US Army: long intersting "Economist" report

[Colin]

Steve,

That article didn't give me the feel that it seems you felt. They use the British as an illustrative example. It's not at all outlandish to say the British are better at this urban stuff. It doesn't say the Brit's are infallible although I'm not sure you'd have any argument at all if the author had said 'the Brit's aren't flawless'.

The 'hat's off, lads!' is particularly interesting and a prime example of this. It merely serves as an example of one noticeable way the Brit SOP is different.

I don't personally think that American soldiers go in gun blazing, I do however know that there is consistently certain administrative personalities that want to. I think that people pass this along to the individual soldiers, so I can understand your defensive post. The articles main purpose was to suggest that the way to win in counterinsurgency situations was to gain cultural understanding.

In war situations it is difficult to say broad things like 'it's easier in Basra' or 'the American's are trigger happy' because there are obviously examples of situations that counter each. Lots of armchair experts. I thought it was a good article, definitely with some insight (despite the contrived quotes).

A couple of nits:

British occupation policies are the same as America's occupation policies. The thing that caused problems in Africa was the fact that the Brit's attempted to make static borders between factions to protect resources, something that only causes friction between native groups.

The Brit's never left Israel. Israel only existed from 1948 onwards. Maybe also from approx. 1600BC to 130AD depending on the histories you read. Conveniently they avoided the British empire and their occupational strategies. Palestine, however, was subjected to that empirical strategy via the UN and has suffered as you say.

Another aside: That survey makes me laugh every time. I'm not saying it's not true, a lot of young people out there are quite stupid. I think it's arrogant to suggest that ethnic groups bring down the non-ethnic GPA curve. Canada is an extremely mixed culture (at least in the areas that the populace is situated) and they score similarly to the US, although consistently edging them out. I've personally learned under both curriculums and the US one is about a year behind as far as math and english skills. The economic geography program I was in, despite being in a well educated area, was only US centric. The teacher really didn't know much about what was going on around the world beyond US interests. I think a lesson can be learned from that article here. It never hurts to learn more about other cultures. Maybe 34% of US kids wouldn't have said that America had a quarter of the world population if the education program was made more global.

[Battlefront.com]

Collin,

I think it's arrogant to suggest that ethnic groups bring down the non-ethnic GPA curve.

You misunderstood. It isn't the ethnicity that is the issue, rather the side effects of it within a society. The US is an extremely mixed culture as well, but the various ethnic groups represent a large portion of the poor and under educated. They live in urban areas that are horribly under funded, so it is not surprising that they would do poorly in tests. Urban schools in the US are generally terrible, but the more well off people opt out for private schools (which makes the problem worse). So it isn't the ethnic groups themselves, rather their position in line for resources. Its economics more than ethnicity, though they are inextricably linked in the US. Number wise there are plenty of poor and under educated whites. I mean, where else would we get our White Supremicists from?

It could be a coincidence but the countries that are less ethnically diverse score better than the ones that do. I don't think it is a coincidence. The more multi-ethnic a society is, the more complex and difficult the problems that face it. Some can struggle through it, like the US and Great Britain, but most resort to brute force like former Yugoslavia, Ruwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Morocco, etc. etc. and of course Iraq. For some stupid reason we can't all just get along

Steve

[Ardem]

Taking the anti-british sediment out of this cause I really believe its a pride issue then anything else.

It boils down to this and it is all very simple, americans are going to get get more crap thrown at them in Iraq, because people hate them more. End of story you can accept that or hide your head in the sand. I can't think of any country in the world that has had their flag burnt more then the american one.

Your foreign policies probably have more to do with that then the soldier on the ground, but you need to get the soldier on the ground to reverse that thinking. So as I say again this will only improve the Armed forces not hinder them, and even the publicity may help as well that the 'percieved' American rambo who has no value for human life other then his buddies, may change as well.

I said percieved I do not believe this is true.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Taking the anti-british sediment out of this cause I really believe its a pride issue then anything else.

It boils down to this and it is all very simple, americans are going to get get more crap thrown at them in Iraq, because people hate them more. End of story you can accept that or hide your head in the sand. I can't think of any country in the world that has had their flag burnt more then the american one.

