US Army its own worst enemy: British officer

[RickSp]

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". The army magazine's decision to publish the essay - which has already provoked an intense reaction among US officers - is part of a broader self-examination in many parts of the force as it approaches the end of its third year in Iraq. The army was full of soldiers showing qualities such as patriotism, duty, passion and talent, writes Brigadier Aylwin-Foster. "Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on." Those traits reflect the army's traditional focus on conventional wars and are seen by some experts as less appropriate for counterinsurgency, which they say needs patience, cultural understanding and a willingness to use innovative, counterintuitive approaches. In counterinsurgency campaigns, Brigadier Aylwin-Foster says, "the quick solution is often the wrong one". He argues that intense conformism and overly centralised decision-making slowed the army's operations in Iraq, giving the enemy time to respond. The army's can-do spirit also encouraged a "damaging optimism" that interfered with realistic assessments.

The essay was published in the US Army's magazine "MiIitary Affairs" - Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency - Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, British Army

Once again - Pogo was right.

[grandpa]

I think armies generally display "cultural insensitivity" and "institutional racism," as they must dehumanize people to operate. The Vietnamese became "Gooks," for example.

Grandpa h.

[RickSp]

The US Army is so geared to fighting a conventional war that it has completely screwed up a guerilla war - a war that Rumsfeld spent the first six months denying it even existed. Cultural insensitivity is just a symptom of the larger problem.

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp The US Army is so geared to fighting conventional war that it has completely screwed up a guerilla war that Rumsfeld spent the first six months denying that it existed. Cultural insensitivity is just a symptom of the larger problem.

It's hard to say, though, what the larger problem is.
Maybe cultural insensitivity is the larger prblem.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Maybe this is the beginning of the Military coming to grips with the plain fact that there is not always a military solution to a problem. Maybe they have believed for too many years that Viet Nam was lost because of pansy-assed peace-nicks and because nobody was willing to nuke the commie bastards. Maybe, some people will begin to realize that there are some issues and intenational conflicts that you can not blow away with enough bazookas. Maybe, just maybe...

[nm420]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Maybe this is the beginning of the Military coming to grips with the plain fact that there is not always a military solution to a problem. Maybe they have believed for too many years that Viet Nam was lost because of pansy-assed peace-nicks and because nobody was willing to nuke the commie bastards. Maybe, some people will begin to realize that there are some issues and intenational conflicts that you can not blow away with enough bazookas. Maybe, just maybe...

That's some fanciful thinking you got there.

nm420

[Apeman81]

One man's opinion is worth just that.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Apeman81 One man's opinion is worth just that.

Apeman81, who are you referring to, exactly? The comments of a Brigadier-General of the British Army? Or the comments of the folk on these boards? Expand, please.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Matt W Apeman81, who are you referring to, exactly? The comments of a Brigadier-General of the British Army? Or the comments of the folk on these boards? Expand, please.

My apologies. -5 Pts for vagueness. I was referring to the General.

[Matt W]

*grins* Say 5 Hail Marys, drink 5 Bloody Marys, and back to business.

Right. Yes, it is one mans' opinion, but the context is extremely important, surely? For starters...senior military officer in what is one of the most proffessional forces in the world, who have a huge amount of recent experience in peacekeeping-type missions. Then, of course, there's the fact that it's been published in Military Review - which suggests that enough people in your own forces agree with him - or at the very least think his opinion is worthy of debate.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Whaddya reckon?

[drgilbert4]

Quote by: Matt W *grins* Say 5 Hail Marys, drink 5 Bloody Marys, and back to business. Right. Yes, it is one mans' opinion, but the context is extremely important, surely? For starters...senior military officer in what is one of the most proffessional forces in the world, who have a huge amount of recent experience in peacekeeping-type missions. Then, of course, there's the fact that it's been published in Military Review - which suggests that enough people in your own forces agree with him - or at the very least think his opinion is worthy of debate. Just my thoughts on the matter. Whaddya reckon?

