I know but, what is their mission, I have seen news footage, on C Span, with American Officers talking to the press with ISAF patches on their ACUs, not only that, and the articles on NATO's website, showing ISAF utility vehicles racing through the desert.

But I am still shocked that Honorable Robert Gates has the nerve to tell the British, who have endured years of war in the Middle East just like the U.S., that they are not doing a good job.

Like I said earlier, we're in denial, so we're blaming everyone else.

I did not serve the army (the history arranged so: long story), but there are few things I think:
1) untill the war is not won - no blames towards allies, event if allies are to blame. Once the war is over, generals may sit round the table, drink beer and diskuss who was "useless" and why;
2) It is too radical to say coutry X troops were useless. Did they sit in their barracks taking no part in action?
3) as it was mentyioned - is it intended to tear NATO? Jeez, NATO experience some troubles today and now - is it supposed a verbal civil war to commence between allies? If allies wage a civil war, what would enemy tell? It will certainly applause: good, you fight amongst yourselves and it would be Al-Qaeda that would benefit it.
And to finish this long post: if honourable General thinks UK troops are useless - let him come to any British unit and command it. Lead that uinit to battle, care about wounded, ask for munition, care about soldiers, plan your attacks, consider your defence...
Maybe then he would realise something not from the maps or PC - from real battlefield?

As well as winning the hearts and minds of the Afghans you've got to win the hearts and the minds of your allies, a concept Mr Gates (and hopefully him alone) has made a complete balls up of.

"come on.. it's the daily mail......."
Lol! One of the best quotes of 2008!

It was not just the Daily Mail it was in most of the papers

You know you're in trouble when you need an excuse for your excuse...

Sad....But true.....

It was an act of stupidity.

It's a hell of a claim. The Brits have a huge wealth of counter-insurgency background, with some very notable success. Just like the Aussie and New Zealanders. I mean we've had Malaya, Borneo, Vietnam, Cambodia, Irian Jaya, East Timor, Bouganville and the Solomon Islands.... and that's plenty of counter-insurgency.

The Brits do things very differently to the American approach, and the doctrine aligns more closely with the Australian methodology. But for some spook to say that it isn't working is stupid (and politically harmful). I believe that the Brits have taken a hell of a lot in the Stan, and the methods are working. The methods may not be as high-impact as the US tactics, but the soft-hat approach does work... it works for us.

The soft hat in fact is probably the right way. You're applying force when and where it is necessary but you're not showing off your entire arsenal everywhere. That pisses people off... and you don't want a supply of pissed off people.