproach" crap is alive and well here as in that article. I've been accused of putting my national pride ahead of facts, but I point right back at those who say that. The truth is that my list of American blunders in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places could fill an entire 300 message thread on this board. So obviously I am not saying that the American approach is anything but less than perfect (and sometimes dismal). No, what I object to is the Brits being put up on a polished pedestal and the facts of the Iraqi campaign being twisted to support doing so. If the author of this article had left out the references to the Brits being so superior I'd have few problems with anything else in the article (i.e. the heavy criticism of US military policies and training).

dieseltaylor

"British ejected from Israel" only too eager to leave I think you will find.

Yes, because they couldn't control it. The notion that the Brits abandoned their Empire because they had something better to do is silly. They left because their occupation policies were not sustainable. Granted, their ability to govern huge sections of the Earth's land and populace is unrivaled, but in the end the same policies that led to this domination also led to its fall.

Your reference to African countries makes me curious as to which African countries have been blessed with good government in the last 100 years. As you say it is not the British ones tell me which ones have been OK.

My point exactly. Some of those areas had been under British control for more than 200 years, but as soon as the Brits left they devolved into chaos and dictatorships. This is the same fear that is being expressed about Iraq, and therefore I don't think the Brits should be saying "we're a model to follow" since their model failed in so many parts of their old Empire. Only the areas that were populated mostly by British ex-pats fared well because they were treated differently.

To more recent history the "jail break" I understand that the "police" were not to be relied upon to keep the men safe. To see who is correct will no doubt come out in time ... however if this helps you

You missed the point. If the Brits were so great at occupation policies, then why were those police unreliable? How could it be that the Brit soldiers were captured in the first place? And why was it that they had to resort to "American" tactics to get them out? According to the author of that article none of this should have happened.

TheTris

I'm not sure why you feel the need to point out perceived British historical blunders in relation to an article on how the American army is learning to deal with counter insurgency operations more effectively, Steve.

As I stated above, I am not arguing with the author's description of the Americans needing to learn how to do things better. They absolutely do. I am arguing with the blatant and direct position he took that the Brits have practically perfected the art. It simply isn't true.

The article seems well researched, and the feel of "The Brits did this better" comes from sources in the appropriate branch of the US army, among others.

Some US officers, and certainly their political masters, think everything is going perfectly. Does that make them right?

As a Brit reading it, I was struck by the comments on how now that American's are training more for this, their training involves hi tech pyrotechnics and acting lessons from Hollywood, whereas the British training is much lower budget.

Does that make me happy? Well, I'd rather the British army had the high tech stuff too. But I'm pretty sure they don't. Americans just do that stuff better. To me, an American deputy chief of IO, and a retired American marine (not a country reknowned for it's lack of patriotism) both saying that America hasn't learnt these lessons as quickly as the British is enough to convince me it's probably true.

So if I found you a quote from an American Army officer and an ex-Marine that said the US is doing things better than the Brits, you'd think that "probably true"? The author cherry picked his quotes, as all authors do. Don't be so naive to think otherwise.

Finally, if two of my men were captured by the police, not handed over to the correct authorities, and then given to a local militia group, and we managed to save them without losing a single guy, I'd be pretty happy. Casting this event as a terrible blunder is extremely disrespectful to guys who put their lives on the line and did, in this occasion at least, a fantastic job. Regardless of their nationality.

It was a blunder in the context of what the author is stating. The Brits are in the quietest, most friendly section of Iraq. They have the least amount of troubles to deal with, and the most amount of popular support. Yet under British occupation they had two soldiers snatched by their supposedly allies and had to resort to American style gangster jail break tactics to get them out. How can you call this anything but a failure of British occupation policies? If you don't, then you are obviously endorsing the supposedly inferior policies of the Americans. You can't have it both ways.

John D Salt

Yeah, nothing apart from the locals but the Iranian border to worry about, what an absolute doddle that must be.

Facts are facts... it is a relative oasis of sanity in Iraq, regardless of the long term troubles its close proximity and ties to Iran may present. The author made a direct comparison between Basra and Fallujah, and there is no comparison that can be made if you understand anything about what Fallujah is all about.

It may be absolutely false, but it is certainly not completely false, as video evidence of some dramatically fifth-rate VCP drills has shown.

Again, I am not saying the author is wrong to criticize the American's training or displayed ability to execute it. No, I am arguing that the position he takes that the Americans were totally unprepared while the Brits had things down to perfection. It simply isn't true as he reported it.

