British Troops Move North...

[Charles]

It has now been confirmed that British Black Watch units have been instructed to move up to Baghdad. They have had significantly more success in Basra/South Iraq which is consequently much safer. It can only be expected that Baghdad be a center of hostilities, but the considerable success of the British in South Iraq and increasingly failing efforts of Americans in the North is being attributed to fundamental differences in both armies.

The British know how to Peacekeep - they have a long history of dealing with terrorism, and it is a skill British soldiers take in their stride early in training. The soldiers no the boundaries, they have decent are to taught to effectively discrimnate and are professionals.

On the other hand the Americans, despite having the most technologically advanced military on Earth, have summarily failied in the most basic of peacekeeping abilities - their soldiers cogs of a military machine that cannot adapt to the social nature of the fermenting crisis in Iraq.

The British went into this war as allies; but it would now seem to be becoming our war - this doesn't bode well for terrorism as regards British interests. My greatest frustration, and resultant opinion is that the Americans should re-direct some of their substantial defence spending (off, say, Nuclear Weapons programs and) onto actually training their soldiers to be more than blind killing machines. (anybody see the figures for Brits/Americans killed or wounded by Americans? have you comapared to the number shot by Brits?)

[Kitty Hawk]

The success and lack of casualties of the British in the South has more to do with the location of the Sunni triangle, in the North, than with the peacekeeping skill of the British troops. Also, the terrorist groups obviously harbor a greater desire to kill Americans, than any other nationals.

Your denigration of our soldiers and their professionalism is highly distasteful, to say the least.

[Kitty Hawk]

Also, I'm not sure what you think the British were moved north for. It wasn't because they are "better" at peacekeeping. It is to take the place of American troops who will soon be fighting in Fallujah.

Nor should the US take any money out of any nuclear programs. To the contrary, we should invest more in them.

[Capitalism Forever]

I agree 100% with Kitty Hawk.

I put a warning on Charles' account for his anti-American slur.

[oldsalt]

Charles:

That you would come onto this forum and expose the depth of your ignorance is stunning. You need to do more than listen or read the mainstream media for information. You have no excuse; you obviously have a computer and are on the internet.

You obviously have never chosen to serve your country, and therefore do not know anything of about things military You know nothing of their accomplishments in this war. You do not have even a understanding of the situation on the ground in Iraq -- and specifically the political situation, what drives the various religious sects and where they are located, or even the nature of the terrorists.

If you think that what is happening in the Sunni Triangle has anything to do with "peacekeeping", then you haven't been paying attention. If you think that what our forces are doing in MOST areas in Iraq isn't peacekeeping, then you are willfully blind.

If you think our military forces are nothing but "killing machines", then you don't have the most basic knowledge, not only of the military, and of what it means to wage war, in general, but of the nature of your own fellow citizens. You slander them with that statement and commit a great injustice.

The British have an outstanding military, the only force that approaches our own in skill and dedication (with a brief demure to the Ozzies). They are not capable of fighting a single theater in this war on their own, however. E.g., they required American logistical support to fight the Falkland War. Their skills in fighting terrorism were honed over 40 YEARS of fighting in Northern Ireland. That was a completely different situation than what we face in Iraq. (None of this means that they haven't pulled their weight in this war. They have been an important part of the war, but they are only a small part of a huge enterprise.) Because I actually know something about this war and the way our military functions, I know that our people have already availed themselves of British expertise, as well as that of the Israelis. Such tactics as are relevent have long been incorporated into the tactics being used in Iraq.

I suggest that you use the computer you're sitting in front of, and the internet you are plugged into, to learn something about what is actually happening, so that you do not expose the depth of your ignorance in public.

If you are one of those people for whom slamming what you hate or don't understand is a sport, then I suggest you express yourself elsewhere -- such as on the DemocraticUnderground, or the many other anti-American forums like it. Please don't bring that crap here.

