You know you are in trouble when your best friend starts to criticize your military performance (from Toronto’s Globe and Mail):
WASHINGTON — A senior British military officer has lashed out at the U.S. Army’s performance in Iraq, accusing it of cultural insensitivity that “amounted to institutional racism” and a predisposition to offensive operations that proved counterproductive when it was faced with a growing insurgency.
Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who served alongside the Americans in Iraq in 2004, made the scathing assessment in an article in the latest issue of Military Review, published by the U.S. Army itself.
First, kudos to the US Army and, in particular, the editors of Military Review for publishing this critique. It’s not always easy to deal with criticism, especially when that criticism is so harsh. Nonetheless, they clearly felt the issues raised by Brigadier General Aylwin-Foster deserved a hearing, despite knowing that his views would be decidedly unpopular among officers in the US military. It is to their credit, that they did so. The link to General Aylwin-Foster’s article (pdf file format), by the way, is here.
For more on Aylwin-Foster’s critique of US tactics in Iraq, follow me below the fold.
Cross posted at Daily Kos
Once you get past the explosive (and sensationalistic) claims of institutional racism (resulting from wrong headed and culturally insensitive actions according to General Aylwin-Foster) the real nub of his analysis for the US military’s failure to contain the insurgency in Iraq comes down to this:
Brig. Aylwin-Foster said the U.S. Army concentrated its training on war fighting and was ill trained and ill suited to counterinsurgency operations, in particular when it required gaining and maintaining the hearts and minds of the local population.
Many others have made similar criticisms regarding the use of US forces in Iraq during the period of occupation. Our military is superbly trained, but the principle focus of that training is its war fighting ability, not counter-insurgency operations. We did a magnificent job during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Indeed, in straight up army to army combat, the US has no equal at the present time. We have the best equipment, the best training and the best ability to execute combined land, sea and air operations of any nation on the planet. However, it seems clear that our forces do not have the best training or tactics for a post-war fighting environment, particularly if that involves counter-insurgency operations.
An example, according to General Aylwin-Foster, was the US response to the death and mutilation of the four contractors in Fallujah in early 2004. In effect, he says, we overreacted to a situation that was intended to provoke just such a response:
“In classic insurgency doctrine, this act was almost certainly a come on, designed to invoke a disproportionate response, thereby further polarizing the situation and driving a wedge between the domestic population and the coalition forces. It worked,” he wrote, resulting in the U.S. Army’s decision to clear the city of insurgents.
In a way, the idealism of US soldiers and their belief in the moral rightness of their mission, blinds them to the real facts on the ground. US soldiers, he says, both at the operational and command levels, have made erroneous assumptions regarding how their actions would be perceived by the local population, believing that Iraqis would understand our higher purposes (i.e., bringing them “freedom and democracy”) and thus forgive any mistakes that might be made in implementing those purposes. Coupled with the fact that troops were often inadequately trained to deal with cultural differences between themselves and the locals, this became a recipe for disaster that only fueled the insurgency.
Let me quote to you what I find to be the most revealing statement made by General Aylwin-Foster in his article regarding his experience of serving with US forces in Iraq:
My overriding impression was of an army imbued with patriotism, duty, passion, commitment, and determination, with plenty of talent, and in no way lacking in humanity or compassion. Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stifling hierarchical outlook, a pre-disposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head on.
An army too stratified, too rigid and inflexible, and lacking the cultural knowledge necessary to effectively implement a counter-insurgency strategy once that became a necessity. One wonders if we learned anything at all from Vietnam.
In other words, an army well suited for attacking and defeating other armies is not necessarily the best one for winning the hearts and minds of a defeated populace. I do not fault our military for this. They are what they were trained to be. As Rumsfeld so ironically noted, you go to war with the army you have. This failure was fashioned by our political leadership. We never should have sent them to Iraq in the first place, much less send them there without any plan for dealing with the Iraqi people after invasion turned into occupation.
General Aylwin-Foster is most likely correct in his assessment.
Before we apply his insights to Iraq perhaps we should just take a moment to reflect on the fact that he and his ilk came by this knowledge through trial and error in Belfast.
Two or more millenia of diplomatic and armed interaction among distinct nations and ethnic groups in their own back yard. However we might criticize their policies, at least the English expect different people to think and behave differently.
The Americans do not tolerate such a nonsensical conception.