I invite you to consider how many civilian dead there would have been if an American unit had been involved in such an incident.

Impossible to say. The American forces conduct armed operations all the time that do not involve civilian casualties. The difference between the American sectors and the British is that such armed conflicts are far more common. The reasons for that are extremely complicated and can not be boiled down to "the Brits do it better and the Americans have a lot to learn". That is part of it, but it isn't likely the most significant part.

Anyone with a nodding acquaintance with 20th century history will know that in each of those countries the real trouble started after the Brits left.

See points earlier in this post. I think this is the most damning evidence about the "success" of British occupation policies. If you can govern an area for a couple hundred years, and have it be relatively stable, but then leave and the next day have it go to Hell... how effective were those policies?

Palestine. And withdrew in accordance with the UN mandate and partition plan. What else do you suggest should have been done?

Nothing at that point. It went tits up before that. And I'm not saying that the Brits were in any position to have done any better. I'm sure that was a lost cause to start with.

"Numerous screw-ups" is just a different way of saying "more experience". As I've pointed out elsewhere, since 1945 the British Army has deployed on more of this kind of operation than the US Army has, with the USMC somewhere in the middle, so it's no surprise that the ability of each force to undertake this kind of thing should be in proportion to their experience.

I totally agree. The US military has a lot to learn. The US politicians... they have a TON more to learn. And I think the Brits have a lot to offer in terms of teaching. But they are still learning themselves and therefore it is wrong to suppose that all the Americans have to do is follow the British lead. It could be that there is another path that BOTH should be going down.

What, Eastenders not appropriately grateful for American assistance during the Blitz? How terrible!

No, the all too easily found opinion that the British won WWII and the Americans were only along for the ride. A history professor I had, an Englishman through and through, did not share that position. In fact, he made a point of trying to correct it. I'll never forget the day he said that "Britain's most important contribution to WWII was not surrendering." An extremely simplified position, but one that is largely correct. The liberation of Europe would have been near impossible (short term) if Great Britain had surrendered (I'm not even talking occupied). Their contribution to the actual war is admirable and extremely note worthy as well.

Ardem,

Sorry Steve but your American pride hurt that someone could do it better then you.

Bullocks. Where have I said that the Americans have done things better? Where have I said they don't have a lot to learn? No, my objection is that the author has his facts wrong in some places and in general is simply bolstering an unsupportable stereotype.

Please the Brits are a class A act and always have been. You guys go in guns blazing and wonder why people shoot back.

Nadin corrected you on this so I'll skip it.

A good soldier is not always about how quickly they can kill people.

That's the kind of BS that got my dander up in the first place. If you think the American soldier is trained to be a mindless killing machine you need to go back to the books and look again. The modern day professional American military is all about brains over brawn. The difference between the British and American philosophies, if there really is a difference, is that the British have more experience in sorting out options. But when you come right down to it, they aren't really all that different. When the Brits don't get their way with carrots, they go in with the stick just like the Americans do. The Basra jail break is an obvious example from recent history. The Falklands an obviously older, though relevant, example.

Fly Pusher

Naturally this wasnt helped by US based support of the IRA during much of this time (NORAID etc).

Only after the US was itself the victim of large scale terrorism was a stop finally put to this shamefull practice.

The IRA had plenty of domestic, Republic of Ireland, and British based support as well. The notion that the US government was not concerned about this is poppycock. But like it or not, the US government had other priorities to deal with in terms of law enforcement. Obviously the British government would have preferred that their needs were put higher up on the priority list, but such is life.

BTW, the shutting down of IRA support in the US had less to do with 9/11 than with the improving situation in Northern Ireland.

Nidan1

I admire the professionalism and competence of the British forces. They have always impressed me with their capabilities and courage.

I completely agree. I am on the record for defending the British solider of WWII against the "the Americans did everything" types. However, I am also on the record for saying that the Brits would have lost the war without the Americans, though without Britain there would have been no war to win. Anybody that disagrees with either point really doesn't know their history.

The world is changing, along with the traditional missions of our military forces. America is the super power, we trained for thirty years to face down the Warsaw Pact, now we have to deal with smaller lower intensity conflicts...you all expect to see this done in the space of a couple of years.

Correct. I know some are thinking of scaling down the conventional military forces in favor of more or less professional peace keeping forces. The conventional force goes in and knocks down the door, the peace keeping force comes in to stabilize and rebuild. If some local hotheads can't be reasoned with, the conventional force takes them out. But otherwise they are kept out of the rebuilding effort.