[Oakes]

I’m apalled at the responses to this thread. He might have said it too harshly with the term “killing machines”, but everything I’ve ever learned about the US military tells me exactly what Charles is saying. The Pentagon and the US Military in general puts far too much emphasis on technology. In an asymmetric environment, more emphasis should be given to ideas and culture. We’re just beginning to learn that.

Observe such “anti-American” sentiment from the latest issue of Proceedings. One big article is entitled "Culture-Centric Warfare" which is about this very topic. One caption says:

The United States could learn from Britain, which during the late 19th century "seconded" bright officers to various corners of the world to immerse themselves in the cultures of the empire. The success of liaison officers such as T. E. Lawrence, whose local knowledge and relationships were critical during the Arab Revolt of 1916-1918, prove the wisdom of the concept.

The article continues: “Even today, the British Army has an advantage over the United States in that it possesses officers with the ability to move comfortably between and within the inner circles of foreign militaries. Great Britain’s relative success in Basra owes in no small measure to the self-assurance and comfort with foreign culture derived from centuries of practicing the art of soldier diplomacy and liaison.”

Sound familiar?

[AisA]

The Pentagon and the US Military in general puts far too much emphasis on technology.  In an asymmetric environment, more emphasis should be given to ideas and culture. We’re just beginning to learn that.

What ideas and what culture? This war is a fight to the death with militant Islam. Our choice is to make it their death, and not ours. And to accomplish that with minimal losses to U.S. and other coalition partners, we need all the technology we can get.

[Praxus]

The British Army as far as the average infantryman goes is supperior to the United States Army. They have just as much combat experiance as US forces but they also have better training. But you must remember that the entire British Military is smaller then the United States Marine Corps.

If you put two full US Army Corps on the ground, no army without nuclear weapons, of any one country or groups of countries on earth could stop it.

[Socionomer]

I believe Charles is correct in his view that the U.K. military, in general, is more experienced and better trained (at the basic soldiering level) in peacekeeping operations and cross cultural communications (which is NOT to imply that US troops are ill-trained).

I think he is mistaken though in his conclusion that the same degree of British successes in Basra will be duplicated in their missions in northern Iraq. Basra was the first major city in Iraq to be liberated. The Royal Marines made a saavy decision to appear less threatening to the local population by removing their helmets and donning their berets, making it easier for them to begin fostering an air of goodwill in the city. They were also proactive in restoring basic utility services to the city. Because Basra was occupied early on, a well organized and armed insurgency did not have time to develop and did not have popular support. This made it easier for the British to quell minor insurgencies as soon as they cropped up.

American forces had a much more difficult time further north. Most of us probably know the reasons so I won't go into them, but the point is that the British will have to deal with the situation as it exists, and that situation is very different from Basra. I would be surprised if the Black Watch units are wearing something other than their helmets and full body armor this time.

[AisA]

The British Army as far as the average infantryman goes is supperior to the United States Army. They have just as much combat experiance as US forces but they also have better training.

Praxus, without disagreeing with you, how do you know the above to be true?

[Praxus]

Praxus, without disagreeing with you, how do you know the above to be true?

The difference is not that significant but the British do have longer and more intense training then in the US Army. US Army Basic Training lasts 9 weeks, while the British Army Basic Training lasts 11 weeks. I'm also pretty sure that follow on training tends to be longer in the British Army.

Also the Modern US Army was designed to fight a multi-front war with the Soviet Union while still maintaining the forces to fight two smaller wars. We can no longer do this because of the cuts during first Bush and under Clinton however but that is one of the reasons. The British on the otherhand could focus all their forces against the Soviets in Western Europe. They didn't need to be prepared in all these different theaters.

[Oakes]

What ideas and what culture?

The enemy's ideas. The enemy's culture. Specifically, their motivation, intent, will, tactical method, and cultural environment.

This war is a fight to the death with militant Islam. Our choice is to make it their death, and not ours. And to accomplish that with minimal losses to U.S. and other coalition partners, we need all the technology we can get.

Nobody disagrees with this! Nobody is saying that technology is unimportant. But when fighting an unconventional enemy, intelligence turns out to be far more important than smart bombs and bandwidth. Ignoring this will lead to substantial coalition losses.