Your foreign policies probably have more to do with that then the soldier on the ground, but you need to get the soldier on the ground to reverse that thinking. So as I say again this will only improve the Armed forces not hinder them, and even the publicity may help as well that the 'percieved' American rambo who has no value for human life other then his buddies, may change as well.

I said percieved I do not believe this is true.

Arden, do you read the posts that have come after yours, or do you just add your comments to the bottom of the thread whenever you decide to pop in and re-join a discussion.

You seem to be very opinionated on this subject, yet you continue to say the same thing over and over without acknowledging any comments by others, myself included, or providing any logical argument other than IMO how you feel about it.

America get's it's flag burned because it is a super power, who is engaged in world affairs on a grander scale than any other nation in the history of the planet. It's something Americans are used to seeing. Perhaps it bothers you more than it does us. You should really examine your motives for bringing this up, rather than trying to tell America how to conduct its policies in the world.

[Ardem]

Nidan

I read what you wrote but think if it bothers a consertive like me who not partial to strapping some C4 to my back, then how are the radicals going to feel. Hatred comes to mind.

Again you want to break it down and make it a lot complicated or deflect general attitudes towards the root of the problem. As I keep saying, if this helps in the PR of changing those general percieved views, then it is good.

All I wonder from you is it the fact you disagree what I say, or the need to bash the person who does not go along with the we love america line.

[Battlefront.com]

Ardem,

All I wonder from you is it the fact you disagree what I say

I know I disagree with what you say. You spout off without actually reading what the people you're bashing are actually saying, or at least not understanding it. The US administration and US military planners have made huge, fundamental mistakes that the world will have to deal with for a long time. How can you twist an admission like this (made several times in this thread) into thinking "I really believe its a pride issue then anything else." Someone who is putting pride before critical thought would not start out trashing the very thing he is supposedly trying to protect, now would he?

I'll try again... the US has extremely flawed and poor history dealing with occupations of foreign nationals. So do the Brits. Reading that article I don't see how anybody can conclude anything other than the author saying that only half of what I just said is correct, while the other half is actually the exact opposite. Then backing up said position with factually incorrect examples and out of context conclusions. Ergo biased reporting.

If you are predisposed to think as this author does, then obviously you won't see what I (and others) clearly see. But that isn't our pride and bias getting in the way... it's yours.

Steve

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Nidan

I read what you wrote but think if it bothers a consertive like me who not partial to strapping some C4 to my back, then how are the radicals going to feel. Hatred comes to mind.

Again you want to break it down and make it a lot complicated or deflect general attitudes towards the root of the problem. As I keep saying, if this helps in the PR of changing those general percieved views, then it is good.

All I wonder from you is it the fact you disagree what I say, or the need to bash the person who does not go along with the we love america line.

I'm sorry man, but I don't know what you are talking about...let's give it a rest, and enjoy the Christmas Holiday.

Good night and Merry Christmas.

[akd]

Sweet Jesus, I hate Bill O'Reilly, Intl.

an organization of hope

At least I came out of this thread with something worthwhile.

[Colin]

Look, the problem is that occupation is among the foreign polices that the US exercises.

Everyone (Brits, French, US, Israeli's) has a poor history of occupation because it's generally an unpopular and often tyrannical thing to do.

The reason so many other countries have a problem with the US is because the involve themselves so heavily in the affairs of other countries. The US, as such a influential country,(economically, culturally) often steps on the toes of others and doesn't realize it. In fact, if you examine the history of other dominant empires in the past they follow a cyclical pattern. You can only inflate your economy on false market optimism for so long. A democracy that spends its money on the military and has a two tier labour system deserves to be criticized and should be policed carefully. I really hate people that jumped on the 'US is bad because of Bush' bandwagon. He's really just continuing the policies that the American people allowed for years before. For some reason American's have always been okay with decreased domestic investment and more multinational development. The average level of income has only changed in the top 20% of households since '75. Bush is doing what the US needs to do to maintain the standard of living that Western citizens enjoy daily.

Oh and the two tier labour system is an idea from the CIA world fact book, not a liberal point of view at all.

