British Officer challenges American tactics in Iraq. - Page 2




 
--
 
January 17th, 2006  
Anid
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
namely the feeling of superiority because of the overwhelming power displayed by our armed forces and the question of the role of blacks in the military.
This very much is not fair statement. Black has role in U.S. army. U.S. army is very much not the great rasist as some, you beter believe.
January 18th, 2006  
Insight
 
 
I read the actual article by this guy today at work. He actually criticizes the US Army for it's doctrinal focus on engaging and defeating the enemy. He claims the Army should look to temper the "warrior ethos" that imbues US Forces.

I think he's off the mark. What he talks about is a need for an organization that is NOT the Army and NOT the military. He criticizes the Army for being exactly what they set out to be -- an unstoppable conventional ground force. He does critique the bureaucratic nature of the organization, but look where he's coming from. He's talking about an organization that he is not a part of, that he didn't grow up in, that he only partially understands.

I think the guy is a putz and the only reason he's getting any attention is because he wrote something that was critical. Countless pieces have been written in journals around the world that positively depict what the Army is doing. This guy writes a hatchet job and he's the darling of the press. Eff him.
January 18th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
Lets face it we all approach a problem a different way, the thing is to get the job done. Now we have had American advisor's working with the British and visa versa. Now they have all found things to criticise as our operations are very different, but it is only by talking and debate that we might get to find the best policy for dealing with these troubles. Now the person that will win this war will be the man on the ground, and the person leading him needs to be able to make decisions on the ground that work. Now it is all well and good for some Brass sitting in an office in Washington trying to run the war just the way he did as a young man in Vietnam. This is a different war and needs different tactics, where air power and heavy artillery play a much smaller role than they did on the invasion or in Vietnam. Now was this report made to hurt the American Army or was it observations made by this Officer to his senior officers and has been released to the press by some one trying to make a point. Remember that a Major in the National Guard put in a damming report on a British Lt/Colonel that lead to him be suspended pending a Court Martial until it was found to be false all because he got told off.
--
January 19th, 2006  
Insight
 
 
It doesn't matter. Having this guy critique the US Army is akin to a homeless guy comment on how General Motors is being run. I'm sure it's interesting to hear, but ulitmately irrelevent since he can't fathom something so far beyond his own experience.
January 20th, 2006  
LeEnfield
 
 
When you are on secondment to another Countries Army you are often asked for report on how you found things, the good bad and the ugly. Now the question is should he be honest in what he found or should he lie so that he does not upset some peoples feelings on military forums
January 20th, 2006  
PJ24
 
 
I don't see what's so bad about the original paper. The news article as someone else already pointed out is obviously rife with bias and full of an agenda.

I think it's good to get outside opinions, doesn't mean that we have to change how we work to fit their ideals. The Gen. brings up some good points and some points are lost in his own personal perspective.

There are a lot of things we could be and should be doing differently to counter the insurgency in Iraq. That certainly doesn't mean that a transition away from conventional is appropriate but there is nothing wrong with a little more training on MOOTW (Military operations other than war) and COIN (counter insurgency) operations. We need to look at our tactics see what works and what doesn't and stop using what doesn't work (ie mounted static patrols) and we need to cut some of the politics out of the command and staff level.

As for the racist comment, even though it wasn't as bad in the paper as it was in the news article, all I can offer for reply is: "Gurkhas."
January 20th, 2006  
Missileer
 
 
Obviously, during WWII, Patton and Montgomery were on different pages and weren't very quiet about it. Their tactics came out of different educations and experience. Thank God Ike put General Bradley in Patton's job. At least Bradley and Montgomery were more open to each others style of command.
January 20th, 2006  
Insight
 
 
I'm just amazed that the press and others jumped all over this guy as the grand sage of ulitmate truth without looking at his own background or perspective or mentioning that his critique of the US Army may be colored by his own perception of the US as an non-US member working along side him.

Why is it that only the critical pieces get the air time? What makes this guy such a darling or any smarter than the thousands who've praised what they've seen of US forces.