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.
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.