Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PassingBells, Jan 11, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
How effective is the US Hearts and Minds policy?
Brig. Aylwin-Foster comments
Well judging by the length of the disclaimer the editor clearly expected some sparks!!!
BBC offering on the subject:
UK officer slams US Iraq tactics
"One senior Coalition officer noted that too much of the [us] force remained conceptually in warfighting mode in the post combat phase, and failed to understand that every soldier becomes a CIMIC [civil-military cooperation] operator in COIN and S&R operations."
I would wager that this Officer was neither (of two) Comd 12 Bde, nor his COS, as none of them ever visited the CIMIC Ops room during Telic 6.
Before we tear a strip off the Yanks, perhaps we should have a good look at ourselves.
I saw a lot of truth in the article.
I've seen this before when with 3 Cdo Bde on the Kurdish Op (post GW1) we had a US Para Bn out of Italy attached. Once the war fighting bit was over and it was time to hanbd out rice, organise town councils and help them back to a structured society the spams just could not get out ofr the fox holes. For the Brit Army the ability to adapt has probably evolved through necessity; ie there are just not enough of us to have individual units doing singular tasks hence Arty and Armd units rotated through Northern Ireland in the Inf role. For the Spams their sheer size means they can have J5 units which normally surfice until a huge civil op like Iraq comes a long.
To be fair to the spams it is a difficult balance to be struck between fighting terrorists on the same streets that are full of innocent civvies. Our own experiences of West Belfast, et al also had their lowlights.
True.....And I suspect that, by and large, the bulk of the septic civi poluation doesn't give a rats arse if 15 iraq civi's get slotted cos some Rifle Balloon commander decides to JDAM a "sniper" contact.
Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations
Brigadier Aylwin-Foster had an article published in the US Army's Military Review magazine. It's an interesting read.
I wonder what would be comment of British soldiers who have been to Iraq on this article.
See here: http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=29591.html
This is the commentary on the article by the British Brigadier.
How far is the commentary correct?
This is the commentary on the Bitish Brigadier's article.
How far is it correct?
How true is this thing about militias running Brit-zone in iraq? Aside from Time magazines Right wing America **** yeah balance?
You say "militia", they say "local organisation reflecting the views of the majority". Which it is. After all, didn't we go to war to allow the Iraqis to govern themselves, so what's the problem ?
The problem is of course that they're a bunch of misogynist throwbacks to the dark ages, or, if you're American, the problem is they don't do what the US wants them to. It took Saddam, the Ba'ath party and the Sunnis to keep them in their box and now Uncle Sam has let them out. And I doubt they'll go back in anytime soon.
Well, Basra is being run by the locals who are don't want foreign soldiers in their country. Is anyone surprised by that ? The problem is that the way the locals want to live is anathema to the US, wanting as they do a return to the past and a misogynistic theocratic regime not dissimilar to that of Iran under the mullahs.
Saddam needed the Sunnis, the Ba'ath party and many corpses to enforce his policies. They are using 130,000 troops (or thereabouts) and can't get the Sunnis to quiet down, so how they think that 8000 odd Brits can enforce US policies on the Shia majority beats me.
The rest of it is whining because someone dared to breathe a word of criticism against the US.
Separate names with a comma.