Posted on 08/15/2007 4:29:38 PM PDT by Renfield
Why is the most best European fighting army, the British, losing the battle for Basra in southern Iraq? Because the UK Ministry of Defense supplied its soldiers with the wrong equipment, having invested its shrinking budget in long-term European Ego Projects to keep the military bureaucracy happy.
Given soft vehicles that are terrifyingly vulnerable to IEDs and car bombs, the Brits initially claimed that "soft power" would do the job -- just as the Dutch boasted that having tea with the Taliban would ensure peace and love in their area of Afghanistan. But the British MOD was just rationalizing its own weakness, especially in equipment. British soldiers were sacrificed to politics.
All that is not my conclusion: It comes from close analysis over the last several years by the excellent British blog Eureferendum, which has its own sources in the UK Ministry of Defense. Building blast-resistant military vehicles starts with ancient knowledge: To deal with bombs and shells, you need armored walls that deflect the blast, positioned diagonally to the incoming force. That is why fortifications were built centuries ago with massive, slanted sides.
Blast-resistant vehicles are basically trucks with slanted, V-shaped body hulls. They are very effective in deflecting car bombs and IED explosions, the major killers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, as Euroreferendum constantly points out, armored vehicles must be designed so that soldiers are never seated over the front wheels, which are most likely to set off mines. The US Marines, always fast to adapt, are bringing bomb-deflecting vehicles into the Iraq battle as fast as possible, in preference to vulnerable Humvees. So is the US Army. In Afghanistan, the Aussies and Canadians are also using properly-built combat trucks. Only the British are lagging behind, inexplicably.
After yet another group of British soldiers died in thin-skinned "Snatch" Land Rovers, Euroreferendum just wrote,
"So, while the MoD (UK MInistry of Defense) fritters away its money on "toys" for the RAF and new carriers for the Royal Navy, and while the Army brass wet their knickers in excitement over the prospect of buying expensive new APCs, all under the name of FRES, our troops die, and they die and they die. Hundreds more are horribly mutilated, their lives wrecked forever.
"All this is because these vainglorious, useless organisations elevate their own ambitions and concerns above their primary duty of safeguarding their own people. For their collective failure, which includes the media, they really, really should rot in Hell." The British media are just beginning to catch on. From the Telegraph,
"Dozens of British troops have been killed inside the lightly armoured Snatch vehicles which are being replaced by the more robust Mastiff trucks." But if Eureferendum is to be believed, the death rate isn't just dozens of soldiers but scores. And the Mastiffs are not being supplied in nearly high enough numbers even several years into the war. It's a terrifying tale of incompetence and mismanagement, high in the chain of command.
Soft-skinned rectangular vehicles are not the only equipment failure that Eureferendum has called attention to, time and time again. In Afghanistan, British soldiers live in tents rather than fortified housing, while taking regular mortar attacks. They have not had anti-artillery radar, to pinpoint and strike back at attackers before they run off. Air support has been dismal, helicopters almost non-existent.
Just read Eureferendum's careful tracking of the story and thank your lucky stars for former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, who forced our military establishment to adapt, adapt, and adapt again. The political losers in the US DOD are still screaming, of course, but without ruthless reshaping of our military we would have lost every war in history. Abraham Lincoln reshaped the US Army, and FDR did too. Ronald Reagan forced reorganization in the DOD and CIA. Rummy did it for the WOT, because our military career structure was still tailored for massive army-to-army warfare against the Soviets in Europe.
What we are facing today is the opposite of conventional large-scale war, and much of the career incentive structure in the military has had to change. Special Forces have been elevated to their own command. We've seen scores of hostile leaks from the Pentagon in the New York Times and WaPo, as officers find their careers threatened. The payoff comes in saved lives and vastly improved fighting effectiveness. We overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan using three hundred CIA and Special Forces on the ground, plus precision USAF bombing and a lot of bribe money.
As a result of tough military reorganization we are now much better equipped to apply General Petraeus' newly formalized counter-insurgency doctrine. Yes, the Brits are admirable soldiers, smart and tough on the ground, but their defense careerists back home have been a disaster.
The Basra failure is a mirror image of the Concorde Supersonic Ego-jet, which never made any financial sense, but simply allowed European aerospace to parade around the world, claiming it had the only civilian supersonic passenger jet. Well, that was true. Meanwhile, other airplanes were winning in the market because the Concorde was much too small and expensive for the average air passenger. The Concorde ultimately had to go. It was a pure prestige investment, like all those African palaces that were built by kleptocrat dictators. Post-colonial African governments suffered from a gaping inferiority complex, and so does contemporary Europe. The response is similar.
Instead of preparing for clearly visible dangers today, Europe's military investments are going into giant prestige projects for the future European Army, expensive multinational investments like aircraft carriers and the Eurofighter jet, none of which are ready for combat, while cheaper and more effective weapons systems are ignored. Europe is not facing the Soviet Army; but it is pretending to, so the EU can buy off as many countries as possible with "defense" moneys. (We do the same thing in the US Congress, except that our military actually fights wars. Our voters also have some control over who goes to Congress, while the EU is unelected. So our military must keep their noses to the grindstone. Since Europe is always happy to let Uncle Sam do the hard work in Kosovo and the Middle East, they can get away with a pretend military. But what will happen when Uncle Sam walks away?)
