Posted on 01/11/2006 8:16:35 PM PST by quidnunc
The proverbial library of successful counter-insurgencies — a woefully small collection — is dominated by the near-legendary campaigns of the British, including those carried out in Malaya, Aden, and Oman. Until recently, some observers thought it entirely possible that the British effort in southern Iraq would join this catalog of battlefield achievements. Those hopes — once prevalent among the media and military experts — died a most public death early this fall, when British soldiers rushed to rescue two special forces operatives that had been arrested by Iraqi police. After storming the compound, the troops were confronted by squads of heavily armed militiamen who had strategically intermixed themselves with the riotous crowd. The resultant firefight saw British armored vehicles pelted with Molotov cocktails and British soldiers wounded by hurled explosives.
At home, Britons were stunned by the graphic footage of their soldiers being assaulted in a city thought to be "safe," especially in comparison to the blood-soaked urban areas of the Sunni Triangle which dominate news coverage emanating out of Iraq. The violent imagery was only the latest and most troubling indication of the British military's failure in Basra and its environs, a disastrous turn of events which seemed unthinkable two years ago, when British troops were welcomed into Basra with relatively open arms.
The root of this failure stems from the very strategy that was once lauded as the antidote for insurgent violence. Known as the "soft approach," the British strategy in southern Iraq centered on non-aggressive, nearly passive responses to violent flare-ups. Instead of raids and street battles, the British concentrated on building relationships with local leaders and fostering consensus among Iraqi politicos. In Basra, the British were quick to build and expand training programs for a city police force. As a symbol of their faith in stability-by-civility, the British military took to donning the soft beret while on patrol, avoiding the connotations of war supposedly raised by the American-style Kevlar helmets.
In the immediate aftermath of the 2003 invasion, this "soft" approach seemed remarkably successful, especially when juxtaposed with the chaos that had engulfed other parts of Iraq. Basra seemed to adapt relatively well to the new order of things, with little in the way of street battles or casualties. Both the British and American media — ever-ready to point out the comparable failures of American arms — energetically hailed the peaceful and stable atmosphere in Basra as a significant indicator of the virtues of the British approach, upholding it as the tactical antithesis to the brutal and aggressive Yanks. The Dallas Morning News reported in 2003 that military experts from Britain were already boasting that U.S. forces in Iraq could "take a cue from the way their British counterparts have taken control of Basra." Charles Heyman, editor of the highly-respected defense journal Jane's, asserted: "The main lesson that the Americans can learn from Basra and apply to Baghdad is to use the 'softly-softly' approach."
The reporting also featured erudite denunciations of the rigid rules of engagement that governed the United States military, while simultaneously championing British outreach. Ian Kemp, a noted British defense expert, suggested in November 2004 that the "major obstacle" in past U.S. occupations and peacekeeping efforts was their inability to connect with locals due to the doctrinal preeminence of force protection. In other words, had Americans possessed the courage to interface with the Iraqi, they might enjoy greater success.
-snip-
As a result of the effusive media celebration, even some in the British military began believing their own hype, with soldiers suggesting to reporters in May 2003 that the U.S. military should "look to them for a lesson or two." As a British sergeant told the Christian Science Monitor: "We are trained for every inevitability and we do this better than the Americans." According to other unnamed British military officials, America had "a poor record" at keeping the peace while Basra only reinforced the assertion that the British maintain "the best urban peacekeeping force in the world."The media generated facade of a successful counter-insurgency effort ignored the creeping infiltration of violent and extremist elements into Basra society, a wide-spread penetration which has led to the tenuous situation now facing both British and Iraqi authorities in southern Iraq.
btt
The High Tories' boastings sound no different from smug punditries from their leftist counterparts. And mind you, Canada also buys into this "sophisticated soft approach".
Thank God the bubble has bursted.
Ping! Remember Canada buys into the soft-approach adovated by Britain's High Tories.
Rread this, then read the article about the Brit Brigadier who says we should have followed Brit advice in Iraq and won the war a better way....WRONG!!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1556412/posts
Maybe that's why Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster's knickers are all knotted.