[Ardem]

Colin I wish I said it like you, your a much better narrator. Except I wasn't on about a two tier labour system. LOL

See steve I don't give a toss about the brits in this article instead of saying, yes there is something we can work towards here you start having a go at the brits, that to me is just blinded pride. And if you call what I was 'bashing' then you have misinterepted what point I was trying to make.

But Nidan is right, we will agree to disagree and have a merry christmas.

[ December 25, 2005, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Ardem ]

[lucero1148]

Isn't this topic getting a bit silly ...like the article. Both armies are very professional and exceptionally well led. Both armies during their particular times of conflict have shone as great examples or failed miserably in their actions. The real problem is the blind biases of some of the writer's here. The Brit's are good but they are not any better than the American forces in dealing with the civilian population in Iraq.

Sure the individual soldier maynot be an enlightened in the niceties of culture in a conflict zone as he is more concerned about staying alive and in one piece. As for the Iraqi's you have to wonder why they feel the need to blow up their own people. The fact that collateral damage is acceptable to further their cause (which is what? Bring back Sadaam? Haha!) is ludicrous. Especially since they now have a political process to change the course of their live. Not even the Lebanese government have as much freedom because of Syrian involvements in their politics.

Hey if it's just to to get the American's out the fastest way to do it is to let peace reign. If there was no violence we'd be out of there much faster than fighting us.

American soldier's wouldn't be trigger happy brutes if it weren't for the idiotic Iraqi (or foreign jihadist) insurgent only too happy to kill anyone within reach. I would bet the majority of suicide bomber are Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, Jordanian's and Palestinian.

As for the Economist I always felt they had an editorial staff that was fond of poking us "American's " whenever they could.

[Tarquelne]

You can only inflate your economy on false market optimism for so long.

Anarchist!

Wall Street assures me that if everyone else just shut up and did what they were told everything would be A-OK. Forever: The pyramid has no top.

[Tarquelne]

The Economist article is hardly alone in saying that the British army is better at handling civilians than the American army. Though, with the exception of the Economist article in question, it's been at least a year since I've seen such a piece. So maybe the Americans have gotten a lot better, to the point where there's not much of a difference.

I think what's causing such a reaction against the article is the bit below:

The British taught the virtue of restraint, to limit civilian casualties and the strategic damage they cause. American soldiers were trained to wipe the enemy out.

It implies civilian casualties and damage just isn't of any concern to the Americans.

That's not speaking of a quantative difference between British and American performance - which almost certainly exists, though not necessarily Brit > American. Instead it posits a huge qualitative difference: The British give a damn, the American's don't.

I doubt the author even realized what a damning accusation that was, but was instead just trying to produce one of the rather cartoonish comparisons that are par for the course in magazine articles.

I read the article when it was first posted about, but stopped today's re-read when I spotted the whopper quoted abvoe. There may be others. So: I think the article's basic point is OK... if it isn't dated. But the article, in at least one instance, goes too far in outlining the differences between the American and British approaches.

BTW - I think Nidian's point about the amount of hostility Americans would face "out of the box" a good one. It's hard to get a grip with the touchy feely stuff when you damn well know a lot of the people around you have grown up being taught to hate your country. Not that Iraq would have much of that as say, Iran. But I'm not going to expect a guy climbing out of his nice armored hummer to give that distincition much weight.

[mun13f]

Tarquelne --

First, let me give you kudos for your hilarious post on Dumb Americans. Great, witty stuff.

I read the article in question a week ago or so, and generally found it to be informative, but guilty of overreach and oversimplification. The quote you singled out is indeed a doosy, without belaboring the point, I'll simply say that I don't think that the evidence bears it out.

IMO, though, The Economist has always been a little weak when it comes to military analysis. I remember one article before the Iraq invasion that displayed a fundamental misreading of Clausewitz. On the other hand they did say repeatedly before the invasion that the true test of success would not be to win the war against Saddam's army, but to win the peace after Saddam's army was defeated. So they deserve credit for that essential truth, which far outweighs any sin they might have commited in my eyes.

Also, John Nagl (author of Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife) is an active Army armor officer, not a retired Marine, so the writer got that detail wrong.