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

Steve I re-read the article and was surprised by how little of it actually mentioned the British or lauded them.

Comments on such as

"The 1976 edition of “Operations”, the standard manual of best practice in warfare, did not mention counter-insurgency, and the army's dedicated counter-insurgency doctrine manual was last rewritten in 1965. But the section of the current edition of “Operations” dealing with counter-insurgency is now being revised, and a new version of the counter-insurgency manual, written with British help, was distributed as an interim draft on October 1st."

Shows a lack of forward planning - especially given Somalia

"In Afghanistan's violent Helmand province, an American special-forces captain—with broad experience of counter-insurgency—analysed his furtive Taliban enemies thus: “They're cowards. Why don't they step up and fight like men?” Apparently, he had not considered how he might fight if he had no armour, no radio, an ancient rifle and the sure knowledge that if he fought like a man, he would be obliterated in minutes."

Shows remarkable stupidity - to believe it, to say it to a journalist - doubly stupid.

However I have no doubt that there are a lot of good men out there and some very fast learning going on and it will benefit the US Army. I have a slight niggle that the US Army perhaps suffers from a surfeit of not too bright GI's who have no interest in the cause, or feel that understanding Iraqi's is of any benefit whatsoever.

[Battlefront.com]

dieseltaylor,

Steve I re-read the article and was surprised by how little of it actually mentioned the British or lauded them.

Quantity has nothing to do with anything. The journalist could have only mentioned the British once like this "the British are superior, the Americans inferior. Those yanks need to wise up and do things the British way". It's the attitude, along with some factual errors and incorrect analogies, that I object to. Not that the Americans were not prepared for this war and are learning things on the fly now.

BTW, the Americans have a lot more experience with foreign occupation in the lsat 50 years than the British do. The sad thing is that the Americans haven't learned much from it because the politicians continually yank them in and out of things and then tell them to forget about it since their main focus is on large conventional warfare.

I wonder how different the British experience would have been if they were involved in as many small scale scrapes as the Americans in the last 50 years. In some places I think they would do much better, but overall I wonder if there would be all that much difference. British politicians don't strike me as being any more imaginative and far thinking as American politicians. It's probably why our two nations get along so well together.

Shows a lack of forward planning - especially given Somalia

And Haiti, and Panama, and Haiti again, and Liberia, and so on and so forth. Yup, there is a long list of small/medium interventions that have gone pretty poorly, that's for sure. Again, no dispute there. The American military is still in transition and it is learning a lot of lessons the hard way. Just like it did in WWII when it entered North Africa with lots of problems.

Shows remarkable stupidity - to believe it, to say it to a journalist - doubly stupid.

Which is why I don't take that quote at face value. I suggest that the quote was incorrect or taken out of context. Either that or the Captain wasn't really Special Forces (that term is incorrectly used too often). The US Army Special Forces are the one force I don't worry about.

However I have no doubt that there are a lot of good men out there and some very fast learning going on and it will benefit the US Army. I have a slight niggle that the US Army perhaps suffers from a surfeit of not too bright GI's who have no interest in the cause, or feel that understanding Iraqi's is of any benefit whatsoever.

That would be true of any force, professional or otherwise, I am sure. I would wager 10 copies of CM:SF that it is no different in the British armed forces. The average soldier simply wants to do his job and go home. Anything that complicates that is not looked upon too fondly.

Steve

[ December 23, 2005, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

Steve I re-read the article and was surprised by how little of it actually mentioned the British or lauded them.

Comments on such as

"The 1976 edition of “Operations”, the standard manual of best practice in warfare, did not mention counter-insurgency, and the army's dedicated counter-insurgency doctrine manual was last rewritten in 1965. But the section of the current edition of “Operations” dealing with counter-insurgency is now being revised, and a new version of the counter-insurgency manual, written with British help, was distributed as an interim draft on October 1st."

Shows a lack of forward planning - especially given Somalia

"In Afghanistan's violent Helmand province, an American special-forces captain—with broad experience of counter-insurgency—analysed his furtive Taliban enemies thus: “They're cowards. Why don't they step up and fight like men?” Apparently, he had not considered how he might fight if he had no armour, no radio, an ancient rifle and the sure knowledge that if he fought like a man, he would be obliterated in minutes."

Shows remarkable stupidity - to believe it, to say it to a journalist - doubly stupid.