Further info:
Colonel Kevin Benson, director of the US army's school of advanced military studies, who told the Washington Post the brigadier was an "insufferable British snob", said his remark had been made in the heat of the moment. "I applaud the brigadier for starting the debate," he said. "It is a debate that must go on and I myself am writing a response."
The brigadier was deputy commander of the office of security transition for training and organising Iraq's armed forces in 2004. Last year he took up the post of deputy commander of the Eufor, the European peacekeeping force in Bosnia. He could not be contacted last night.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,16518,1684564,00.html
http://www.euforbih.org/
If there is one thing that history teaches it is that aggressors will only learn when they are defeated militarily. Germany never accepted that it was defeated in World War 1 so conditions were ripe for the rise of Hitler. As for the Canadian Left, I think their approach is probably more the grovelling approach than the soft approach. When it comes to self-righteousness, well I don't think anyone will beat a Canuck Lib.
The Brits lost Basra? Have they looked behind the sofo cushions?
Most Brit officers I had the privilege to meet in my career were insufferable snobs.
Most British Officers would not be as shallow as you. I think your a typical fat mouth fat ass American.
Don't get to annoyed at the yanks, there are always some American with there inferiority/superiority complex who are for ever fighting the American War of Independence and think Mel Gibsons Patriot was true to life rather than copied from a Soviet Partisan Second World War propaganda film
A couple of incidents blown out of proportion do not a war lose.
Did tet teach you nothing.
VC shot there bolt no more assets but you allowed the Media to portray it as a victory.
Now in a fit of spite you are doing the same thing
If you're a Brit thanks for proving my point.
I notice most of those who do the brit bashing and cheering about the war with much macho posturing are arm chair warrior's whose foxhole is the sofa there rations a 6 pack and crisps with dips and armed with a full automatic TV remote
Has anyone notified the priggish British Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster of thes events?
Don't forget the War of 1812.
Cheers . . .
Colonel Kevin Benson, director of the US army's school of advanced military studies, who told the Washington Post the brigadier was an "insufferable British snob"
Good alliance bulding Kevin.
The Brits developed their urban warfare tactics over twenty years in Irland. While Kevin was warming a chair in, "US army's school of advanced military studies"
Maybe the Brits deserve an ear.
LOL was that when we commited Arson and burnt down the White House.
Cheers Tony
Good article. Everybody on this thread should remember the above and quit insulting each other - we all have a lesson to learn from this.
I think one of the things that emboldened the fanatics all over Iraq was that even the American forces were sometimes told to ignore things they should have been allowed to deal with immediately and were held back when they should have been allowed to simply sweep through an area and completely flush it. Muslims do not respond well to moderation; they view it as weakness rather than mercy.
Yes it was and that was sometime before the Germans committed arson and burned down London. Remember that little fracas? I think we lent your our right arm while we whipped Japan with our left.
Regards
That certainly makes sense.
If you want a very detailed discussion of the Second World War I am your man.
The back of the German Wermacht was broken on the Eastern Front, Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk.
Also Britain stood alone while America differed on the side line.
And if Hitler had not been stupid enough to declare War on America would you have joined in.
If the Japanese Army High Command, had overruled the Navy Command and attacked the Soviet Union and remnants of the European far eastern empires, what would America have done.
Probably still sat on the side line differing while Germany and Japan could of won the war by forcing the Soviet Union into a two front war.
Fondest Regards
LOL! Nice rewrite. You should be a propagandist. Thanks for your time though.
Why thank you high praise indeed.
Don't forget to come back when you want another History Lesson
Too bad I didn't get a history lesson here. Just arrogance of the type mentioned in the article and which I continually witnessed in my service.
Thanks for proving my point about British arrogance though. I's a well with no bottom.
Hmmm I get the feeling that we is all cross patch and teddy is in the corner.
Most Americans I have worked with in the Military seem to get on well with there British counterparts even down to some friendly banter about the war of Independence.
