US Army its own worst enemy: British officer

problem is with the higher ups and its Commander in Chief

When the average rustic private from the hills of Kentucky (like Lynndie "leash lady" England ) calls the "natives" sand niggers and Rag heads and then ties her dirty kotex pads to the face of a "native" the whole system is rotten.

she didn't do it on her own bat

The part about "rag heads" it totally true. I don't know that I've heard many actual Army members use terms like "rag head" but I've heard plenty of those who *cheer* the war on use terms like that.

were used quite freely by everybody of all ranks.

And I think he got labeled a traitor for saying it (be some scumbag republican congressman).

quality personel...

"...We done picked all that low lying Lyndie England fruit..."

and their attitude was that the Arabs are "less than human". Military superiority + cultural ignorance = contempt and our forces can't hide their racism. Bush is their leader.

I always found that many feel that they have to behave like that but most of them know it is just a job in fact many of them are actually indifferent (or secretly) question their reason for being there. I know a few people who were livid after 9/11 and wanted to get to afghanistan and Iraq - nut now they've changed their minds.

But she happens to be from West Virginia, which is actually even more backward than even the most remote hollow in Kentucky. I was born there, attended first grade and part of second in Middlesborough (or Middlesboro to the "natives"), KY, and I guess I feel a duty to defend my birthplace. Not easy to do always, however in this case, you are wrong.

Didn't mean to impugn some of the fine citizens of Kentucky:-(

American soldiers have been well known to exhibit extreme racism. Do you know what the common terminology is for an Iraqi? How about Asians? Does sand nigger or Gook ring any bells? They are urged to dehumanize the people they may be having to kill. It is SOP and done so they don't suffer from intense guilt. They are programed to be as racist as possible... When dealing with uniformed enemies it may be a good thing but these guys are dealing only with civilians and have never killed a man in uniform opposing them.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

"cultural ignorance, moralistic self-righteousness, unproductive micromanagement and unwarranted optimism"

Only the US Army you say...Pity

"This book lines up a parade of characters, Americans abroad, most of whom testify to the outright refusal of many of our salaried personnel--whether diplomats, aid merchants or information agents--to come to an understanding of the country and conditions in which they find themselves"
--San Francisco Chronicle, 1958

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That's why I call it Iraq-Nam

This story is another reason why I don't support our militants.

i don't know if by 'militants' you mean the troops on the ground, or the chickenhawks playing with their lives in D.C., or both...
to me, it's BOTH.
i cannot with any conscience 'support our troops', if they have been sent on an evil mission by evil men- it makes no sense to me.
i think about it every time i see one of those magnetic ribbons on a car in front of me...i wish i could- but i just can't.
none of the soldiers in Iraq, germany, japan, and anywhere else- with the possible exception of afghanistan- are protecting any of our freedoms.

That's not the kind of thing I want to hear since my son is in Afganistan right now. He's not army but all branches of the military work together at the bases in the ME.

That British general can kiss my *ss!

95% don't read books. And racism is still bred in the bone and corporate capitalism encourages ignorance and racism in order to divide and conquer us so of course wars will be carried on by the US that way. Unless we have a different social order that will be SOP.

Hell that's true for the whole United States whenever anal-retentive conservatives control the US government. Nothing bad happens on a Republican's watch.

There's a reason why the British Army is so much in demand by the UN for peacekeeping ops. It's because they deal well with civilian populations of all stripes (notwithstanding some of the incidents in Iraq, which are due to extremely low morale and frustration).

As an interesting little sidenote, I'd like to cite a conversation I once had with a British SAS officer. He noted the differences in training between SAS and US Special Forces, saying, "We try to determine if a soldier can pull the trigger if he needs to. You lot try to see if a soldier can NOT pull the trigger if needs be. That's because so many Americans are trigger-happy cowboys."

No lie. No lie.

The British military has historically been used for reasons of imperialism in a large amount of smaller countries where they need to control the population. The U.S. on the other hand, tends to fight against large standing armies.

We need to get used to that if the neocons maintain control.

Don't go dissin' the 501st! Unlike the current administration, we actually *do* things for charity and to help people!! :-)

http://www.501st.com/

Since 1997, the 501st Legion has spread the magic of the Star Wars genre through its authentic-looking costumes, and has become the leading force in fan-based charity events. The 501st, also known as “Vader’s Fist,” is truly dedicated to brightening the lives and prides itself on relationships with notable beneficiaries such as the Ronald McDonald House, Toys for Tots, and the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

PatGund - aka TI-5235

Yeah, there are simularities.

However, 3/4ths of the fun I get "trooping" is going to children's hospital, and seeing the kids eyes light up when they see a "real live" TIE pilot, or a "real live" Stormtrooper. That, to me, is a hell of a lot of fun, making kids smile.

nt

:-)

I forgot to point that out.

