Author Article Directory

I stumbled across the following posting today which compares the British military approach taken in Iraq with the American.

While the post is nearly three years old it is well worth reading as it sheds light as to why the war in Iraq was lost long ago.

The heavy handed tactics used by American forces have made far more enemies than friends, not only in Iraq, but throughout the world.

For every insurgent killed there are probably ten or more ready to seek revenge and to take their place.

Americans could learn much from their British counterparts. The British Empire may be no more but the rich British tradition of professionalism in the military lives on.

One should note that the British were good administrators of their empire as well as good warriors. The British system of record keeping, of developing infrastructure, and of government organization lives on in many countries once part of the empire.

“The British military tends to have far more open dealings with the local population than the Americans,” said Christopher Bellamy, professor of military science at Cranfield University. “While the British rely more on local intelligence to warn them of trouble in advance, US forces have a ’stand-off’ posture, which means trouble tends to erupt without warning. As a result they need to deliver enormous amounts of firepower to overcome it.”

Eleanor Goldsworthy, UK forces specialist at the Royal United Services Institute, said the approach taken by British forces in Iraq was: “If we behave, we earn their goodwill.” The American attitude, by contrast, was: “If they behave, they earn our goodwill.” And if they don’t, others might add, US forces will punish them - the policy that appeared to be adopted when the Marines moved on Fallujah last month in the wake of the deaths of four American private security men.

The insistence of the US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, on a “war lite” policy, said Professor Bellamy, meant that “American forces have to make up in firepower what they lack in manpower”. Because US soldiers specialized early in their careers, and received less overall training than their British counterparts, the majority were not effective combat troops, and had to be protected by those with the appropriate training.

“The philosophy is almost that of the wagon train, and tends to lead to the ’spray and slay’ behavior we have seen,” said the analyst.

“It is hard to over-estimate the lack of awareness of most American soldiers in Iraq,” said a military source. “Many, perhaps most, have never been abroad before. They see their mission as giving democracy to the Iraqis and enforcing stability, and find it very difficult to understand why the Iraqis aren’t grateful. They have no idea that they are seen as arrogant and aggressive.”

In the view of British forces, the source added, such attitudes had led to a succession of “fundamental mistakes”, and had made senior officers extremely hostile to being put under American command. This is one of the options reported to be under consideration by Downing Street this weekend as the deployment of more British forces is weighed.

The US wants Britain to take over from the departed Spanish contingent in the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, where American firepower is being deployed against militias loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric declared an outlaw by Washington.

“Seeking to adopt normal low-profile British tactics in the wake of American aggressiveness would be difficult enough,” said the military source, “but to have to go in under US operational command would be a disaster.”

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!