Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, with all the negative press the UK has had recently in Iraq, I guess the only option to make themselves look better was to take a shot at the US Army. I don't understand why he would put out all this criticism unless he had an objective. One would think that offereing constructive criticism would be more effective to enact some kind of change. He isn't offering any new ideas or solutions, he's just criticising. That just sounds like whining to me. What a bitch. Getting a lecture on cultural sensitivity from a British Officer is more than a little ironic considering the history of the British Army in the last 200 years. The British have made a routine practice of setting one ethnic group against another… Their past history in IRAQ for example. This is really just bigoted Euro babble, typical we are smarter than the Americans horseshit. It can almost be said that much of the problems we are havng in Iraq now were set in motion by the Brits years ago.

Indeed, the British government created Iraq, and the French created Syria and Lebanon. Before that, these lands were part of the Ottoman Empire.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: "As allied troops moved into Kosovo, 200 Russian troops made a surprise dash from Bosnia and occupied Pristina airport, where General Sir Mike Jackson, the commander of the international K-For peacekeeping force, was to make his headquarters. Gen Clark ordered Gen Jackson to storm the airport at which point the British commander was reported to have said: 'I'm not going to start the third world war for you.' " http://www.unmikonline.org/press/2003/wire/Sept/imm010903AM.htm Smart move and saved a real shitstorm of trouble. You think Moscow would have been too pleased and sat back on their hands if 600 British Paras had gotten into a gun battle with 200 Russian Paras? ANdy

 Yes it was a wise move. You won't find too many fans of Gen. Wesley Clark on this board.

Quoted: They did a bang up job in Northern Ireland, didn't they.  Only had a few hundred years to clean that little mess up. Also i note that our operations in Afganistan, a classic in unconventional warfare goes unmentioned. We do have tons of problems that the brigadier correctly identified.  We are a massive Army and a bureaucracy is inevitable in an organization of our size.   You can only ride Malaysia so long.  They took a LONG time in malaysia and were fortunate to have a press supportive in that matter. We have been in Haiti, (objectives met).  Bosnia (objectives met) Kosovo (objectives met), Afganistan (objectives met) Macedonia (objectives met).  Our greatest failure in the past 20 years was in Somalia when we failed to meet things "head on" The cricitism is duly noted, but fails in the analysis. If we were to do this in the British model, we would still be sipping tea in Kuwait waiting for the right logisitical base. Iraq is not Malaysia and if we were to use the Second Boar War model our generals WOULD be war criminals.

Name one counter-insurgency war that didn't take a long time.

As I recall, Hati is still a mess, Bosnia took a looong time (therfore pretty standard), you're still in Kosovo trying to stop the Kosovars from killing the local Serbs, Afganistan is mainly run by the warlords still, and looks like will take a good while longer to sort out, and I don't know much about Macedonia. No critisism intended, just calling it as I see it. In COIN arfare, the bad buys have most of the advantages. They can disapear into the surrounding population, they have the inititive, they can use casualties as propaganda, and they have cheerleaders in the form of the Western media.Dealing with these advantages is more important than just killing people. If killing's the main aim, all you do is ensure that you have a steady stream of people to kill. Killing people and blowing stuff up should only be part of the tool kit. War is a political exercise more than it is a technical one.

Northern Ireland went pear shaped when the Brit governement decided to send the paras, who were trained in high intensity warfare, into what was essentially an ongoing civil distubance. It was a bad political decision that, instead of winning hearts and minds, massivly inflamed the situation and led to the Bloody Sunday massacre, which took 20+ years to get over. It looks like the Brits have learnt from that one, and are applying it to Iraq etc. All of that experiemce in Northern Ireland is why the Brits are good at it.

Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. Some pommy Brid. wirtes an article that many senior U.S. officers agree with in whole or in part. He did so, it appears, in good faith, to foster discussion on the topic. Why is this a bad thing? Why is this a slight on the honour of the United States? Britsh soldiers are fighting and dying there too.

Lert writes,
Frankly, I don't understand why everyone is getting their knickers in a twist. Some pommy Brid. wirtes an article that many senior U.S. officers agree with in whole or in part. He did so, it appears, in good faith, to foster discussion on the topic. Why is this a bad thing? Why is this a slight on the honour of the United States? Britsh soldiers are fighting and dying there too.
___________________________________________________________________________________


We don't get our knickers in a twit, we get our panties in a bunch. We also get defensive when we see screamer headlines like

US army in Iraq institutionally racist, claims British officer  

Richard Norton-Taylor and Jamie Wilson in Washington
Thursday January 12, 2006
Al-Guardian

A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations.