And yes you are correct. There is nothing SINISTER about the 501st.

"real men"(women!) love to fight - and against all odds. Here's one of my favourite sites:

http://avstop.com/History/AroundTheWorld/Russia/Nexen.htm

Those Russian women flew old wood and fabric biplanes with a max speed of 120 mph, to bomb enemy troop positions. No shooting up Ma, Pa and kiddies for them. Their role was hushed up in the West, after the war. The preservation of the macho gung-ho male soldier image is far too valuable to the kind of Western, chickenhawk warmongering leaders and profiteers US marine General Smedley Butler warned about. Remember, as playwrite, Tom Stoppard put it, "War is Capitalism with the gloves off."

But anyone who thinks about it should feel as much sympathy for the good guys among the US troops as they do for the bombed, maimed, tortured and starved Iraqis. Because those troops have immortal souls and they know it, and how many US soldiers were crucified by their experience in Vietnam, where they were more hunted than hunted - as in Iraq - because of the asymmetry of the warfare, and the horrors it led them to be involved in.

Maybe there is such a thing as a 'special relationship' after all.

Don't allow yourselves to be deluded: the UK (BLiar, and other such madmen, maybe, apart) harbors no imperialist intentions, although it can count on some accumulated experience. It seems to be more about, in an insanely isolationist manner, getting up real close to sound-bite culture, short-attention-span USA (and screw most of the rest of the world and especially the EU).

The disease spreads mostly (and because of the more-or-less shared language) by TV.

nb. I enjoyed reading "Cold Mountain", btw, (which relatively few will have read); with its deep insights into the cruel reality of the US civil war. The film (which relatively many will have seen), by contrast, although entertaining, was historically (and novelistically) -speaking, disappointing.

In response to being called culturally insensitive, officer defends US Army by responding: "I think he's an insufferable British snob."

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Americans are so defensive about their identity, because they don't have a very attractive one.

An American isn't an American until he assimilates. Being assimilated means divorcing yourself from your cultural heritage and becoming immersed in a trashy macho consumer culture which is mostly learned on television. It is a socialization process which is intolerant in its basic function. Most Americans aren't even aware of the dynamic.

An American's idea of culture is what kind of car or truck one drives. That is becoming more rather than less important as gas prices go up. The significant thing is the relationship of identity to consumption.

The macho ethic in the military doesn't have room for sissy subjects for soldiers. But anyone can learn, it's programed ignorance dictated by the elites. Exposure to a foreign culure to open the mind eventually results in a profound understanding of who we are and what we can admire in other peoples. This attitude eventually results in another perspective in which you begin to question the chauvinistic morality of killing others based upon questionable political rationalizations.

The best line in Dances with Wolves, is "ya turned injun, dint ya?" This is the essence of the American fear of contact with the natives (the enemy).

Accordingly, the most potent political weapon against the establishment that profits from war are the soldiers who've been there and reject it.

My theory is that America is still a relatively young country. As it matures and gains a greater understanding of the world beyond its borders, this cultural insensitivity will fade. Iraq in some ways will be a cruel and much needed lesson for the soldiers out there.

The really frustrating thing about this war, other than the fact that almost all the same malfeasance and misfeasance has repeated itself needlessly, is that a smaller war is wrecking our nation faster because we are not now what we once were. We are historically speaking in a serious decline. This pathetic corrupt war making regime is only bankrupting us further and more quickly by making all the wrong choices.

The role of warfare and cronyism in accelerating our decline as a productive economic power is outlined in Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Phillips. His book American Dynasty (The Bush family and the politics of deceit) outlines the complicity of the Bush family by parroting a paradigm of war profiteering that was more suitable for a nation in its productive prime rather than an empire built on commercial paper.

Here's hoping that China and India lead us on a safer path one day, assuming that Bush and pals haven't already destroyed us all.

Very well said, teryang. We haven't had a TV in fifteen years and its profound effects on the culture stand out in sharp technicolor relief to me. The corporatists got our brains - they plug a notion in and the android americans spit it out. Where's the beef? So many of our citizens are proud of their contempt for other cultures. I can't imagine such a bleak existence.

The New America is growing up in the detritus of the old, and after the current madness has ended, those who have spent this time cultivating community and weaning themselves from the corporate teat will prevail.

They love to think their empire was a boon to all those brown people.

And they love to criticize the Americans, above all.

Why weren't the British being more culturally sensitive in Basra a couple months ago? :shrug:

Only uneducated buffoons cling on to that old patriotic notion of Empire. IMO many of the worlds troublespots are colonial paybacks; take kashmir, middle-east. Britain has a lot to answer for.