I would have to "reckon" that this British Army General has a genuine dislike for Americans and is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. He may have even been paid by certain American groups to say such things. He is a General in an army which exists only due to America bailing them out against the Nazis. Our Army is pro-active. This keeps the enemy from organizing by keeping them on their heels. That is why our guys are facing IEDs and suicide bombers. These people know that they can't beat our superior forces, but if they can make enought hearts bleed over here, then our politicians will give up just to improve their chances of re-election. The enemy's only hope is to bolster the efforts of the weak kneed crybabies who are doing everything they can to undermine honorable work of our brightest and bravest. If you were to ask Prime Minister Blair his opinion, then you could probably expect a different outlook on this conflict.

[SteveA]

I heard the U.S. Military has lowered the bar when it comes to accepting "Category IV" applications. Because they can't keep up with pressures from Washington over enlistment, Category IV applicants are accepted at a current rate of 12% versus a historic rate of 2%. I'd hazard a guess this has social implications as well as technical ones.

To give a general comparison of skill levels between Category I and Category 4:

This information came from this link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2133908/

"The same study of signal battalions took soldiers who had just taken advanced individual training courses and asked them to troubleshoot a faulty piece of communications gear. They passed if they were able to identify at least two technical problems. Smarts trumped training. Among those who had scored Category I on the aptitude test (in the 93-99 percentile), 97 percent passed. Among those who'd scored Category II (in the 65-92 percentile), 78 percent passed. Category IIIA: 60 percent passed. Category IIIB: 43 percent passed. Category IV: a mere 25 percent passed.

The pattern is clear: The higher the score on the aptitude test, the better the performance in the field. This is true for individual soldiers and for units. Moreover, the study showed that adding one high-scoring soldier to a three-man signals team boosted its chance of success by 8 percent (meaning that adding one low-scoring soldier boosts its chance of failure by a similar margin).

Smarter also turns out to be cheaper. One study examined how many Patriot missiles various Army air-defense units had to fire in order to destroy 10 targets. Units with Category I personnel had to fire 20 missiles. Those with Category II had to fire 21 missiles. Category IIIA: 22. Category IIIB: 23. Category IV: 24 missiles. In other words, to perform the same task, Category IV units chewed up 20 percent more hardware than Category I units. For this particular task, since each Patriot missile costs about $2 million, they also chewed up $8 million more of the Army's procurement budget.
"

[RickSp]

Quote by: drgilbert4 I would have to "reckon" that this British Army General has a genuine dislike for Americans and is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. He may have even been paid by certain American groups to say such things. He is a General in an army which exists only due to America bailing them out against the Nazis. Our Army is pro-active. This keeps the enemy from organizing by keeping them on their heels. That is why our guys are facing IEDs and suicide bombers. These people know that they can't beat our superior forces, but if they can make enought hearts bleed over here, then our politicians will give up just to improve their chances of re-election. The enemy's only hope is to bolster the efforts of the weak kneed crybabies who are doing everything they can to undermine honorable work of our brightest and bravest. If you were to ask Prime Minister Blair his opinion, then you could probably expect a different outlook on this conflict.

The US army lost 137 soldiers in invading Iraq and has lost 2075 in an occupation which has not only failed to defeat the inusrgents but has seen their numbers steadily grow as security across Iraq remains dismal. The General is only pointing out why the occupation has been such a failure. Macho blather is no substitute for having the first clue on how to fight a guerilla war.

[xyzer]

Fanciful crap by people who don't know what a war is all about. Who qualified ONE British Brigadeer as an expert in how to train Iraqis and operate against insurgents? What is this sources experience and job assignment? Is he a logistics officer, military police officer?.