Instead of preparing for counterinsurgency warfare, the most predictable ground war for the near future, the EU wants the biggest, flashiest and most gold-plated toys. The EU Galileo satellite navigation system is soaking up billions of euros just to duplicate the free American GPS system, because Europe must have its own high-tech toys. Compared to the European Union, the US Congress looks like a congregation of virgins.
British soldiers are paying in blood for the decisions of their political masters. Since the UK is being steadily seduced into the EU, the military bureaucracy is being rewarded for all the wrong things. So is every other UK ministry. And the average citizen is asleep in front of the telly.
You can call it poetic justice: While Europe went mad with anti-American rage during the Bush years, the Europeans also sabotaged themselves. Europe has been in massive denial of the terror threat, of Islamic fascism, and of nuclear proliferation to rogue regimes in the Middle East. Instead, they have been marching around like a cock with barnyard matter on its feet, blissfully ignorant of mounting dangers.
Meanwhile a flock of black vultures are circling the fat cities of Europe. We need another Winston Churchill, but all we see today is hordes of political hacks.
US Congress looks like a congregation of virgins.
yeh......72 comes to mind.
Now, WE’LL have to go in there and clean it up. Great.
Leni
The EU Referendum did a great job on exposing "green helmet guy" and staged propaganda from the last Israeli conflict in Lebanon, too.
Regards
ahh the gratitude of our allies. be my guest. lots of threads about the ‘Brits losing Basra’ sourced from various media outlets, it is clearly a popular topic, and gives many people a chance for some good ol’ Brit Bashing.
“The EU Galileo satellite navigation system is soaking up billions of euros just to duplicate the free American GPS system”
True, but GPS is US military and they have the ability to turn block the signal to the rest of the world. In the event of the US and Europe splitting alliances, we would want a dedicated satellite navigation system that would be outside of US military control.
If the US were in a similar position, they would opt for Galileo.
“The Basra failure is a mirror image of the Concorde Supersonic Ego-jet, which never made any financial sense, but simply allowed European aerospace to parade around the world, claiming it had the only civilian supersonic passenger jet. Well, that was true. Meanwhile, other airplanes were winning in the market because the Concorde was much too small and expensive for the average air passenger. The Concorde ultimately had to go.”
I hate this argument. Basically, its not worth inventing if its not going to make money and cant compete in the market. So what if Concorde lost money hand over fist. It was/is a technological tour-de-force, and when it was grounded I felt it was the first time in my lifetime that humanity had taken a technological step backwards.
If US inventors and tech’s are always bound by devising something to make money, then you guys will always be behind the minds in Europe. Given that we have invented everything...
That misses a key element, the Northern Alliance. We depended on them to get the Taliban to concentrate so we could blast them. It was a brilliant strategy. Too bad we haven't found a similar key to defeating the residual terrorists in either theater.
“nuclear proliferation to rogue regimes in the Middle East.”
What about your proliferation to India and Israel, further fuelling the nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan, and the continuous violence in the Middle East? They have fought three wars in the last 50 years, and the bigger the weapons get, the more deadly the next one will be.
Back in the (very) early seventies I went to Quantico as a young Midshipman for an orientation exercise. Part of it was a presentation on what the Marines thought would be the future of warfare and what their mission would be. They presented this same conclusion.
Some of the smartest people I ever met were in uniform.
Are you suggesting that the United States voluntarily gave nuclear secrets to Israel and India? And, if so, are you able to provide supporting documentation for that assertion?
“...Given that we have invented everything...’
Perhaps you should do some research, and see which percentage of the world’s patents originated in the United States.
You don’t, by any chance, work for the BBC, do you? Your brand of twittery has a familiar ring to it.
well if you boys have been watching the news of late, you will note that the US and India recently signed a nuclear agreement to provide India with nuclear fuel for its civilian reactors. A key clause in the deal, at the insistance of India, was the tacit approval of the US to allow India to refine spent nuclear fuel for use in weapons systems. I’m just saying it might not have been the best course of action, given that its arch enemy, Pakistan, might be feeling a little left out.
I’m not going to get drawn into the Israel question, as its too risky. You can alwauys stick your head in the sand.
not really thinking about the patents, mate, more about the major technological advances that have changed the course of humanity.
You know, things like electricity and the World Wide Web.
“You don’t, by any chance, work for the BBC, do you? Your brand of twittery has a familiar ring to it.”
No, I dont. You dont happen to work for Comical Ali do you, your brand of balls has a familiar ring to it!
“....You know, things like electricity and the World Wide Web....”
Except for the telegraph (which was invented where, and by whom?), electricity was just a medium for parlor tricks until the construction of an alternating current electrical system (which was first installed where?)
The “world wide web” was an outgrowth of DARPANET, which was invented by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Extra points for you if you can recall where Tim Berners-Lee was working, when he invented the web browser.
CERN
NO—it was the University of Illinois. The web browser was his thesis project when he was in graduate school there.
He went to CERN after he was at U of Ill.
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.