Not only Northern Ireland but also a much more significant engagement. The British successfully fought a communist insurgency in Malaysia at virtually the same time France and the US were losing in Vietnam. This was not without some pretty gory incidents but for the most part it was achieved by a classic “hearts and minds” operation.
The difference is that the British specifically train to change from “hard hat” to “soft hat” mode quickly. A lot of experience was gained in peacekeeping operations for the UN. In the UK area of operation there have been mistakes, not the least being when some “red caps” or military police were ambushed and killed. That was down to a breakdown in communications both at command level and literally where their radio equipment malfunctioned. The situation could easily have deteriorated to a Fallujah position if a similar revenge attack had taken place. You will see that even a very few months after armored personnel carriers had to rescue two undercover SAS men captured in Basra by police, relations are back to a working if not friendly relationship and the British Foreign Secretary met the Mayor of Basra this week.
One point you should take on board is that the accusation is of institutional racism in the US Army. This is a British concept that is easily misunderstood and first came about though an inquiry into inadequate police response to the killing of a young black man, Stephen Lawrence.
I mentioned Ireland because I believe this two-decade engagement was the far and away the most significant military action to occur within the active career span of the current British general staff.
And if the British army was able to avert a Fallujah situation in Basra, I would submit that it is in part because they had taken to heart the lessons of such events as Bloody Sunday.
I admit to being a tad puzzled by your reference to institutional racism. Not that I dispute it, it just seems something of a non sequitur.
The general doesn’t have any insiights….he’s making excuses and shifting as much blame from him and his equally stupid government of Bliar to the US. Don’t think this is anything but finger pointing after a total wolrd calamity by the US and Britaiin and others…..who know seem to cooperating in the cover up of torture in Europe.
This war was and is, quite simply insane. That some companies are making money from it is not the reason for the war. The war is the product of the disturbed mentalities of Bush and his cabal of idiots who are either hearing the voice of god, saving Israel or yes, looking for ways to make a buck.
Frontline in the first months of the occupation had a clip of an Abrams tank flattening an Iraqi taxi because the US troopers suspected the occupants of looting. Americans from top to bottom are clueless. The taxi was the family’s means of support and by destroying it and humilitating the occupants they assured another Iraqi family will resist the American occupation to their last breath.
Here again, I feel anyhow, we have a re-assessment of urban combat. It was said early on by the Brits themselves, that the USA military was improperly trained for said combat. This was evident to me anyhow, with the process of which the USA took on the process of checkpoints etc. NO knowledge of what hand gestures were in the land of Iraq and to the Iraqis was evident with many mishaps in constrains with many deaths and injuries of the citizens of the country. (BTW, as I see it, it still is occurring)
The fact that we are, if not already seeing civil war, that we have instigated a civil war with our stance on the topic of securing this country for the future of the whole of this country. Which brings again into view the ethics of the USA as to why they do what they do to phrase the winning aspect in said country. We have totally misunderstood this from the get go or at least the citizens of the USA have misunderstood this from the get go..I seriously doubt that the DoD and the Ex. office has misunderstood this in the least.
It is my best opinion that we have ppl in sitting statuary that do not, if ever they did, understand what running a war was truly about. But the best I can place on this statement is the ethics of said officer who knows damn well, we do not know how to do urban warfare, and will never learn how to do such a thing. It is as if, we were told and did not listen to constructive criticism in the least, from those who do happen to be in the know and correct the problem. Typical!!!!!!!!!!!
As to racism, well, yes we do pit the different fractions against each other. Look at the results of said insurgency. nuf said.
intentions, the purpose of the crusade. Many people, possibly including this Englishman, appear to be operating under the misconception that the US invaded Iraq in order to provide a benefit to the Iraqi people.
This is not the case. The purpose of the crusade is not to provide a benefit to the Iraqis, nor to the disposable human assets of the US and other countries deployed to the theatre, nor to ordinary Americans, or to make them safer.
The purpose of the crusade is to generate additional revenues to certain key US business interests, and in some cases, business interests of US client states, or as some prefer to call them, “allies.”
In short, the purpose is to make rich men richer. That has been and continues to take place, therefore the crusade is successful.