[Praxus]

Nobody disagrees with this! Nobody is saying that technology is unimportant. But when fighting an unconventional enemy, intelligence turns out to be far more important than smart bombs and bandwidth. Ignoring this will lead to substantial coalition losses.

When dealing with an unconventional enemy, whiping out the populace supporting them is the simplest method.

[AisA]

But when fighting an unconventional enemy, intelligence turns out to be far more important than smart bombs and bandwidth. Ignoring this will lead to substantial coalition losses.

So, is it your position that the U.S. military is ignoring the importance of good intelligence?

[Oakes]

When dealing with an unconventional enemy, whiping out the populace supporting them is the simplest method.

I've heard a lot of great arguments for using nuclear bombs, rarely do I encounter someone who treats it like the be-all end-all solution. Consider reading this exchange.

So, is it your position that the U.S. military is ignoring the importance of good intelligence?

Yes, you can put it that way. But mind you that good intelligence would be provided mainly by Foreign Area Specialists, covert ops, and other boots on the ground. As the article I mentioned puts it, "Sensors, computer power, and bandwidth count for little against a dispersed enemy who communicates by word of mouth and back-alley messengers and fights using simple weapons that do not require networks or sophisticated technological integration to be effective."

[oldsalt]

The difference is not that significant but the British do have longer and more intense training then in the US Army. US Army Basic Training lasts 9 weeks, while the British Army Basic Training lasts 11 weeks. I'm also pretty sure that follow on training tends to be longer in the British Army.

Also the Modern US Army was designed to fight a multi-front war with the Soviet Union while still maintaining the forces to fight two smaller wars. We can no longer do this because of the cuts during first Bush and under Clinton however but that is one of the reasons. The British on the otherhand could focus all their forces against the Soviets in Western Europe. They didn't need to be prepared in all these different theaters.

I'm sorry, but your position has been, as they say in the military, overtaken by events.

US military structure and training were revamped after the fall of the Soviet Union. They now train to fight precisely the kind of war they are fighting.

A large part of the military fighting forces (as distinct from those who provide logistical support) today are made up of specialized operatives with expertise in their particular job. The training required after basic training depends on the job. For instance, the rescue forces of the Air Force train for two years before they are allowed to be deployed in that capacity.

Since we are in a shooting war, those who are in basic training right now are taught the tactics that have been learned, or honed in the field. They have been taught specifically to fight in the Middle East since the Gulf War (where they learned that the kind of overwhelming force they used was wasteful of men and material). They are given lessons in the cultural and religious background on a continuing basis, even in theater. (A fact that irks my nephew no end. )

If you think about it for a moment you will see that if what you are saying were true, there is no way that we would have tossed the Taliban out of power in only a few weeks, using a handful of troops, our air forces, and the very people of whom, as has been implied, we have no understanding? How could they have accomplished that unprecedented feat, something the British with their vaunted skills in colonialism couldn't manage, if they had no understanding of the Afghans, their culture and religion. Are you forgetting the experience we gained from working with the muhajadeen during the Soviet-Afghan war? Do you think that that experience and the knowledge gleaned from it weren't incorporated into the thinking of our military planers?

You are implying that our military is a bunch of incompetent bumblers living in the past, whether you mean to or not. This is said in the face of the fact that we have fought and won in two theaters of this war with a success that is almost unequaled in the history of warfare. That you could say so suggests a dangerous ignorance of both the history of warfare and the way your own military functions. I say that it is a dangerous ignorance because you cannot adequately judge what is happening without more up-to-date informantion. Since the support of the citizens during wartime is as important as the fighting force, it is incumbent upon the population to have a basic understanding of what those forces are doing and how they are doing it.

There will always be mistakes in tactics. The great virtue of our military is that they are trained to use their heads and improvise in the field. The tactics we went in with have been changed and adjusted constantly, and the lessons learned passed along to those who are rotating in. The Marines, for example, who have already been in theater are the Marines who are training the next units to be deployed.