As to the veracity of the supposed quote from the SF guy in the article, I wouldn't be that surprised if an SF Captain said that. Especially now since SF ranks have swelled and there is constant pressure to recruit more personnel for SF -- quality tends to go down. Besides, this, it's inherently hard to see something from another's point of view (I'm told that State has always had the same problem with many of its foreign service officers), and the truth is that as a people, we Americans are not at all gifted in this skill.

[Pak_43]

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.

Indeed not, though I'll think you'll find that the British colonies were run for the benefit of the British, not the colonies...hence when it was time to pack up and go it was a case of plaster on the quickest and dirtiest solution to allow the fastest withdrawal and hang the consequences, something us Brits have a consistent record of. (eg Nigeria)

And of course we virtually invented the foreign policy of backing "any old ba**ard" as long as he was "our old ba**ard", still a popular one I think

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by Pak_43:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Indeed not, though I'll think you'll find that the British colonies were run for the benefit of the British, not the colonies...hence when it was time to pack up and go it was a case of plaster on the quickest and dirtiest solution to allow the fastest withdrawal and hang the consequences, something us Brits have a consistent record of. (eg Nigeria)

And of course we virtually invented the foreign policy of backing "any old ba**ard" as long as he was "our old ba**ard", still a popular one I think </font>

[antawar]

I have to agree with Steve here. The british are not a "class act" like some people would like to believe. I can draw a LONG list of atrocities and heavy handed behaviour associated with the british. Just as an example: the first bloody sunday in Ireland, where the "Black and tan" drove into a stadium where a football match was being played and opened fire on the crowd with heavy machineguns and ran over the players on the field with their armored cars.

second example: the second bloody sunday in the seventies. Where paratroopers opened fire on a crowd.

third: example: back in 1837, there was a rebellion in Canada, french AND english from québec were protesting against "taxation without representation" and wanted their parliament to be responsible and have real powers. The British army burned, looted and raped all along the St-lawrence river in response.

Fourth: During the Boers war at the beginning of the 20th century, the british inaugurated the use of "concentration camps" where conditions for the boer prisoners were dismal.

fifth: I'm not even going to mention the numerous atrocities committed against non-europeans/non-whites by the british. Suffice to say that the "dum-dum" ammo, forbidden by the geneva convention, is named after the city where it was first used by british troops. They opened fire on a crowd with them. Not to mention the deliberate starvation that was caused by deliberate british colonial agricultural policies in the third-world colonies they possessed (including India)over the centuries. They even used those agricultural tactics here in Canada, driving thousands of french canadians to flee into the northeastern US because of the lack of food and work. That's why you got so many people in the northeast with french family names.

Need I go on ?

Americans are not saints and the British surely arent. Occupying a country is a messy business and has always been heavy handed. Such is the nature of the beast. People usually dont like being occupied so fear and intimidation has been the answer more often than not.

[flamingknives]

It's all relative. I think few armies would have the same record as the British in the same situations.

Certainly the recent history (post-WW2) of British peacekeeping and COIN etc. is pretty rosy and successful when compared to others.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snips]

It all gets back to job descriptions. Soldiers do not inherently make good cops, cops do not inherently make good soldiers.

But the American army has historically had the apparent luxury of choosing the job it wants to do -- high-intensity continental warfare -- because two oceans and the USN ensured that any wars it went to would be on somebody else's turf, and the USMC was always around to tidy up unexpected difficulties in its limited number of overseas possessions.

The British Army, on the other hand, has always preferred the attitude "We'll do it. What is it?", and have worked at various times as firemen and bin-men and not thought it beneath their dignity in that curious way American soldiers seem to show whenever the possibility is raised of their perhaps doing or training for anything other than sweeping armoured thrusts through the Ukraine.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

Either you can claim that it is a bad idea for soldiers to be trusted to decide who needs killing and who doesn't, or you can deny that the American reputation for "shooting first and asking questions later" is undeserved, but it seems to me that you cannot do both without being inconsistent.