However I have no doubt that there are a lot of good men out there and some very fast learning going on and it will benefit the US Army. I have a slight niggle that the US Army perhaps suffers from a surfeit of not too bright GI's who have no interest in the cause, or feel that understanding Iraqi's is of any benefit whatsoever.

What are you talking about? What do you understand about Iraqis? In fact what does anyone who is not Iraqi understand about Iraqis? Tell me how to understand people who are willing to blow up their fellow citizens.

You seem to have this innocent outlook on life, that everyone in the world should be understanding and see life through someone elses eyes. That's a nice dream world but unfortunately most of us have to live in harsh reality.

That quote above sounds phoney to me, I don't think anyone could be that stupid. People have been known to make up things to suit their point of view. "Unamed, sources and quotes" are a good way to buck up your opinions.

It seems to be that the purpose of the article was to dump on the Americans, not to make the Brits look good.

[Battlefront.com]

Nidan,

That quote above sounds phoney to me

You too, eh?

It seems to be that the purpose of the article was to dump on the Americans, not to make the Brits look good.

Agreed. The mention of the Brits was simply to illustrate how much better the Americans, in theory, could be doing since the Brits are doing so much better. I have a lot of respect for The Economist, but I don't think this article should have run "as is". It is obviously bent.

Steve

[Nidan1]

I can't understand how the American military performs as well as it does with such lousey raw materials?

I wonder how those thuggish brutes are capable of operating all of that sophisticated equipment, without hurting themselves and others?

Its a wonder they can walk and chew gum at the same time, especially with the primitive world view that they must have.

Sorry, just thinking out loud

Merry Christmas all....see you later.

[ December 23, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Nidan1 ]

[Scott B]

The truth is probably somewhere between the extremes - U.S. Army troops aren't terrible at counterinsurgency and Brits aren't perfect. John Salt's post is probably closest to where the reality lies; I'd also suggest his response to my post on this in the General Forum.

I don't consider it unfair at all to criticize the U.S. military from the service level and higher on these issues. DOD is split, mainly between Navy and Air Force types who orient mainly on medium and high intensity conflict scenarios, and ground force types who've now been dealing with not just Iraq but a series of peacekeeping, nation building, etc. missions for some time now. This split pretty clearly exists within the U.S. Army as well, and if my interaction with Marines is any indication, they're a mixed bag as well. It's tough to draw clear lines of separation, but I'd say the light, medium and special forces guys seem to be less of the "warfighter" crowd, while heavy (although I think they've all improved) may gravitate more toward a combat-exclusive focus.

The Army in particular is difficult to generalize about because practices aren't set from above; they vary pretty widely across the board, mainly depending on the people involved. To this you have to add the Vietnam effect - just as the politics about Iraq are closely linked in many people's minds with Vietnam, many in the Army think about Iraq in ways that are affected - warped might not be too strong a word - by their perceptions of the Vietnam experience.

As an aside, the SF team leader mentioned talking about the Taliban guys being cowards may be comparing them with al Qaeda types. Those guys were neither lousy nor cowards. Taliban were pretty consistently poor by comparison.

Anyway, I have sort of mixed feelings on this.We could and should be a lot better at this stuff, but I think a lot of the criticism is half-baked. It's correct to say that the U.S. Army is not (yet) systematic in thinking about and conducting counterinsurgency operations, but that's not the same as saying that its units are universally, or even largely, inept at it.

It seems to me that the larger truth is that America's traditionally not been strong at understanding foreign states and cultures. This has hurt us far more at the policy level than at the tactical level in Iraq - the political leadership of this thing (I'm thinking mainly Rice and Bremer, but ultimately Bush) has been responsible for so much more of the damage done than the military.

Scott

[Sgt Joch]

The article was well written and informative and no one is denying that the British Army has it's good point, but the article has a certain "we should show the colonials how it's done" quality about it which rubs us "former colonials" the wrong way.

Americans and canadians also, are a bit touchy when it comes to our former colonial masters.

In my case, it's even more inbred, my father is of irish descent and my mother is of french descent, so it's in my genes to mistrust the British.

[Battlefront.com]

Scott, good post.

One of the major problems with the US Army is its size. Trying to get enough linguists, cultural experts, etc. in place to augment combat troops has proved difficult. When you have 150,000 or so people potentially capable of pulling a trigger and causing a problem at any given time, clearly the possibility of a negative event (shooting, searches gone bad, damage to property, etc.) is fairly high. Especially when a fair number of them are exposed to tactics that are deliberately intended to get them to do the wrong thing.