________________________________________________________________________________

Australians as a government are great  allies, but shouldn't YOU have gotten a little indignant about your .gov when they took (almost) all of your guns away ? Do you even own a gun ?

 Please don't lecture us on reacting negatively to assaults on our culture. I think you Australians could use a little rightous indignation right about now. You have some real serious problems brewing with muslims while you are busy disarming yourselves.

Good luck with those beach riots and the 200 million radical muslims to your north.

So are you indignant about the commie headline or professional article in the military journal. I can understand the first, but not the second.

I'm not lecturing anybody. I just don't understand
a) why heavily conservative gun owners are taking an ultra-liberal, communist-sympathising, anti-American, Anti-war, pro-muslim, pro-nanny state, bleeding heart wackjob British newspaper at face value; and
b) why anyone would get so hurt and upset over the constructive critisism, offered in good faith, of a high-ranking professional soldier and ally. Sure, you may not agree with him, but having read his paper, I can't fault his motives.

As to the unrealted Australian gun and Muslim problems, yes, I am angry at our lack of gun freedom (and freedom in general), no, I don't own a gun yet (working on it though), and yes the 250m muslims to our north, and the billion or so between the straights of Malacca and the Med are a cause for concern. Its only a matter of time before we get hit at home, and when we do, it'll be bad. Just as bad will be the bleating of the liberal media (i.e. all of it) over how we brought it on ourselves by supporting the U.S.

We have the same left-wing BS over here that you do over there. The difference is that we didn't have funding fathers that were wise enough to write a decent constitution, and we signed on to the nanny state in the 60's in a much bigger way than you did. That's changing, but not fast enough.

I'm a friend and supporter of the U.S. I don't always agree with everything you do, and I'll say so constructivly, but I won't engage in billious, vitriolic attacks on the U.S. just because I don't agree with something an American says. It wouldn't be neighborly.

Peace!

Quoted: Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations. Yes, Northern Ireland, for example.

Before you go rolling your eyes, m'boy, I was thinking of Malaysia.
I don't consider N. Ireland to be the same type of operation - that was more akin to a domestic insurrection.
The criticism of not trying to "win hearts and minds" is legit.
Counter-isurgency is not fun, and it is not easy.
You have to walk a very, very fine line.
We are currently walking that line in Iraq and we are doing a bang up job.
In order to be sucessful, we have to be critical of our ops, and see if there is a better way to do things.
If you become complacent...
Sometimes, it honestly scares me how many people think our country is invincible, and that we could win any war effortlessly.
When was the last time we fought another 1st world nation? World War II?
I don't think we would lose a conventional war against another 1st world nation, but it wouldn't be an easy victory by any means.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some of you Keyboard Kommandoes need to get a more informed view of things once in a while. I'd rather listen to a keyboard commando than a Limey defeatist. So, you're an Active Service Senior Staff Officer who served in Iraq? Thought not..... Only a KK would call a highly respected (by the US .Mil) Serviceman who actually did the business in Iraq a 'defeatist'. ANdy

I'll take the word of American officers I know personally who've served in Iraq over a Limey defeatist.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations. Yes, Northern Ireland, for example. Before you go rolling your eyes, m'boy, I was thinking of Malaysia. I don't consider N. Ireland to be the same type of operation - that was more akin to a domestic insurrection. The criticism of not trying to "win hearts and minds" is legit. Counter-isurgency is not fun, and it is not easy. You have to walk a very, very fine line. We are currently walking that line in Iraq and we are doing a bang up job. In order to be sucessful, we have to be critical of our ops, and see if there is a better way to do things. If you become complacent... Sometimes, it honestly scares me how many people think our country is invincible, and that we could win any war effortlessly. When was the last time we fought another 1st world nation? World War II? I don't think we would lose a conventional war against another 1st world nation, but it wouldn't be an easy victory by any means.

Two words: Boer War.

Quoted: Unless you personally know General David Petraeus your opinions on Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster mean diddly.  And that 'limey defeatist', (so you clearly haven't read the Military Review article, his comments are anything but defeatist) was putting his life on the line fighting terrorists, not changing diapers.