For those who are interested in getting a handle on what is happening in Iraq militarily, and I mean the kind of tactical thinking that goes on, you can get a feel for what I'm talking about by reading the analyses that Wretchard gives on his blog, The Belmont Club. The entry I've linked to is specific to the tactical situation in Fallujah right now. I don't always agree with him, but he's good.) Read the milblogs, such as the Mudville Gazette (who's owner was just deployed) to get a feel for what is actually happening on the ground. For God's sake, don't rely on the media to give you information. You'll never have an accurate picture of what is good, bad, or indifferent if all you hear about is the latest roadside bomb and a casualty count.

[Charles]

I would first of all like to apologise for my use of the phrase 'Killing Machines', regardless of inappropriate training for given forms of conflict, US soldiers are still the first line of defence in any attack on the United States - and I owe them a great deal of respect for carrying that burden. I sincerly regret any offence I may have caused in implicating American Soldiers in this manner - my post was written in immediate response to hearing this news this morning and I was angered by it.

In response to Oldsalt;

You obviously have never chosen to serve your country

That is inaccurate. I have passed my interview for the OTC branch of the Royal Air Force and head to Cranwell this weekend.

I acknowledge the Sunni Triangle is significantly more dangerous than Basra though I maintain there is deficit is American Peacekeeping abilities - they are inadequately trained for this situation. For that matter they are inadequately equipped. Neither are the fault of the soldiers.

[AisA]

Yes, you can put it that way.

So you think the military is ignoring the importance of good intelligence.

I am constantly amazed at people who think they can judge events 7,000 miles away better than the commanders on the scene. But wait, excuse me. Are you in Iraq? Are you observing first-hand our hopelessly inept intelligence gathering? Is that how you come to this conclusion?

If not, please explain what puts you in a position to know just how much emphasis the coalition troops are putting on intelligence versus "smart bombs and bandwidth".

If we place no value on intelligence, how the hell did we ever find Hussein? Or his sons? Or the 49 other fascist bastards in the deck of cards? How did we protect the oil fields from sabotage?

[oldsalt]

Yes, you can put it that way. But mind you that good intelligence would be provided mainly by Foreign Area Specialists, covert ops, and other boots on the ground. As the article I mentioned puts it, "Sensors, computer power, and bandwidth count for little against a dispersed enemy who communicates by word of mouth and back-alley messengers and fights using simple weapons that do not require networks or sophisticated technological integration to be effective."

You are picking out one, and only one, aspect of the way this war is being fought. It is all of a piece.

For instance, when we first attacked Fallujah last spring, it was a classic seige. We changed our tactics by backing off and concentrating on the smaller villiages in the surrounding area. Because the people saw that we weren't going to use our power to flatten Fallujah, they trusted us more and began to give us the intelligence needed to attack with more finesse, using the technology and special forces with better accuracy. The effect of this action has been a greater trust from the Iraqi people and fewer casualties for the forces fighting there. We are now pounding specific targets, targets we know about because of the kind of intelligence you mention.

The tactics changed because of the volital political situation. The Marines weren't happy about pulling out. They were geared up and ready to go (and Marines never like to back down from a fight ). But even those I've talked to who were there and actually participated in that battle told me that they see the wisdom of what we have done. They saw an immediate change in attitude of those Iraqis who lived within the area surrounding Fallujah.

American forces don't throw bodies at a problem anymore. They fight with their brains, as well as their brawn. This is what our technological superiority, computers, bandwidth and all, allows us to do and it is why that bunch of atavists will never defeat us.

Mistakes are always made during war. That is why we must look at the whole picture, over a period of time. You cannot judge the whole war by one battle and you certainly cannot do so by picking one tactical particular, lifting it completely out of the context that gives it validity, and pitting it against all other particulars.

[Oakes]

I am constantly amazed at people who think they can judge events 7,000 miles away better than the commanders on the scene.