While I'm offering free advice (worth almost as much as you paid for it) on matters of US national defence policy, it's also past time for the US Army and DoD to get over its obsession with re-structuring. What is needed is not a change of structure to meet every new purpose the Army is given, but an Army with a general-purpose structure. The same goes for the British Army, but even more so, as it can afford the buggering about still less.

All the best,

John.

[Battlefront.com]

John,

Either you can claim that it is a bad idea for soldiers to be trusted to decide who needs killing and who doesn't, or you can deny that the American reputation for "shooting first and asking questions later" is undeserved, but it seems to me that you cannot do both without being inconsistent.

Not at all. I am saying it is impractical to train a single Human to be all things in all situations. This is why we have engineers and factory workers, firemen and policemen, accountants and sales people, politicians and crooks (OK, there is a lot of overlap there ).

Sure, there is a lot of commonality between military operations and peace keeping operations, but not as much as you suggest. Inherently military operations are designed to establish order, peace keeping to maintain it. They are two inherently different operations, with different mindsets and training requirements, that require very different long term structures.

I've heard many soldiers say what a problem it is that their roles are combined. Not that they are necessarily inept at peace keeping, but rather that the occupied public sees no difference between the two roles. As one officer put it to me, "when we go in and raid a suspected insurgent leader's house and fight in the streets against armed resistance, we are wearing the same uniforms when we rebuild schools and hand out chocolate to the kiddies. The locals can't reconcile this and therefore judge the latter by the former".

It's rather straight forward.

Steve

[ January 05, 2006, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I am with you onn this one, I know a number of guys who served in Northern Ireland, including a tank commander who had to re role his men as infantry and he felt they bwere just too totally different tasks.

For me the UK is better at switching roles than the US, but that doesn't mean the US can't do it or isn't doing it well, it's just that the Uk by necessity has had 25years practice. Necessity is the mother of invention so we've had to learn the hard way.

Compare Uk practice in the nineties with the "Bloody Sunday" period and there is no comparison.

Inn the same way the US performed better and the UK learned a lot from them in GW1 because the US had been training for it in Egypt for at leats a decade ( not invading Iraq, but fast desert warfare in general), and the UK hadn't.

In addition the nature of the open lower level activity in the Shia south to the Sunni triangle means that in effect thge UK and US are fighting two different wars in the same country.

Peter.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Either you can claim that it is a bad idea for soldiers to be trusted to decide who needs killing and who doesn't, or you can deny that the American reputation for "shooting first and asking questions later" is undeserved, but it seems to me that you cannot do both without being inconsistent.

Not at all. I am saying it is impractical to train a single Human to be all things in all situations. This is why we have engineers and factory workers, firemen and policemen, accountants and sales people, politicians and crooks (OK, there is a lot of overlap there ).

</font>

[Peter Cairns]

John,

To discribe Steves comments as Taylorism is just plain nonsense, Taylor proscribed a system of demarcation of labour far more acute than steves example.

You comparison with self employed people fails to take account that whether it be US or UK peacekeeping or war fighting the arverage field officer or NCO does a similiar range of tasks.

An NCO commands men but he also deals with personal issues logistics supply. and a constant stream of verbal and written reports.

As to your claim that specialisation is now frowned on in manufacturing, well just try telling that to the Chinese who are currently creaming the rest of us.

And I'd add what i said about two wars in the same country, when the black Watch went north to support operations near fallugia they sure as hell weren't handing out sweets and wearing Tam o Shanters, while I've seen plenty of picture of US units in Afghanistan in caps and shirt sleves playing with kids.

At worst I'd say the US is behind the UK on the learnibg curve, and I've already said that's because we learned the hard way in Nothern Ireland.

Peter.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

In my opinon the Brits are fundamentally more professional than their US counterparts. This is based on around ten years experience of trainng US and UK 3 and 4 star officers in joint and combined operations. And yes, I am a Brit.

[SgtMuhammed]

There is no question that the Brits are generally more professional soldiers than Americans. I am talking from 10 years of being an Infantry Squad Leader and many training exercises with a variety of British units. Of course there are exceptions both ways.

Still I found that both are just as capable. The Brits just bitch about things while they are doing them while Americans tend to do it before, and during, and after. Either way they still get done.