Your comments are as asinine and inane as usual.  You automatically resort to attacking me rather than addressing the fact that the British general called the US Army racist and overly violent.  You know, I used to have difficulty believing that someone who displayed the arrogance and lack of maturity that you do on this message board could be an officer in the British military.  After reading Aylwin-Foster's comments, however, I can very much believe that your sort of poor behavior and poor character is endemic in the British military.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, with all the negative press the UK has had recently in Iraq, I guess the only option to make themselves look better was to take a shot at the US Army. I don't understand why he would put out all this criticism unless he had an objective. One would think that offereing constructive criticism would be more effective to enact some kind of change. He isn't offering any new ideas or solutions, he's just criticising. That just sounds like whining to me. What a bitch. Getting a lecture on cultural sensitivity from a British Officer is more than a little ironic considering the history of the British Army in the last 200 years. The British have made a routine practice of setting one ethnic group against another… Their past history in IRAQ for example. This is really just bigoted Euro babble, typical we are smarter than the Americans horseshit. It can almost be said that much of the problems we are havng in Iraq now were set in motion by the Brits years ago.

Ding!

We'll be taking no guff from a guy whose nation arbitrarily created borders dividing nomadic people up!

What most of the people in this thread fail to realize is that applying combat power in a conventional sense (arty, JDAM, tanks) according to maneuver warfare (attack vulnerabilities, not strengths) is wholly unsuited to the kind of wars that are being fought all over the world, and, to a lesser extent, in Iraq.  

When you use force in dealing with a foreign civillian population within their own borders, you are more likely to create more enemies than stamp out existing ones.  

Think about it.  If China invaded the U.S. tomorrow because they wanted to "free the American people from their oppressive, gun-grabbing government", and you didn't know who to root for, but a Chinese artillery barrage *inadvertently* destroyed your neighborhood and killed your wife while trying to wipe out a FO position, you think you'd write that off?  Nope, you'd grab all your guns and your neighbors and take to the hills, guerrilla style.  At least, I know I would.

You can't measure progress in a place like Iraq by:
Body counts
Arms captured/destroyed
Territory seized

You need to look at it in terms of
Functioning LOCAL governments (capable police forces, elections, works projects)
Employment rates
Infrastructure (power, water, communications, schools)

What I believe is happening is that the military (the Army in particular) is so focused on applying combat power that they ignore the resources they could cultivate within their own organization that would greatly improve their ability to carry out nation building effectively.  Such as:

Interpreters.  This problem is STILL prevalent throughout the DoD and we've been dealing with the middle east for decades.  The language barrier is still real.  And, I'm sorry, an Arabic phrasebook just isin't going to cut it.  Anyone remember the My Lai massacre?  One soldier didn't know if his vietnamese pronunciation of "Come here" was interpreted as "Get lost", and he had orders to shoot anyone that ran from him....  We need more foreign language speakers.  It should be a requirement for all servicemen to get language training, IMO.  

The bottom line is that we can't fit a square peg in a round hole, which is what firepower is in asymmetric war/nation building.  It takes split-second decisions and careful steps  from low level NCOs and junior officers that make or break us in these conflicts.  No general in Tampa pushing little flags across a sand table is going to deliver the knockout punch.  Make no mistake about that.  

I can go on and on about this, but I want to let you guys know that just because an officer in the British Army says things we don't like (I do recall a recent thread where most people agreed that U.S. infantry had their match in British infantry, man-for-man) doesn't mean he's wrong.  He's certainly not a limey defeatist, he's just pointing out where the Army is failing.  Does he have to acknowledge all of the instances in the past where his own country failed?  No.  Nor should he.

Tagged.

I printed the article.  I'm reading it tonight. I wonder how many who are bashing the author will do the same.

you know, only the brits can harangue and insult you by complimenting you...

interesting article from a euro perspective!

Okay, I started reading his actual article, and here we go on page 5:

"There was a strong focus on raiding, cordon and search and sweep ops throughout:  The one day brigade raid is the preferred tactic.  There was a preference for large-scale kinetic maneuver and focus on killing insurgents, not protecting the population."

See my aforementioned post.  

Further, "U.S. Forces put relatively little emphasis on HUMINT, relying instead on technological assets (UAVs) to gather intelligence, the latter being useful in seperating the troops from the local population.  This assists force protection in the short term, but....equally helps to encourage the local sentiment that the trroops are a distant, impersonal occupying force which has no interest in the population".

