"the quick solution is often the wrong one."
- From: goodgutgut@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 11 Jan 2006 18:13:38 -0800
US Army publishes British attack on Iraq tactics
A senior British officer has written a scathing critique of the US Army
and its performance in Iraq, accusing it of cultural ignorance,
moralistic self- righteousness, unproductive micromanagement and
unwarranted optimism there.
ThomasRicks
Thursday, January 12, 2006
A senior British officer has written a scathing critique of the US Army
and its performance in Iraq, accusing it of cultural ignorance,
moralistic self- righteousness, unproductive micromanagement and
unwarranted optimism there.
His publisher: the US Army.
In an article published this week in the army magazine Military Review,
British Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was deputy commander of a
program to train the Iraqi military, said US officers in Iraq displayed
such "cultural insensitivity" that it "arguably amounted to
institutional racism" and may have spurred the growth of the
insurgency. The army has been slow to adapt its tactics, he argues, and
its approach during the early stages of the occupation "exacerbated the
task it now faces by alienating significant sections of the
population."
The decision by the army magazine to publish the essay is part of a
broader self-examination occurring in many parts of the army as it
approaches the end of its third year of fighting in Iraq.
Military Review, which is based at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, along with
many of the Army's educational institutions, has been part of that
examination, becoming increasingly influential and pointed under the
editorship of Colonel William Darley. In the past two years, his
magazine has run articles that have sharply criticized US military
operations in Iraq. A piece by then- Major General Peter Chiarelli
about how to better counter the insurgency has become required reading
for officers deploying to Iraq - especially since Chiarelli was
selected to become the No2 US officer there.
But none of the earlier articles has been as bluntly critical of the
army as the essay by Aylwin-Foster, whose assessment is also unusual
because it comes from a senior military commander with the closest ally
the US government has in Iraq.
The army is full of soldiers showing qualities such as patriotism,
duty, passion and talent, writes Aylwin-Foster, whose rank is
equivalent to a US one- star general. "Yet," he continues, "it seemed
weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a
predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required
all issues to be confronted head-on."
Those traits reflect the army's traditional focus on conventional
state-on- state wars, and are seen by some experts as less appropriate
for counterinsurgency, which they say requires patience, cultural
understanding and a willingness to use innovative and counterintuitive
approaches, such as employing only the minimal amount of force
necessary. In counterinsurgency campaigns, Aylwin-Foster argues, "the
quick solution is often the wrong one."
He said he found that an intense conformism and over-centralized
decision making slowed the US Army's operations in Iraq, giving the
enemy time to understand and respond to US moves. And the army's can-do
spirit, he wrote, encouraged a "damaging optimism" that interfered with
realistic assessments of the situation in Iraq.
"Such an ethos is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from
reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," Aylwin-Foster says.
A pervasive sense of righteousness or moral outrage, he adds, further
distorted military judgments, especially in the handling of the
fighting in Fallujah.
Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who runs much of the army's
educational establishment, and also oversees Military Review, said he
does not agree with many of Aylwin-Foster's assertions.
But Petraeus, who commanded Aylwin-Foster in Iraq, said "he is a very
good officer, and therefore his viewpoint has some importance, as we do
not think it is his alone."
Reflecting that ambivalence, the article was published with not one but
two disclaimers which make clear that the views expressed do not
reflect those of the British government, the British military, the US
Army, its Combined Arms Center or Military Review.
"I think he's an insufferable British snob," said Colonel Kevin Benson,
commander of the army's elite School of Advanced Military Studies,
referring to Aylwin-Foster.
"I think he's overstating the case," said another military
intellectual, retired army Colonel Gregory Fontenot, who led US forces
into Bosnia in 1995. But he added, "whether he's right or wrong, what's
important is that the army understands it has a problem, which it
does."
Aylwin-Foster, who is now on assignment in Bosnia, said early reaction
to the article that he has heard has been favorable. "The Brits
approve, those that have read it," he said.
Darley is holding his ground. "We've had some very strong reaction as
to why the Military Review would even consider publishing this," he
said last week. He said he does so because he wants "to win the war" in
Iraq.
THE WASHINGTON POST
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Have they totally forgotten HK government's efforts for DECADES to ban the import of Japanese porno which is now Chinese porno!? I have NOT forgotten.
- Next by Date: Re: Have they totally forgotten HK government's efforts for DECADES to ban the import of Japanese porno which is now Chinese porno!? I have NOT forgotten.
- Previous by thread: Have they totally forgotten HK government's efforts for DECADES to ban the import of Japanese porno which is now Chinese porno!? I have NOT forgotten.
- Next by thread: Over 50% are speculators from HK: "I think it'll take at least three years before the property market becomes healthy again,"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