As for Basra, that pales into insignificance compared to US atrocities during the Iraq War, such as the slaughter of Fallujah.

Because you sure are spouting off like you know a lot of people who believe the kind of shit I hardly ever hear anyone outside the far-right of the Conservative Party coming out with over here actually in Britain- thankfully they dont have nearly as much strength in Britain as the even more viciously imperialistic Republican right have in the US.

Anyway, he's not talking about British history but about the state of today's US military, from a clear position of expertise. Perhaps you should put your own disturbingly trenchant prejudices on hold and give it some consideration. This might come as a shock to you, but the US isn't perfect (shocking, isn't it- British, or French, or German people don't just criticise the US because we get some sort of cheap thrill out of it!), and its ever expanding Empire - tragically abetted in its growth by our government - is not a boon to the millions of "brown people" being subjected to its domination, any more than the horrors of British colonialism where to its victims (my own ancestors included).

British generals have been critical of the US military for a long time. They condemned Patton in WWII, they condemned Clark in the Kosovo campaign, and now they condemn US forces for being culturally insensitive in Iraq.

Here's a clue - any invading and occupying army is generally going to be culturally insensitive. :think:

The British military was no more culturally sensitive in their empire-building than is the US military.

It cracks me up to hear these British generals proclaiming how much better they would have done it.

And no, I'm not in Britain, but I have trained with British forces many times and operated with them in combat once. They are great people but they are no more "culturally sensitve" than the average American soldier.

all occupying armies are evil do'ers :toast:

peace

that 10,000 British soldiers were killed in Iraq in the 1920s when they last booted westerners out of their country.

I have no doubt that much of what he says is true, but he seems to imply that this invasion and occupation could somehow have been done 'properly' which is utter and complete non sense

There are just different degrees of bad. I think he makes some interesting points, but they're all in terms of the specifics of the thing.

its long history of discovery, then Empire-building, then the arrival of colonial immigrants, that the British are on the whole more culturally savvy than Americans, particularly with respect to Islam. There are proportionally far more muslims living in UK compared to the US, which could explain the greater tolerance towards muslims.

That's not to say I agree that the British military could have done Iraq better.

In fact, i agree with it completely. What i objected to about your previous post was the broad and deeply unfair generalisations it made about British people and their views.

But yeah, the British Empire put pretty much any other to shame in terms of its brutality and would almost certainly continue to do so if we were still in such a position of global power. But that doesn't mean this General's specific criticisms can be dismissed simply because of his nationality.

I agree with your posts.

"The British...love to believe their empire was a boon to all those brown skinned people". If so then you're just plain wrong, in relation to the great majority of British people- most of whose ancestors were being royally screwed at home by the same upper classes that were raping India and Africa during the days of the Empire.

and if you don't mind I don't like your petty chastising of my country or its military.

Our armed forces are the best and most well-trained in the world and they follow orders from the government whether the government is Republican or Democrat.

I don't want this war and I hate George Bush but don't demean our troops when they're in Iraq losing their lives for oil. Most of them are very young and have never been away from home. Some of them will never come home to their loved ones because of flawed government policies.

Your country would have ceased to be if it hadn't been for the help of the US military forces because your sorry asses would have been blown to bits. The British Empire didn't win WWII all by themselves although the UK would like to think they did.

Why don't you put your "disturbingly trenchant prejudices" on hold. Eh?

I'm an American too and I loathe seeing this petulant argument thrown up every time someone from overseas dares to critisize the US.

Puleeze stop with the "we saved your ass in WWII" ....the fact is America sat on it fat ass far too long in WWII and a hell of a lot of people died because of it. We did not save the UK, we possibly "helped" to save Europe, but we didn't do it alone.......we did it with the help of our Allies........no one would have been able to do it alone........that's the whole damned point. America is not the end all, beat all, bees knees......we are not the biggest and the bestest, unless you count bragging about how wonderful we are.....or how good we are at invading a sovereign nation and fucking it up.:eyes:

Well, arguing with nationalists is rarely rewarded due to the fundamental lack of logic behind their philosophical position, but I'll make one forlorn attempt.

if you don't mind I don't like your petty chastising of my country or its military.

Well isn't that just precious--except whoops, I didn't pettily chastise your country or its military. I said the British General was speaking from a position of expertise and deserved to not be dismissed purely on the basis of his nationality (shock, horror!), I criticised the Republican right (if you can't accept that then I wonder why you post here) and I observed that some Americans struggle to accept criticism from others (and therefore have to rationalise it as symptomatic of hatred of America)- so thanks for further proving me right on that last one.

Our armed forces are the best and most well-trained in the world and they follow orders from the governemnt whether the government is Republican or Democrat.