Can UAVs ask a bedouin farmer if he needs any help?  Can it ask if he knows where the foreign insurgents are hiding?  Nope, and neither can a soldier or Marine that doesn't know Arabic.  

See my aforementioned post.


Furthermore, anyone that brings past operations, (Malaysia, Boer War, Ireland, etc) into it is making the same line-of-reasoning argument I've seen married people have.
"Honey, why did you use the checkbook to buy new shoes?"
"How come you bought all that ammo for your AR last month?"
Lets keep the debate to the issue at hand.

I encourage anyone who disagrees with me or still believes the Brigadier is a defeatist or is wrong in declaring institutional racism to step up to the plate.

A "Brit" claiming institutional racism against the US?  Thats a fucking laugh!!!!

Ask all those in the countries that were or are under British colonial rule about "institutional racism".

I think his views have some merit.  I wish the political class had a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the US Army, so that they would employ the military in a ways that plays to it's strong suites.

Quoted: A British Army officer lecturing the US on institutional racism? Has he heard of a place called Ireland?

+1

Quoted: I think his views have some merit.  I wish the political class had a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the US Army, so that they would employ the military in a ways that plays to it's strong suites.

That can only happen via an instituational change within the Army.  Remember, Rummy wanted special operations and light, mobile forces invading Iraq, and the Army wanted heavy armored divisions, what they got was a mixture of both.  Rumsfeld had to push them out of a "Desert Storm" mindset but he didn't adequately prepare for what counterinsurgency and nation-building entailed.

So, in this instance, the politicians DID employ the military in a way that played to its strengths, moreso than the Army plan, but they failed to tailor the DoD completely to the mission, rather than finding a way to adapt the mission to the DoD.

damn guys...you understand the brit general isn't saying we're a buncha robe-wearing racists, right? he's saying that sometimes we can be a little narrowminded ("it's my way or the highway, hajii!") and that this can interfere with the mission of winning hearts and minds and nation building. it's true, too, to an extent. we have a buncha 18, 19, 20 year old kids out there who are the bravest most honorable men and women to shit between a pair of dusty boots but their "world experience" can be a bit lacking. we'll get the job done, but it'll take longer than it has to and lives will be lost because of it. our guys are learning on the job and sometimes without guidance from above and it's tough to switch over from being a trigger puller and destroyer of worlds to building schools and glad handing the locals.

the article is full of good advice. we need to take what works and thank him for the rest.

After reading the original article, it does sound like quite a compliment with some constructive criticism. Our army is too tough, physical, and destructive. And that's how we like it.

Quoted: What 'attack'?

Don't even try.

Quoted: damn guys...you understand the brit general isn't saying we're a buncha robe-wearing racists, right? he's saying that sometimes we can be a little narrowminded ("it's my way or the highway, hajii!") and that this can interfere with the mission of winning hearts and minds and nation building. it's true, too, to an extent. we have a buncha 18, 19, 20 year old kids out there who are the bravest most honorable men and women to shit between a pair of dusty boots but their "world experience" can be a bit lacking. we'll get the job done, but it'll take longer than it has to and lives will be lost because of it. our guys are learning on the job and sometimes without guidance from above and it's tough to switch over from being a trigger puller and destroyer of worlds to building schools and glad handing the locals. the article is full of good advice. we need to take what works and thank him for the rest.

]

Agreed. I think he is trying to be constructive. The media/writers of the article are another story. Many people simply scan for headlines and are going to leave with the impression that we are a bunch of "robe wearing racists". Even many who read the article are going to have a considerable bias introduced by the sensational headline. It's bullshit.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In 80% of the country, we are doing the squad patrols and talking to the people because its safe to do so (oh, btw, it AINT the brits who are in the most dangerous sectors, its the US).  Where the risk is higher, the tactics are different.   US losses since the start of OIF: 2210. Average US Forces in theatre: 150,000 UK losses since the start of OIF: 98. Average UK Forces in theatre: 8,000 Do that math, it might surprise you.

Problem with that argument is it's like trying to compare crime statistics in New York with that of Vermont.  The US is carrying the majority of the load and in more dangerous localities within Iraq then the British forces.