But one of the worst problems is the troop rotation strategy. The US military learned in Vietnam that swapping out individual soldiers was bad for morale and lead to significant unit cohesion problems. So instead they swap out whole units and try hard to keep soldiers in the same units for prolonged periods of time. While this is great for morale and unit cohesion, it isn't apparently doing much good in Iraq. Locals want to build long lasting relationships. When unit x is there only for 6-7 months, then leaves to be replaced by unit y, there is automatically a problem. Worse, the unit leadership and character of the unit itself might be totally different. Not to mention the loss of experience accumulation. Unit commanders complain that just as they are starting to "get it" they are rotated out. The new commanders who come in "don't get it" and have to learn from scratch. Even units rotating back in might not go to the same location, but think they know what they are doing. Then they find out that the culture and issues of their old location aren't the same as the new one, so they have to start all over again.

It all gets back to job descriptions. Soldiers do not inherently make good cops, cops do not inherently make good soldiers. Germany learned this in WWII when they drafted police units to form the 4th SS Polizei Division. Its combat history was terrible at first. Likewise, asking a soldier who is trained to kill the enemy to instead figure out who the enemy is, then figure out if they should be killed at all... not a good idea.

Anyway, these are massive issues that the US military needs to tackle head on. If it is going to continue as a nation liberator/rebuilder, it must restructure itself for it. The Stryker units are actually intended for this new role, but even they are a half step. A much more dramatic shift is needed.

Steve

[dieseltaylor]

Nidan

I am not being too rash in suggesting that understanding your enemy has always been seen as a good thing so as to take most advantage of them.

I think the article is actually very positive about what the US Army is doing now and the article would be all the less if it did not mention the past faults, and yes the British also.

As for journalists lying I assume most of them do however in certain journals you tend to believe that accuracy, and not being caught out, are far more important. This story is not important enough I suggest for anyone to risk their career on. You believe otherwise.

With regard to the US view of the world I can only go by the National Geographic survey which is I suspect a reasonable indicator of knowledge

National Geographic survey

I understand that with manpower low and enlistment targets being missed that the requirement that people complete high school has been watered down and is hovering about 10% of enlistees . Furthermore that a blind eye is in place so that unsatisfactory soldiers are not being discharged in Iraq.

Having said that I still do not view the average US Army soldier as badly as you appear to. It does seem to me that it would be wise to restrict Navy and Air Force recruitment as I assume the more intelligent sign up with them for all the benefits and none of the danger.

Interesting info here

zmag

Washington Post

[dieseltaylor]

As half the Economists sales are in the US and I would think it reasonably likely the journalist could be American I do not get to eager to ascribe a nationality.

I simply do not see the article as particularly lauding the Brits over the Yanks. If that were the aim of the article I am sure it could have been punchier and not mentioned any plus points.

I suppose if the article had compared the US Army to the Japanese contingent, or Spanish it may have been less contentious for some but a lot less useful to the vast majority of readers who are primarily American or British.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, I love that National Geographic Survey. It clearly indicates that the bulk of the world's youth are idiots. The US might have a higher proportion of idiots than other nations, but not by much. The interesting thing I see in these reports is that the more multi-cultural the nation is, the less likely it is to do well in the tests. Likewise with poorer nations.

The tradgedy of the American educational system, and from what I know the British one as well, is that the large multi-ethnic communites rank the poorest and least educated within the population as a whole. They drag the scores down compared to nations like Sweden. That is not an excuse, rather an explanation why nations like the US and GB do so poorly. They are busy spending their money on military adventures and not at home.

And that's my bleeding heart commentary of the day

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

dieseltaylor,

As half the Economists sales are in the US and I would think it reasonably likely the journalist could be American I do not get to eager to ascribe a nationality.

Well, if the reporter is American than the Editor must be British.

Sorry you can't see the bias in that article? It is there for sure. I'm not the only one that picked up on it. One of the things I've had to learn in my years of studying history is to always look for the bias, so it perhaps comes more naturally to me than to you. I'm pretty good at it, which is a disadvantage when I occasionally wind up watching Fox News. If I weren't so tuned into it then I wouldn't feel like thowing up every time I hear Bill O'Reilly open his mouth

BTW, I just stumbled upon this. It should be in the running for Most Creative URL Award!

http://www.sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com/

Steve

[ December 23, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]