Well isn't that lovely- of course I never said that they weren't or that they didn't in my original post, i just said they should be open to criticism. I really don't know whether they're the best in the world, but I'm willing to conjecture that you'd probably say they were whether they were or not.

I don't want this war and I hate George Bush but don't demean our troops when they're in Iraq losing their lives for oil. Most of them are very young and have never been away from home. Some of them will never come home to their loved ones because of flawed government policies.

"Demean the troops"? By saying Americans should be open to informed criticism of the Iraqi occupation, most of the more legitimate (in my view) of which would be aimed at the commanders? OK, now you really have to pull yourself together.

Your country would have ceased to be if it hadn't been for the help of the US military forces because your sorry asses would have been blown to bits.

And there it is. Well, FDR is a personal hero of mine and I have nothing but respect for the soldiers of every country who helped defeat fascism, Americans very much included. I think using their memory to try and stifle criticism- or the suggestion that one be open to criticism of, the US is fucking disgraceful. WWII would also have been lost without the USSR, but I don't remember that many Americans urging us to show our gratitude by never daring to criticise them during that whole Cold War episode? Should the people of Poland and Czechoslovakia have gleefully accepted the regimes imposed on them by Stalin because he saved their bacon during World War II? And why the hell aren't you lot still showing the appropriate loyalty to the French who saved you during the War of Independence?

In fact, the only thing more offensive than all that is dismissing the "sorry asses" of the 300,000 British soldiers and 64,000 British civilians who gave their lives during World War II, and the hundreds of thousands more who served with courage and honour, both my grandfathers amongst them. It really does serve to demonstrate how insincere your concern for those in uniform expressed above really is; a mere fig-leaf for nationalism.

The British Empire didn't win WWII all by themselves although the UK would like to think they did.

Sigh...another self-proclaimed expert on the UK ascribing "the UK" with views that the vast majority of actual British people just DO NOT HOLD. Honestly, you really are just making shit up at this point, I'm afraid. Most British people realise WWII would never have been won without the USA and the USSR, just as most British people realise that the British Empire was a brutal and shameful period in our history, and most now realise that the Iraq war that our governemnt dragged us into under flase pretenses was an abomination. Of course, some people still maintain a grossly inflated view of Britain's greatness and an unjustifiably rose-tinted view of the role we play in ininternational affairs. Whilst that's tragic and demands to be combatted, it is unfortunately true of most countries- as your post pretty clearly demonstrates with regard to the US. To judge from your comments, you seem rather unaware that the US didn't defeat Hitler single-handedly.

Actually I find it amazing that you are so ultra-sensitive to even the slightest possibility of criticism of the US, but you expect a British person to just roll over and listen to complete lies being spoken about his home country. I'm not even particularly "proud" to be British- i just wont shut up while the people around me are off-handedly dismissed as a bunch of racist imperialists (as that post by tabasco you agreed with did). But I guess that's a paradox of nationalism. The people of any other country are just expected to shut up and take the abuse, no matter how ignorant and, yes, prejudiced it may be.

Why don't you put your own "disturbingly trenchant prejudices" on hold. Eh?

Well, I probably do have some trenchant prejudices, but this sub-thread hasn't really touched on them. Your own prejudices, however, have been laid out clear for all to see- and disturbingly trenchant they indeed are.

Do you mind if I C&P it to a friend in the States that needs to be educated on the facts instead of fiction?

We're not all the same, though.

There are attempts to paint the empire as some glorious, humanising endeavour. The awful Niall Ferguson is most egregious in this. This can only be done by claiming it was all 'an accident', the empire 'wasn't planned' etc. All rubbish - who suggested planning? - opportunities were spotted and grabbed, troublesome enemies and intransigent neighbours were destroyed then incorporated. And that there were cultural benefits for the occupied - stable government, infrastructure etc. All rubbish - these things were created to better exploit the colonies - any benefit to the natives being purely accidental for the most part.

However there are also continuing attempts to remind everyone of the reality of the horror of empire. Recent revelations about mass murder and concentration camps in east Africa in the '50's are coming out. The famine based genocides in Bengal and India are re-evaluated in very critical terms.

It is not surprising really that these debates are still lively - we are being asked to accept a new imperialism now. Whether we will or not remains to be seen...but it doesn't look good for the imperialists, IMO.

One of the reasons the British army behaves the way it does is that it is not publically acceptable to even appear as imperialist occupiers, though that is what we are.

Though you're right that when he talks about contemporary politics or about the British Empire he's insufferable. Totally a Neocon.