DTF, this is a known given…to paraphrase rummy. I do not think the is really blatent enough to suggest this in the least..I think it is a known fact from the get go…thsi is just, to me anyhow, a reiteration of the reasons for invading of said country. The follow up is that we, the US military, is not knowledgable of doing the war, for instance that of urban conflict/mangement. That is what I got from this article, anyhow. We can really get into a lot of legal, ethical and moral issues here that can be debated for the most part of determining wether we are trained for such or not. I just feel very uncomfortable and take issues with “reasons” for preemptivly invading a country, sovereign, to the fact that we are the authroity to determine this action. ( bysiding the UN and the world as a whole.)
I am distinctly troubled by the fact that we as humans and those humans who live in this world, to give enharent authority to a said country to do such a thing and then to assume the fact we have the inhearent authority to determine said ethnic cleansing that we find following through nowadays. I am simply just stating my opinion of this article. I may be reading something into this that may/not be there. I am just opinion this to you and others for deliberation. I suppose I did nto make myself clear on this issue..sorry. However, I do feel quite substanstive on this, what with my past dealings with military..but then that does not make me a expert on said matters…just opinionated, is all…:o) After all look at who I am…a woman with strong opinions of said matters…:o)
is to maintain a D-Day military and keep addressing every new opponent with a D-Day invasion.
Yesterday SE Asia, today the middle east, tomorrow the universe.
You’re right–it’s solely about the internal economy.
make some mileage recruiting ethnic and racial minorities with the news that even the original Anglos say America is racist.
But somehow I think this fact has as much practical use to Democrats as the value of the charge on the electron.
Oh yes, they learned something from Vietnam. These are Nixon boys you’re talking about. They learned that a free media inducing ‘anxiety’ at home loses wars for you. So they ’embedded’ media in the warmaking instead. Put gag orders on anyone who might tell the truth. Then, whatever happens, you would show all those libruls that waging war is a cakewalk. Shock and Awe. Operations this and that. I’m still waiting for cake.
I think the general’s analysis is more British Rubbish. Everybody is blaming everyone else for the invasion of Iraq and it’s so called “failure” as if there was ever any chance in Hell that it could have succeeded. Any fool should know that this was doomed from the beginning. The idea that if things were done “right ” is bullshit. The Invasion was a stupid idea. You don’t have to use big words to describe it, was STUPID. So a bunch of dummies are now arguing about why the Stupid idea went wrong in the first place. We have lots books coming out by people like Paul “the cracker” Bremer who explains that if people listened to his brilliant ideas we would have defeated the insurgency by now.
Steven D says: Our military is superbly trained, but the principle focus of that training is its war fighting ability, not counter-insurgency operations.”
This comment is more of the typical American automatic knee jerk response to “our military”. Our military is largely incompetent (I am being polite) from top to bottom. They don’t know what the hell they are doing. However, the reason Stars and Stripes put the article in the paper is because the military hates Bush. And those who have any sense (and there are a lot who are waking up and trying to speak out) are turning on him.
Steven D said: We did a magnificent job during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Indeed, in straight up army to army combat, the US has no equal at the present time.
The invasion phase is not separate from any other phase. Invasions are easy to do. Winning a phony war is not so easy to do when you are incompetent and have no purpose, rationale or capacity to control anything. Anybody can invade. This is more of the TV speak that we are constantly being exposed to and ingest without even thinking about it.
Steven D says: However, it seems clear that our forces do not have the best training or tactics for a post-war fighting environment, particularly if that involves counter-insurgency operations.
Listen to yourself….What is a post war-fighting environment? Does that make any sense? Post war? What is going on now? The U.S. controls no land outside of the Green Zone. The so-called insurgents control the land in the center of the country, the Iranian backed Shiites control the south and the fascists Kurds control the North. Post War Fighting Environment…. these are TV catch phrases, we breathe them in without realizing it and then we start using these phrases in our thinking as if they were meaningful.
The United States has been defeated in Iraq and long, long ago.
I am so sick of this other TV phrase “winning the hearts and minds”. I imagine that the Iraqi people by and large are far more sophisticated than we imagine and far more sophisticated than the U.S. troops who have invaded their land for absolutely no reason. It’s like a child telling its parents how to behave. The United States is a nation of children when it comes to the rest of the world.
Everything you have written reinforces the non-sensical ideas that are perpetrated by MSM.
Other British generals also appear to have a spine.
From The Independent:
Hat-tip to Francois in Paris over at ET for the link.
The article also mentions that the comments were made in a documentary, The Failure of War, to be broadcast coming weekend. It does not identify which channel (if you are otherwise able to receive British broadcasts).