Colonel Blimp’s replacement in the Middle East
A senior British Army officer has sparked indignation in the US with a scathing article criticising the US Army’s performance in Iraq.
Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster said US tactics early in the occupation had alienated Iraqis and exacerbated problems for the coalition.
Officers displayed cultural ignorance, self-righteousness, over-optimism and unproductive management, he said.
While the army is “indisputably the master of conventional war fighting, it is notably less proficient in… what the US defence community often calls Operations Other Than War,” the officer wrote.
Operations to win the peace in Iraq were “weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on”, he added.
Is anyone surprised to witness the same level of denial in the Pentagon typical of Congress and the White House? Perish the thought that you might learn something from criticism. It must be an anti-American plot, right?
Wow!! If you can’t take pointers on from the people that put Empire in Empire, then who can you listen to?
Didn’t read the article, eh, Paul?
I imagine there are few folks here devoted enough to history — to spend time studying military history — you’ll probably have to Google your way around to find the complete article. I’ll save you the time:
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/NovDec05/index.asp — The .pdf is listed on this page.
To quote from “Military Review”, published by the US Army — “A virtue of having coalition partners with a legacy of shared sacrifice during difficult military campaigns is that they can also share candid observations. Such observations are understood to be professional exchanges among friends to promote constructive discussion that can improve the prospects of the coalition successes for which all strive. It was in a constructive spirit, then, that this article was made available to Military Review. The article is a professional commentary by an experienced officer based on his experiences and background.”
The Brits were equally critical of TE Lawrence in his day. They learned from him that you have to respect the culture. Our problem isn’t so much the occupying forces, but the political leadership, or lack thereof.
Geez, Brits, have a heart. Look around this list. Article after article show the real problem. The pandemic of brain death is ravaging our colony and poking the patient isn’t truly helpful. Pul-eeze, send over shots of wisdom. That’s what’s really needed.
What? What did you say? Can’t hear ya…
-iNova
Aaron,
Don’t be too quick to dismiss the Brits. They are one of a very few democracies that have successfully fought insurgencies (The Second Boer War 1899-1902 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War. Malaysian Communist Insurgency 1948-1960 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malayan_Emergency). Their handling of the Malaysian Communist Insurgency is still considered the classic text book case of beating an insurgency.
That’s not actually Colonel Blimp ( whoever the hell he is), that’s Robert Duvall playing a hard nosed air cavalry type in Apocalypse Now, set in Vietnam. Cool movie, kind of captured the occasionally insane aspects of the whole Vietnam thing.
John — Colonel Blimp was the precursor to Lt.Col. Kilgore — when England was the colonial/military cop of the world. Similar concept; just a couple wars earlier.
Actually, the lead photo is what the President imagines he looks like to the rest of the world. As we know, if nothing else, the Prez-duh has a very vivid imagination.
Why is it that not a single adult in the extended Bush family is serving in the military?
Just because he says something different doesn’t mean he’s right. It also doesn’t mean he’s wrong either. Just being a British Officer does make him better also. Remember Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery in WWII. George Patton was a hell of a better leader.
Don’t get me wrong the Brits have good and bad leader just like the US. And as the Article says “Such observations are understood to be professional exchanges among friends to promote constructive discussion”. So let the discussion begin.
>> it has to be true, because it paints the US in a negative light!
The US has painted the US in a negative light.
Does ANYONE — British or otherwise — think we did a great job in the first year of the occupation? I just heard an interview with L. Paul Bremer and he admists some pretty big screw ups.
Here’s an article by him in which is leads the article admitting mistakes: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/13/opinion/13bremer.html?hp
The spin now is “that’s all water under the bridge but we’re on track now, freedom is on the march, we can’t cut-and-run.”
(Of course, when the mistakes were geing made, you were called a traitor if you pointed them out!)
“GWB is serving in the military. he’s commander in chief. that’s how it works, fella”
Though technically correct, I think you are purposely misinterpreting the question – a question that could be extended to both parties and both houses of congress – that being if duhbya believes in t he war, why not have Jenna or Babs tote an M4 in Baghdad?
If Chelsea had been of military age during Buba’s reign it would be as legit a question for him as well.