Quoted: Quoted: Okay, I started reading his actual article, and here we go on page 5: "There was a strong focus on raiding, cordon and search and sweep ops throughout:  The one day brigade raid is the preferred tactic.  There was a preference for large-scale kinetic maneuver and focus on killing insurgents, not protecting the population." See my aforementioned post.   Further, "U.S. Forces put relatively little emphasis on HUMINT, relying instead on technological assets (UAVs) to gather intelligence, the latter being useful in seperating the troops from the local population.  This assists force protection in the short term, but....equally helps to encourage the local sentiment that the trroops are a distant, impersonal occupying force which has no interest in the population". Can UAVs ask a bedouin farmer if he needs any help?  Can it ask if he knows where the foreign insurgents are hiding?  Nope, and neither can a soldier or Marine that doesn't know Arabic.   See my aforementioned post. Furthermore, anyone that brings past operations, (Malaysia, Boer War, Ireland, etc) into it is making the same line-of-reasoning argument I've seen married people have. "Honey, why did you use the checkbook to buy new shoes?" "How come you bought all that ammo for your AR last month?" Lets keep the debate to the issue at hand. I encourage anyone who disagrees with me or still believes the Brigadier is a defeatist or is wrong in declaring institutional racism to step up to the plate. Malaysia Boer War and Ireland is relevant to the discussion at hand because the general believes that his (the British model) is the superior model and we should listen.  The success, failure and methods used are directly relevent in establishing why the Americans should listen to the British in this regard. The focus of protecting the citizenry is inherently defensive and ultimately ineffective.  The insurgents will kill whenever they can and no one can stop it.  Killing the insurgents reduces their numbers.  The fewer insurgents, the fewer attacks.  We are reducing the insurgent population and they are using money to get locals to fight with them.  We are winning the hearts and minds, they aren't. War is politics by another means.  Our current political situation dictates our tactics.  We can not take casualties (the result of being guy on the street talking).  In 80% of the country, we are doing the squad patrols and talking to the people because its safe to do so (oh, btw, it AINT the brits who are in the most dangerous sectors, its the US).  Where the risk is higher, the tactics are different.  The mission WILL fail if we pull out because of a loss of public support due to high casualties.  We are also on a much tighter time line than we would want. That is the reality.  We have to fight an aggressive C/I campaign because the political situation demands it.   We are using traditional C/I methods in most of Iraq and in nearly all of afganistan.  There are parts of Iraq where those means can not be used for a variety of reasons. The cricisms are duly noted but, again, fail in the over all analysis.  And the british history of C/I is no better or worse than ours. We aren't willing to use concentration camps to win the war.

What ends up happening though is when a house full of women and children is bombed by mistake, it creates a whole new batch of insurgents

Howdy, Lert.

Quoted: I'm not lecturing anybody. I just don't understand a) why heavily conservative gun owners are taking an ultra-liberal, communist-sympathising, anti-American, Anti-war, pro-muslim, pro-nanny state, bleeding heart wackjob British newspaper at face value; and

Yep, I can see the spin by the liberal rag.  Much like most of our press here in the States.  It's a good thing the current news media wasn't in place on 6 June, 1944.  The Normandy landings would have been painted as a massive failure because of the casualties.

b) why anyone would get so hurt and upset over the constructive critisism, offered in good faith, of a high-ranking professional soldier and ally. Sure, you may not agree with him, but having read his paper, I can't fault his motives.

With all criticism, I sort through it and find what seems valid & useful, and toss out the rest.

IMHO (I was never a front line trigger puller or upper level staff member), there are valid points for consideration in the article.

I'm a big fan of meeting the enemy with overwhelming force.  You incur fewer casualties than in a proportionate response.

As to the unrealted Australian gun and Muslim problems, yes, I am angry at our lack of gun freedom (and freedom in general), no, I don't own a gun yet (working on it though), and yes the 250m muslims to our north, and the billion or so between the straights of Malacca and the Med are a cause for concern. Its only a matter of time before we get hit at home, and when we do, it'll be bad. Just as bad will be the bleating of the liberal media (i.e. all of it) over how we brought it on ourselves by supporting the U.S.

I really am concerned about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in if current trends go unchecked.

I'm a friend and supporter of the U.S.

Thant's appreciated.

Peace!

Through superior firepower!

Quoted: The percentage likelyhood of being killed by an IED, sniper etc. is about the same per 1000 troops

Is that an indicator that while the Brit & US approaches/tactics differ, the results are similar?