Still, his WWI book is good. While he again takes a rather rosy view of empire, lamenting how the war destroyed the British Empire and theorizing that a quick German victory would have led to a benign German domination of Europe, the book contains several other interesting theses. For example, in contrast to almost everyone, Ferguson argues that war in Europe was NOT inevitable at the time and that militarism was actually on the decline. His including economic factors into an account of Hitler's rise is interesting and convincing as well.

he will not apply good interpretive methods. WWI wasn't really about the inevitability of the arms race leading to conflict, and so it doesn't matter if the European powers were less competitive in building big navies etc., the closer to war they came. What matters is the competition in empire building - each country needed access to cheap resources and labour - somewhere to export the capital being generated by home industry and to prime a renewed round of production.

If Ferguson doesn't understand this he isn't much of an historian - but liberal historians rarely are. They preclude themselves from full understanding by refusing to accept that the dynamic of history is largely economic and not attibutable to an individual's will or concepts of 'good 'n' evil' as motivators.

Of course we are in a very similar situation today - another very good reason to try to deny the real motivations for war and empire, and another explanation for his rise from the mediocrity that is his natural home.

Hence the current juvenile fetish for personality-based narrative history- for God's sake don't let anybody see the big picture.

And an affront to the historical profession. I think most people regard him as well to the right of the mainstream though, but it is depressing that many do seem to regard him as a serious authority- and that Channel 4 insist on screening and giving creedence to his shitty, rabidly imperialist and distortion-riddled documentaries. Unfortunately he seems to have learnt Starkey's law well- if you can't be a good historian, be a telegenic one.

that his particular brand of neo-imperialism finds favour with our masters so he gets plenty of help in spreading his bollocks.

I have to disagree with that assessment. It's dead wrong. Have you ever lived in Britian or is your opinion based on tv?

Living over here I have not observed too many Brits who think they advanced those they conquered. Most Brits are realistic enough to assess the obvious ramifications of their empire building many years ago. They fully realize and accept blame for meddling for where they shouldn't have. Israel is one place that springs to mind.

Nor do Brits love to criticize Americans.........American policy maybe but not Americans in general. Now they will sometime have a go at how ignorant Americans can be....but it's usually justified..........like when my college educated best friend who we thought was fairly smart asked my Brit husband if they had acorns in England and did we have ice cream over here too? He didn't do anything but give her a polite answer but later he did have to commment privately to me about it......frankly I was embarrassed that she could be that dumb.

I will have to say that Brits as a populace have not cornered the market on being culturally sensative themselves....they are just as bad as Americans.... BUT their modern day army is trained much better than the American Army when it comes to dealing with other cultures and it shows......yes they make mistakes........but nothing like what I have seen reported regarding the American Army's methods of operaton regarding Iraq and Afghanistan.

Personally I thought the article hit a home run with a dead on assessment of American troops. I don't think it was intended to start a "we are better than you are" argument over who is the most culturally sensative...........but, and being an American I can do this where apparently Brits aren't allowed to............I'm going to generalize here and say that many Americans love to spout that argument when faced with reality that perhaps we aren't so great at something after all.:eyes:

Somehow I doubt the British army is dominated by fundies, like the US army.

and unwarranted optimism: a perfect description of capitalism, American capitalists and their diverse goon squads, whether in Iraq, New Orleans, the West Virginia coal fields or right here in the neighborhood.
_________
Footnotes: (1)-a given in the above formulation is that the Republican and Abrahamic Fundamentalist ideologies are both derivatives of capitalism and rationalizations for its tyrannosauric worst; (2)-the self-hatred and internalized misogynism demonstrated by Lynndie England's use of her own discarded sanitary napkins (post #13 above) is typical of Fundamentalist Christians and illustrates not only the depths of reactionary dementia that much be overcome but -- given that polls now show fully 63 percent of all Americans are fundamentalists -- the increasing improbability of rescuing American from total fascism.

Vital links:

On racism as the ultimate motive behind the increasingly reactionary behavior of white Americans:

http://www.pkarchive.org/

On the statistical evidence theocracy (fascism) is now unavoidable:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Bible.htm

(The Krugman link is to an essay I believe to be the most important single piece of social journalism written in the U.S. since the Civil War -- and maybe ever.)

US Army its own worst enemy: British officer

A senior British Army officer has written a scathing critique of the US Army and its performance in Iraq, accusing it of cultural ignorance, moralistic self-righteousness, unproductive micromanagement and unwarranted optimism.

His publisher: the US Army.

In an article published this week in the army magazine Military Review, Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a program to train the Iraqi military, said American officers in Iraq displayed such "cultural insensitivity" that it "arguably amounted to institutional racism" and may have spurred the growth of the insurgency.

The US Army has been slow to adapt its tactics, he argues, and its approach during the early stages of the occupation "exacerbated the task it now faces by alienating significant sections of the population".