Paul – The “Bush is Commander in Chief and therefore he is serving in the Military” is utterly incorrect. Bush is in charge of the military, but he is not part of the military, just like the secretary of defense is in charge of the military, but is not part of the military ranks. They are purely political positions, with no true military rank. Constitutionaly the president directs the military, but is not part of the military. I think that there is actually a clause somewhere that the president can not hold an active military rank while serving in office.
As far as nobody in the Bush family actually serving in the active military ranks, don’t you find that bothersome? With the military struggling for good people, nobody is willing to step up for 4 years in their life to help fill in the ranks at this time of need. Nobody. And the President himself has either not asked or been able to convice them that it is a worthy cause. And if they don’t care… why should I?
Not order Paul – “encourage” – like old Joe Kennedy encourged Jack and Joe jr. in WWII.
I mean if duh really really believes what he says.
Again I’m not point fingers just at duhbya. A Pvt. DeLay would be interesting. A airperson Pelosi etc.
BTW – I did a year myself from ‘85 to ‘86 before being given a medical (diabetes), before anyone points fingers at me! (1stMP, 1stID).
Paul,
Thanks – for calling us stupid. From you its quite a compliment.
I would counter propose that to assume that Bush DID talk to his daughters is a much less likely proposal than to assume that he DIDN’T. Isn’t your assumption just as stupid? I think my assumption that he didn’t ask is more realistic, given he’s a man who deserted his post in the National Guard for Christ sake. And don’t give me that crap that there “wasn’t any proof” he deserted – if you ever spent any time in the armed forces you would find that you damn near have to fill out a paper to crap in the latrine, in triplicate. His paper work for the entire year was missing – the only way that happened is that it was destroyed. Shit – the army still has all the paperwork from the Revolutionary war! I’m sure other vets on this blog would back me up – the only time paper goes awry in the military is when it’s a supply rec.
Besides you missed the entire point to my post – at one time in this country’s history the privileged once felt it was their duty to participate in this county’ conflicts. This was the case even up to WWII, although the draft helped level the playing field certainly. For example you might read the journals and letters of men like Robert Gould Shaw they continually state that their participation was a duty and part payback for their privileged status.
Now we have a military made up largely of kids that couldn’t get collage money any other way. That it’s made up of minorities that found that the military was an organization somewhat more enlightened racially that the society as a whole (the army is almost 50% black). I know I was one of those kids who needed money for school! This makes me keenly aware of the fact that the rich start the wars and the poor fight them. This has always been the case through out history, but at least in THIS country the rich and powerful – at least minimally – gave lip service to “serving” during a crisis. Sadly this seems to not be the case anymore.
One of the most interesting parts to Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 is when he asks congressman and senators if they would allow their son and daughters to serve in Iraq – not one had the balls to answer. If they had a loved one serving in Iraq don’t you think they would have been quick to answer yes?
Paul,
Thanks for the info – I’ll check. My reason I doubt you is that My great grandfather’s records were intact from WWI and my uncles from WWII. I don’t believe there have been 18mil service men in the entire history of the service, but I’ll check for myself.
BUT AGAIN you missed my point but at this point its not worth repeating.
Wow – ouch – Impressive. 18 mil records gone.
Those old personnel sergeants must be having a stroke! Thank God the rev war records are intact!
Further reading however I see that National Guard records are the ones mostly intact.
“i remember a lot of lefties defending clinton on the basis that he was commander in chief, when people would talk about him being a draft dodger.”
Clinton got out of the draft by getting a Rhodes Scholarship. A Rhodes Scholarship requires a person to have a record of community service, excellence in academic pursuits, sports and music. It is widely considered to be the most prestigious scholarship in the world. I think someone who does that can get out of service.
You’re confusing two things. Clinton got out of the National Guard duty with his Oxford Scholarship. He got the national guard duty thru special connections, ala Bush and co, then dropped it when he didn’t need that either. The draft dodging was another story.
I’d rather US troops be incapable of empire. Let them focus on winning wars, and let others handle the aftermath, though the US has done better at that than the UN(see Kosovo vs Germany vs Japan vs Iraq).
#26 AB CD. I may be in part wrong because Clinton’s draft began before he went to Oxford and was still undecided while he was at Oxford but whereas Clinton earned his connections through his hard work. Bush got his handed to him on a 4th generation east coast Skull and Bones engraved platter.
AB CD,
“I’d rather US troops be incapable of empire”.
We agree on few things, but I am right wth you on this one!