I have a feeling that you just don't like us British and are happy to jump onto any thread to prove that point.
As for arrogance this statement says it all ::I think we lent your our right arm while we whipped Japan with our left.
Pot kettle black an all that.
As much as I disagree with the Brit bashing, I simply must raise a point of fact before this goes totally bonkers. The Russians marched to Berlin on American made boots, eating American Grown food carried to them by American made Trucks burning American made gas on American made tires using American made lubricants. While they were marching, American made equipment and rails and locomotives extended their rail lines to keep up with their advancing armies. Meanwhile American made equipment kept repaired the weapons and tanks. In battle their success came largely because of the American made radios which allowed them a level of Command and Control level which they had been unable to achieve in the 1st two years after Barbarossa. All of which was hauled to them on American Made ships.
World War 2 was very much a joint effort something the Europeans were very keen to gloss over in writing their histories of the war.
Come read this thread.
To tell the truth I agree with you, it was a joint effort. But when you are dealing with the "We kicked your ass in the war of independence and saved it in world war two" Brigade, you end up getting in the playpen with them to swap insults.
Actually there have been lots of gloss from the Western Europeans, Russia and America as everyone put in there slant.
But it was a joint effort, and I am glad that we were as I am today that we are allied with America.
But I am always ready to climb into the playpen to swap insults if invited to my a America.
Cheers Tony
Also Britain stood alone while America differed on the side line.
No, this statement is arrogance. One tends to forget lend lease I suppose, for which Churchill worked long and hard. Since one of your previous posts postulated a lot of what ifs, do you suppose Britain could have held out until we joined the war without the supplies from the "colonies"?
Or anyone else I suspect. :-) My fav thing to say to the Machos. "Well after holding the Brits coats for two years, the Sovs for a year, Americans suddenly decided to jump in and kick Hitler's ass while the Brits and Russians held him for us. Nothing much heroic in that".
Not completely true but then the point is to be as insulting as possible, not factual:-)
Nope as a Island race we were very dependent on outside help mainly the 40 destroyers that were part of lend lease.
But we broke the back of our economy and Empire during that phase and we were made to pay by our erstwhile American cousins
Save that Hitler declared war, why should we (the Americans) have joined in? The Brits and the Frogs had effed up the peace with the Versailles travesty then lacked the guts to enforce its terms. Germany was their problem, not ours.
The ME should be a British problem, not ours, 'cause the Brits effed it up when they decided to draw borders for nations that cut across tribal boundries. Effin' brilliant.
Maybe, someday, the Brits will get it right and we won't have to clean up after 'em.
Post 20 proves that Canadians at heart think like the Poms, or should we say the Poms are becoming the Anglo Canucks?
LOL! Whatever.
.A cold war with a Nazi dominated Germany on one side, the oil rich middle east a Italian Germany protectorate,and a powerful Japanese empire on the other.
You would of been isolated, economical and strategically.
Yes we and a lot of other European nations created a quagmire in the Middle East and Far East, after all Vietnam was a French Colonial problem but you ended up fighting a 10 year war.
You are involved in the Middle East for the same reason that you were involved in South Vietnam it was all part of the Cold War.
You made the Middle East your problem because of the Oil its economic as well as strategic value during the Cold War.
As I see it if we made mistakes and yes we made many you Americans were more than happy to compound those mistakes.
Will be will be the futures not ours to see Que sera, sera
Cheers
How A Nazi or Soviet Dominated Europe would of meant a Nazi or Soviet Dominated Africa and Middle East.
The Soviets were contained in the USSR and East Europe.
There was a good send-up of the snobbishness of British officers in the film "Gallipoli". In the case of the Canadians, it seems that Liberals are the ones heavily imbued with fatuous notions of superiority.
Well, sorry about the Brit bashers. They are few, but vocal. Most of us very much appreciate our British allies.
Thanks and I am sorry about the Lefty American bashers in my country.
Who if America is involved is automatically against it.
Cheers
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.