<snip>

Lori Price

shooting first and taking names later isn't just a stereotype?



I don't believe it.

No way.

Couldn't be.

Sorry, it just is.

I dunno if a British military officer is in much of a position to lecture others about cultural ignorance or moralistic self-righteousness. ;)

I'd agree with the last two though big time. I'd say cultural ignorance is almost guaranteed from any western military in iraq.

I'm sure some of those criticism are valid but I'd also take some of it with a grain of salt.

Read the whole article.

...Army leadership, and Marine Corp. for that matter, have done little, if anything, to train their soldiers and marines how to be "respectful" and "sensitive" to other cultures- although they're learning. As far as some of the "kick-ass take names later" comments I'm seeing. WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE EXPECT??? IT'S THE FREAKING' ARMY!!!!! Would you rather have ultra-sensitive, politically correct, Stewart Smalley clones defending this country???

Personally I think a large amount of the responsibility lies with the officers and NCOs, it is their job to control their soldiers. If their troops are acting in a way that is counter-productive they must stamp out that behaviour as fast as possible. They must also practice what they preach. The trouble is the modern military seems more interested in producing managers than leaders.

and is available in full at http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec05/aylwin.pdf . It's not all like the quotes the papers have pulled out of it; he points out that some commanders such as Petraeus and Chiarelli appreciated the need to pay a lot of attention to reconstruction and good relations with Iraqis. He does point out that 'the Soldier's Creed' has some unfortunate wording:



and suggests that 'defeat' might be better than 'destroy' - otherwise switching into stablisation and reconstruction mode is a problem.

the people running it getting a good grounding in the classics. ie finding out how that other lot with a long lived empire did it, the Romans.

I bet they picked up a good few tips on how to keep the natives happy whilst still in school.

Conclusion:

The cuurent quagmire in Iraq is a direct result of the lack of a classical education, bring back Pliny!

particularly the following four paragraphs:


While US officers in Iraq criticised their allies for being too reluctant to use force, their strategy was "to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right". In short, the brigadier says, "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind".

Such an unsophisticated approach, ingrained in American military doctrine, is counter-productive, exacerbating the task the US faced by alienating significant sections of the population, argues Brig Aylwin-Foster.

What he calls a sense of "moral righteousness" contributed to the US response to the killing of four American contractors in Falluja in the spring of 2004. As a "come-on" tactic by insurgents, designed to provoke a disproportionate response, it succeeded, says the brigadier, as US commanders were "set on the total destruction of the enemy".

He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1684561,00.html

"My own experience, serving at the heart of a U.S. dominated command within the Coalition from December 2003 to November 2004, suggests something of an enigma, hence the spur to study the subject further.

My overriding impression was of an Army imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion, commitment, and determination, with plenty of talent, and in no way lacking in humanity or compassion.

Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a pre-disposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on. Many personnel seemed to struggle to understand the nuances of the OIF Phase 4 environment.

Moreover, whilst they were almost unfailingly courteous and considerate, at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism. To balance that apparent litany of criticisms, the U.S. Army was instrumental in a string of tactical and operational successes through the second half of 2004; so any blanket verdict would be grossly misleading."

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec05/aylwin.pdf

The US Army is not trained to do police actions, they are trained for war. This has become a police action.

Second, the Britt officer is partially correct,BUT- 20 year old Americans (who would be fairly conservative) are in shock at the behavior of people in the middle east, after we "liberated" them from Saddam Hussain, and then get blown up for our effort? Your gonna critizise them?? No one is shooting at YOU fella! When you get shot at, blown up, it DOESNT help anything. It makes you close down, and believe me, you dont want to experience it.

But again, our Military did NOT want this war, it was forced on them. Shrubb fired quite a few of our officers who opposed it.

As for denegrading our troops, that is wrong. We did not have time to prepare for this war(3 monthy Cakewalk), and any military US general who said otherwise was FIRED.

Solution? There is none, this war should not have been conducted according to our military "experts", many of whom are now retired (thanx to Shrubb).

Like the CIA fiasco, firing military EXPERTS, by a "Republican" could destroy our country. I'd VOTE for a REAL Republican after this goof gets out...if we have a country left.

Again, Im just wondering where all the Republicans are. Youve heard that even Shubbies Daddy wont talk to him now, (over the CIA Anti-American fiasco) If you love the shrub, your NOT a Republican, your Anti- American. Shrub lovers believe in a Buch Monarchy. Give me a good Republican message board and Ill prove it!

I agree with almost everything you said, my earlier post (#50) gives some of my opinion on the problems that the troops have. You have a very valid point about asking young men and women to act responsibly and professionally in near impossible situations. The stresses of conflict are precisely why leadership is so important.