What are you talking about? Everything I've said has been quoted from other people. I wouldn't trust my own military judgement if my life depended on it. Major General Robert H. Scales Jr. (USA Retired) was the author of that article. Everything else I've said came straight out of the mouths of the late Col. John Boyd and the highly-regarded Thomas P.M. Barnett.

If not, please explain what puts you in a position to know just how much emphasis the coalition troops are putting on intelligence versus "smart bombs and bandwidth".

Again, this is the judgement of Maj. Gen. Scales, not me.

If we place no value on intelligence, how the hell did we ever find Hussein? Or his sons? Or the 49 other fascist bastards in the deck of cards? How did we protect the oil fields from sabotage?

Don't twist my words. I never said we "place no value on intelligence". The previously-mentioned experts have had a lot to praise about the way we've conducted war in the past, but an equal amount to criticize.

[Oakes]

You are picking out one, and only one, aspect of the way this war is being fought. It is all of a piece.

This fits in well with what I just told AisA. The experts I've been reading have had a lot to praise about the way we've conducted war in the past, but an equal amount to criticize. Don't get the picture that I think our military is an absolute disaster that is incapable of doing anything right. Wilcox and Wilson's article is a good example of this. If you scroll down about half-way, you'll come across a table that organizes the war in Afghanistan into four phases and rates each of them with varying degrees of satisfaction.

[knuckles]

US Army Basic Training lasts 9 weeks, while the British Army Basic Training lasts 11 weeks.

This is a most revealing argument.

[Praxus]

I know it doesn't mean much, I was just using at as an example of one difference.

[AisA]

My question was: "So, is it your position that the U.S. military is ignoring the importance of good intelligence?"

Your answer was, "Yes, you could put it that way."

Statement 1: The U.S. military is ignoring the importance of good intelligence. Statement 2: You think we place no value on intelligence. Where is the twist?

So now these are not your positions? They are someone else's? Then what the hell are you so "appalled" about? Which is it? Do you agree with these people you are citing -- or not?

What are you talking about?

I'll tell you what I'm talking about. I'm sick of the armchair generals, the Monday-morning-quarterbacks, the war-college-essayist and the at-a-distance second guessers that presume to know enough to criticize our military -- based on a few articles they've read, which we are supposed to believe instead of our commanders actually on the scene.

I'm sick of all of you that have the temerity to accuse the U.S. military of gross stupidity -- which is what would be required to "ignore the importance of good intelligence" -- at a time when our boys (and girls) are winning amazing military victories under very difficult circumstances.

You should be celebrating and praising the incredible courage and skill of our ALL VOLUNTEER ARMED FORCES. Instead, you choose to sit on the sidelines, in total safety, and hurl insults while offering sweeping judgments of tactics, strategy, organization and planning -- and when challenged you scurry for cover by saying "these are not my positions!"

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines -- I salute every one of your brave souls. Ignore the critics who admit they "wouldn't trust their military judgment if their lives depended on it". WE know what you are accomplishing!

[Oakes]

Statement 1: The U.S. military is ignoring the importance of good intelligence. Statement 2: You think we place no value on intelligence. Where is the twist?

To say that we place "no value" on intelligence is a sweeping condemnation, which of course is not true. Like I've said to both you and oldsalt, I'm not the kind of zealot who thinks the military is always wrong.

So now these are not your positions? They are someone else's? Then what the hell are you so "appalled" about? Which is it? Do you agree with these people you are citing -- or not?

They are my positions, but they didn't originate from me. I'll defend them if you engage me with rational arguments, but you HAVEN'T. You've engaged me with accusations of making up these positions in the comfort of my own home.

You should be celebrating and praising the incredible courage and skill of our ALL VOLUNTEER ARMED FORCES. Instead, you choose to sit on the sidelines, in total safety, and hurl insults while offering sweeping judgments of tactics, strategy, organization and planning

The only insults being hurled are from you. I happen to be interested in military tactics, and any man who says I can't think about it has another thing coming.

-- and when challenged you scurry for cover by saying "these are not my positions!"

You didn't "challenge" anything I said. You accused me of judging events 7,000 miles away.