Quoted: Howdy, Lert. Quoted: I'm not lecturing anybody. I just don't understand a) why heavily conservative gun owners are taking an ultra-liberal, communist-sympathising, anti-American, Anti-war, pro-muslim, pro-nanny state, bleeding heart wackjob British newspaper at face value; and Yep, I can see the spin by the liberal rag.  Much like most of our press here in the States.  It's a good thing the current news media wasn't in place on 6 June, 1944.  The Normandy landings would have been painted as a massive failure because of the casualties. b) why anyone would get so hurt and upset over the constructive critisism, offered in good faith, of a high-ranking professional soldier and ally. Sure, you may not agree with him, but having read his paper, I can't fault his motives. With all criticism, I sort through it and find what seems valid & useful, and toss out the rest. IMHO (I was never a front line trigger puller or upper level staff member), there are valid points for consideration in the article. I'm a big fan of meeting the enemy with overwhelming force.  You incur fewer casualties than in a proportionate response. As to the unrealted Australian gun and Muslim problems, yes, I am angry at our lack of gun freedom (and freedom in general), no, I don't own a gun yet (working on it though), and yes the 250m muslims to our north, and the billion or so between the straights of Malacca and the Med are a cause for concern. Its only a matter of time before we get hit at home, and when we do, it'll be bad. Just as bad will be the bleating of the liberal media (i.e. all of it) over how we brought it on ourselves by supporting the U.S. I really am concerned about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in if current trends go unchecked. I'm a friend and supporter of the U.S. Thant's appreciated. Peace! Through superior firepower!

G'day Brohawk,
I'd agree with pretty much all of that, even "Peace through superior firepower"
Where the U.S. will really shine militarily is when China gets started. That one will be all about manouver warfare and maximum rate of fire. However, I suggest you put CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, (Aussie) ABC & SBS, along with most major western newspapers, and quite a few university departments, at the top of the ATO. Best to take out the 5th column right at the start.

How many people badmouthing the article have actually read it?

Yes, I think he is off-base in one or two places, but by and large, I found it refreshing and something that needed to be said. Most American officers in a similar position are too worried about their careers and toeing the line to say it.

NTM

OK, I read it, I agree with most of what he said.  I too saw the "Exodus of the Captains" while on active duty.  I too saw senior commanders micromanaging subordinates so their "failures" (which are the price of experience) didn't reflect on them.  Much more to say, but will save it.

Ignore the title of this thread and RTFA before badmouthing that Brit General.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In 80% of the country, we are doing the squad patrols and talking to the people because its safe to do so (oh, btw, it AINT the brits who are in the most dangerous sectors, its the US).  Where the risk is higher, the tactics are different.   US losses since the start of OIF: 2210. Average US Forces in theatre: 150,000 UK losses since the start of OIF: 98. Average UK Forces in theatre: 8,000 Do that math, it might surprise you.

You and I both know that statistic fails in the ultimate analysis. Try comparing the number of attacks in US vs Brit sectors. You might come to the conclusions, judging by the # of attacks and the # of casualties that our heavy-handed tactics are saving the lives of our troops.

Quoted: Malaysia Boer War and Ireland is relevant to the discussion at hand because the general believes that his (the British model) is the superior model and we should listen.  The success, failure and methods used are directly relevent in establishing why the Americans should listen to the British in this regard.

That's not what his article said at all.  He merely stated that the culture of the American Army makes it less willing to adapt to the people of the locations they are in, noting bases and camps as "Mini-Americas" walled off from the surrounding communities, which is, as far as I have heard from Marines back from theatre, true.  There is only passing mention of Malaysia, and that is in reference to another individual's book.

We aren't willing to use concentration camps to win the war.

Yes, we are.  All of the camps and FOBs that our troops live in are barred from the surrounding community.  The Americans are concentrated therre, hence, concentration camps, despite whatever negative connotations the phrase may have.  We can't win the war holed up in them.

The focus of protecting the citizenry is inherently defensive and ultimately ineffective.

Protecting the citizenry by force of arms is defensive and unsustainable, I agree.    Surrounding a town that is an insurgent nest, and sweeping through it house-to-house killing everyone that threatens U.S. forces, is almost always the option taken after a series of missed opportunities.  It breeds more insurgents.  A misplaced SMAW, JDAM, or 5.56mm can create a whole family of insurgents.  And, keep in mind that these are REACTIVE operations!  We didn't send the Marines into Fallujah because we wanted to deal with the C/Is before they set up shop, we sent them in after four contractors were immolated and hung from a bridge.  We leveled the place.  Twice.  And yet the insurgency has not died.

While we may have the tactical initiative in these "offensive operations against insurgent strongholds", we have forsaken our strategic (political) goal of creating a stable and free Iraq and are merely reacting to the latest series of suicide bomber attacks.