During the run up to war there was a criminal negligence on the part of the civilian planners parachuted into the pentagon, read Karen Kwiatowski's account of the OSP when she worked at the pentagon. All sound military advice was set aside if it did not agree with the OSP political fantasy, including the need for MP and other internal security force levels after the occupation. You can see the result in Iraq today.

But I do stand by my comment about waterboarding. Torture is not just widespread, it is a matter of policy and it would be wishful thinking to say that US and British troops have nothing to do with it or have no knowledge of it. They are the people who are supposed to be training the Iraqi security forces.

When I was taking a Management Class in Collage, the topic of "Corporate Culture" came up. Institutional Culture is a more actual term but Corporate Culture I how I first learned it and the term I will being using (Thus the Concept of "Corporate Culture" covers more than jut corporation, but any in man made institution, be it a Mom and Pop Store, A corporation, a Police Force, A Government, both national, and local, and of course the Military).

Corporate Culture is generally made by founder of the Organization. It often does not change except under strain (And then requires a Purge). When A Corporate Culture is no longer viable but the Organization cane not purge to reform itself, it tends to fall (Look at the Soviet Union, its Corporate Culture survived till the 1980s when the Problems of the Soviet Union could NOT be solved by the Soviet Union, thus you had a purge of leadership under Yelsin where Stalinism was finally killed off and replaced a very brutal Capitalistic system. Putin is reforming this again to make it more acceptable).

Thus who found the US Army? While George Washington did while President but what he wanted was a National Police Force. The US Army stayed that Police Force (with the Exception of the Civil War where it became a Revolutionary Army, but that Army was dismissed in 1866 and replaced by an EXPANDED Regular Army during Re-Construction, in the Civil War, while most of the Officers had gone to West Point to learn Logistics, the Regular army went from 20,000 men ot 45,000 men while the Rest of the US Army went to 1 Million Men, not including the South, thus the Civil War Union Army is an EXCEPTION to the role of the US ARmy in America) till just before WWII. It expanded at time (WWI and The Spanish-AMerican War) but never really changed its role. Even in war time (WWI and the War with Spain) it did not change its attitude of being a peace time army to put down internal revolts (And in Washington's day, Slave revolts were the big Concern). In fact the Army LOST power after 1877 when the Country Decided the main peace keeping source of Force would be the National Guard instead of the Regular US Army.

Now with WWII, you see a change. The US Army just STOPS being an internal Police Force. Pershing had started the shift to a very well educated Officer Corp. The problem for the US Army from 1877-1941 was the quality of its enlisted ranks. Given the poor pay of the time period and lack of a Draft, the quality of most enlistees were poor at best, thus the Officer Corp were hesitant to "empower" their Enlisted ranks. The NCO ranks were a little better (with a much better NCO corp right after the Civil War but it declined afterward).

The biggest restricting on Improving the US Army prior WWII was this poor level of the Enlisted Ranks. You just could NOT give authority to the enlisted ranks. The German and French Armies of the same time period (Roughly 1877-1941) were Universal Service Armies, thus all males served. This improved the quality of the Enlisted ranks and permitted the Officers to give more and more authority to the Enlistees than the US Army did (The Germans were the most aggressive at giving power to their Enlistees which is the chief reason they did so well in both WWI and WWII with the almost of of the rest of the World against them).

During WWII, the US Army had a doctrine from its pre-WWII days that depended more on Officers than Enlistee for decision making. Many positions within the US Army that in the German army was done by Enlistees ended up in the hands of Officers in the US Army (This excessive over head was so bad that when the French units surrendered to the Americans in North Africa in 1942 and then volunteer to fight for the Allies but as French Units, the Free-French were able to equip additional several Battalions do to the Savings in Officers positions in the units given American Equipment and Supplies).

While the French and Germans thought the US Army had to many Officers in their units and did not give enough "empowerment" to their enlistees the US Army kept these officers slots to this day. No serious effort was ever made to get rid of them. In many ways they were doing jobs enlistees could have done as well. No purge occurred after WWII to fix this problem, thus it stayed on to this day.

Now WWII, brought in a lot of Improvements in the quality of US Enlistees. This continued throughout the the period of the Draft (i.e. till Vietnam). They was a degrade during Vietnam do to deferments (for various Reasons including Collage) but one of the dangers of the Universal Service Army (which the US Army almost, but not quite was by the time of Vietnam) is that if the Country no longer supports a war, the troops will not either. Thus once the country loses heart the army will and you will see a rapid deterioration among the enlistees (Which you saw starting in 1968 and almost destroying the US army by 1972). To "solve" this problem the Draft was abolished and the Volunteer Army instituted. At first it did not seem to be working (1970s) but as the Vietnam war became a memory and the pay increased you saw a generally improvement in the quality of the enlistees (Not as good as the US Army was in 1965, but better than the US Army of 1939).