Yes! We could have won the war in Vietnam if the Democrat weasel we had as president at the time had not tried to micromanage it thru his Sec Def. Our tactics were so politicised as to not allow our aircraft to bomb the North Vietnamese at their base of ops. Their supply source where freighters were allowed to unload war materials unchecked after the initial part of the war. Supplies destined for an enemy to use against our troops were allowed to be unloaded and sent down trails in ?nuetral? countries to use agaisnt us! It became so ridiculous that we could not purse the NVA into Laos and Cambodia. After they attacked and shelled our positions they could duck over the border for sanctuary. The war became a joke in the military sense and was unwinnable..
All this because a bunch of wimps in the US were burning draft cards and urinating in college profs waste baskets.Anti war types, many of whom took off for Canada rather than fight for their country. They were aided and abetted by the Jane Fondas and John Kerrys who consorted with the enemy in wartime and committed treason!

This British General is never qualified as an expert or a direct oberver of the entire occupation that I can see? Who qualified him? A reporter for the Guardian? A leftist anti war newspaper.? A rag that is highly critical of our President and the war.
Nonsense!

[bugsbunny04]

What does he expect? Our Soldiers, especially those whose MOS falls between 11 and 19, are not trained as interpersonal conflict counselors. They are trained to fucking kill you.

I still think its funny that this war is compared to Vietnam. Duing the Vietnam war mo'fo's were lying about thier medical history to get OUT of military service. Now mo'fo's are lying about thier medical history to get IN military service.

[RickSp]

LOL, you crazy right wingers are a hoot. That's right - the Democrats lost the Vietnam war. Very funny. Would be hilarious if we didn't lose 58,000 Americans in a war we had no business being in the first place. But the war mongers will keep trying to rewrite history, blaming everyone but the imperialism that got us entangled in that war and this. Pathetic.

And I see that you are ranting about the Guardian. Are you nuts or just not paying attention? The General was not published in the Guardian. He was published in "Military Affairs" - the magazine of the US Army. Heard of them xyzer? They obviously thought his perspective was worthwhile to publish them in their magazine. Or are you going to call "Miltiary Affairs" a "leftist anti war" "rag" too? My guess is the Army might have a better idea about war than you and your whining revisionists, blaming everything on leftists, Democrats or whomever strikes your fancy at the moment.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp The US army lost 137 soldiers in invading Iraq and has lost 2075 in an occupation which has not only failed to defeat the inusrgents but has seen their numbers steadily grow as security across Iraq remains dismal. The General is only pointing out why the occupation has been such a failure. Macho blather is no substitute for having the first clue on how to fight a guerilla war.

How many US soldiers died during the Occupation of Germany following WWII?

Did the German "wolf packs" speak for all of Germany as they "fought for freedom" from the "Imperialist Americans" to secure the "ways of their people"?

This one general disagrees with other generals. What makes him right and the other generals wrong? You desire to believe him so.

This story is anecdotal at best.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Apeman81 How many US soldiers died during the Occupation of Germany following WWII? Did the German "wolf packs" speak for all of Germany as they "fought for freedom" from the "Imperialist Americans" to secure the "ways of their people"? This one general disagrees with other generals. What makes him right and the other generals wrong? You desire to believe him so. This story is anecdotal at best.

How many Iraqies or "terrorists" were attacking the U.S. after we first toppled Saddam's regime? Fewer in comparison to now. There truly were some celebrations in the streets after Saddam was removed from power.

Does it come as a surprise that once they realized we weren't going to leave afterwards but instead create another government in its place that the skepticism steps in? How many times have we already done this around the world only to find yet another dictator eventually runs the show? Face it. We might get some thanks for toppling a bad government but few people are going to thank us for replacing it.

bugsbunny04 What does he expect? Our Soldiers, especially those whose MOS falls between 11 and 19, are not trained as interpersonal conflict counselors. They are trained to fucking kill you.

I agree. Our military is for combat, not diplomacy or propping up foreign governments. And by that view their job has been long done. "Mission accomplished", as Bush put it. Time to head back.

[grandpa]

Quote by: SteveA How many Iraqies or "terrorists" were attacking the U.S. after we first toppled Saddam's regime? Fewer in comparison to now.

Unfortunately, that point is lost to some.

Grandpa h.

[tinybear]

I agree that the British are better adminstrators/rulers than we are. After all they have had a lot more experience (and made and learnt from a lot more mistakes) than we have. We should learn from them. They are shrewd. We are not.