We are winning the hearts and minds, they aren't.

Like I said above, you can't win hearts and minds by firepower alone.  You kill a man's family, however accidental or in the name of freedom it may be, and you've probably made an enemy for life.  

War is politics by another means.  Our current political situation dictates our tactics.  We can not take casualties (the result of being guy on the street talking).  In 80% of the country, we are doing the squad patrols and talking to the people because its safe to do so (oh, btw, it AINT the brits who are in the most dangerous sectors, its the US).  Where the risk is higher, the tactics are different.

What the Brigadier is getting at, and what I believe is true, is that the "unsafe" 20% of the country is that way because there ARE NOT foot patrols and men walking the street chatting it up with the locals.  Technology has not advanced to the point that UAVs can hold conversation with street vendors.  And if American troops see the area as a danger zone, they only time Iraqis will see them is as they speed down the street in convoy, bristling with heavy weapons.  You gonna trust people that point their weapons at you when you approach them?  Come on...

And, sure, these tactics minimize U.S. casualties in the short term, but it does nothing to ensure long-term success.

We are using traditional C/I methods in most of Iraq and in nearly all of afganistan.  There are parts of Iraq where those means can not be used for a variety of reasons.

Well, if those parts of Iraq are in the grip of an insurgency, we'd damn well better be using traditional C/I methods!  Please elaborate.

Quoted: Interesting article.   ETA: Just highlights the different approaches used by the US and Brits.  Opinions are like assholes though.... ------------------------------------------------------------- US army in Iraq institutionally racist, claims British officer Richard Norton-Taylor and Jamie Wilson in Washington Thursday January 12, 2006 The Guardian A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations. The blistering critique, by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi security forces, reflects criticism and frustration voiced by British commanders of American military tactics. What is startling is the severity of his comments - and the decision by Military Review, a US army magazine, to publish them. American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism". The US army, he says, is imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion and talent. "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." Brig Aylwin-Foster says the American army's laudable "can-do" approach paradoxically led to another trait, namely "damaging optimism". Such an ethos, he says, "is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command". blah blah blah blah . . . . . . . . . ..

I lost interest in there

strange, all i can read is blah blah blah... whats he saying?

Funny, it sounds more complimentary than "devastating" as they commented.  
For example:
American Soldiers: were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate".
                               had an "unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion and talent."
                               had "a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."
                               "can-do" approach paradoxically led to another trait, namely "damaging optimism".  GOOD!  I like to hear about high MORALE!
                               "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".   Destroy the enemy?  GOOD, they're the fucking military, its their JOB to protect us from our own liberal weenies who want to "save" the pieces of shit.
That "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind."  See comment above.

But I think this comment was the most laughable.  I mean, come on....they murder and burn our contracters and its a "come on" TACTIC???  They MURDERED people.  Murder is not a tactic, its a means to an end by destroying the enemy.  Respond in kind.  
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".

I hope the British have more manly men in their military.  Its no wonder we defeated them!

Quoted: If an American 3 star were to say, "Its great the brits are here, but they really are letting the shias in Basra be slaughtered and that certainly isn't helping our mission any."  I bet the reaction would be more knee-jerk than what you have seen here.

Of that you can be sure.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Some of you Keyboard Kommandoes need to get a more informed view of things once in a while. I'd rather listen to a keyboard commando than a Limey defeatist. So, you're an Active Service Senior Staff Officer who served in Iraq? Thought not..... Only a KK would call a highly respected (by the US .Mil) Serviceman who actually did the business in Iraq a 'defeatist'. ANdy

whats a KK?

Quoted: But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population. The Brits DO know how to conduct successful CI operations.

You are right, BUT: there last successful one was in Malaysia during the 40's and 50's. If you read about what they did it certainly WAS NOT "sensitive". Effective, but definitely not a warm fuzzy.

Besides, fuck 'em.

Who here thinks if we were nicer and smarter we could have won the hearts and minds of the good people of Fallujah? Maybe Nigel Manfredjin St. John has a point in general, but I think he's dead wrong about Fallujah.

That place was a rathole of criminals, goons and smugglers before we even showed up.  Then after the war, add in Fedayeen and al-Qaeda. If anything, the Marines were too wussy with their response to the bridge atrocity in April 2004.  After Bush was re-elected, Fallujah was dealt with entirely properly.