Vietnam brought some changes to the US Army, first with the drooping of the Draft people of a liberal persuasion just did not enlist or serve as officers (They had during the draft, both as enlistees and Officers for it was better to serve as an Officer than an Enlistee especially if you were a liberal). With this right turn you saw more and more people of a "Racist" nature within the Army (Even through the more competent officers and NCOS tend to be Black during this period). Even the Blacks were affected by this i.e. the growing Anti-Arab, Anti-Moslem attitude of the US Army that started with the Oil Embargo of 1973.

Thus when Reagan became President you had an army growing more and more Right Wing, anti-Arab/moslem, whose best personal were black. At the same time Reagan wanted to attack, and thus an attitude of Attack, Attack, Attack became the motto of the US Army. Vietnam was explained away a the US NOT attacking enough (even if there was no place to attack), and not using enough bombs (Through we dropped three times the number of bombs on Vietnam than we did Germany a generation before).

Thus the US Army is a Combination of Washington small elite Police Force, Pershing well educated Officer Corp, Patton's view of Battle as to always Attack (Not only did he lead the Attack across France in 1944, he lead the Attack against the Bonus Army in 1932) and the Right-Wing philosophy that you can win by making people fear you. All of this fails in a Gorilla War.

In A Gorilla War first the Guerrilla has no base to attack (or it they do have a base it is either to heavily guarded or otherwise off the attack list), the Guerrillas, unlike rioters or revolting Slaves, do NOT stay in one place to be killed, instead hide among the natives who the Army knows its needs to run the Country they are in. Furthermore the Officer Corp Education in regards to Gorilla Warfare is to make the enemy fear the US Army, and in this the US Army has completely failed.

So what does the Culture of the US Army does? It will continue till it collapses like the Soviet Union OR you have a radical purge of its officers (WHich did NOT occur during or after Vietnam). The Democratic Congress of the 1970s was unwilling to purge the Officer Corp (and in effect saved the Officer Corp by getting the US out of Vietnam and ending the Draft), today's Republican Congress is even less likely to do what is needed or even the patch the Democrats did in the early 1970s. Thus Collapse will Occur for Bush will not want to pull the US out of Iraq even as the Army dissolves in front of his eyes. It be like the Austria Army of WWI, the German Army of WWI, The Russian Imperial Army of 1917 (and the French Army of 1917, which given the introduction of US troops did nOT lead to the Collapse of France in 1918) the Army will Collapse. What happens at that time is anyone's guess for the Communists are no longer effective so a Left-Wing Coup (as in Russian In November 1917 and Germany in October of 1918) is just NOT viable. A Moderate Coup is Possible but it must stop the war or it will suffer the same fate as Kerensky in 1917 Russia, i.e. overthrow by a more Radical force. Given the organization of the Far Right today, they are closest thing to the Communists of 1917 in today's America. Thus I do not see a Left-Wing Coup, but a Right=Wing Coup to "save" the Army is very Possible (once the Army collapse AND we do NOT pull out of Iraq). Given this choice I see even the Republican Congress pulling out of Iraq, a right wing Coup is to frightful even for them.

geared to improve the institution that the civilian leadership, or frankly most other organs of government or for that matter even non-government institions, do not. Its the remaining positive in this story.

nm

general as "an insufferable British snob." That's telling them.

He did have more to say than just that, as I looked through other articles. The full quote has him saying that was his immediate response to the article; on a second read-through he found that the general had some good points. He disagrees with a number of others, but that's to be expected. So the colonel's on the other side of the argument, but he did admit to actually looking at the arguments rather than discarding them out of hand. I can respect that a lot more than blind dismissal, even if minds aren't changed by it.

Myself, I'm wondering whether someone was paying attention to a colonel insulting a brigadier-general of a cobelligerent over something like this anyway. That can't be good for one's career, even if it was tempered..

the real quote in its proper context:

"My own experience, serving at the heart of a U.S. dominated command within the Coalition from December 2003 to November 2004, suggests something of an enigma, hence the spur to study the subject further. My overriding impression was of an Army imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion, commitment, and determination, with plenty of talent, and in no way lacking in humanity or compassion. Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a pre-disposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on. Many personnel seemed to struggle to understand the nuances of the OIF Phase 4 environment. Moreover, whilst they were almost unfailingly courteous and considerate, at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism. To balance that apparent litany of criticisms, the U.S. Army was instrumental in a string of tactical and operational successes through the second half of 2004; so any blanket verdict would be grossly misleading."

Seems the British snob is quite balanced in his assessment?

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/download/English/NovDec05/aylwin.pdf