You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
US army in Iraq institutionally racist, claims British officer
2006-01-12
Change the references from Iraq to North Africa, Italy or France, and it reads like Montgomery criticizing Eisenhower.
A senior British officer has criticised the US army for its conduct in Iraq, accusing it of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations.

The blistering critique, by Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who was the second most senior officer responsible for training Iraqi security forces, reflects criticism and frustration voiced by British commanders of American military tactics. What is startling is the severity of his comments - and the decision by Military Review, a US army magazine, to publish them.

American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism".
It's a long way from being insensitive (and I'd argue even that) to being racist. I think the good man is projecting.
The US army, he says, is imbued with an unparalleled sense of patriotism, duty, passion and talent. "Yet 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."
As opposed to the British army, which isn't any of these things?
Brig Aylwin-Foster says the American army's laudable "can-do" approach paradoxically led to another trait, namely "damaging optimism". Such an ethos, he says, "is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command".
I haven't served, but as I understand it, the after-action reports are unsparing in criticism and in making sure the higher command hears what's happened.
But his central theme is that US military commanders have failed to train and educate their soldiers in the art of counter-insurgency operations and the need to cultivate the "hearts and minds" of the local population.
Which is working so well in Basra, where the Brits pretty much handing the Sadrists the keys to the place.
While US officers in Iraq criticised their allies for being too reluctant to use force, their strategy was "to kill or capture all terrorists and insurgents: they saw military destruction of the enemy as a strategic goal in its own right". In short, the brigadier says, "the US army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent kind".
Well yeah, 'military destruction of the enemy' is pretty much our goal each time. Works, too. And while one could argue that our Army hadn't trained up in counter-insurgency at the start of the Iraq war, it didn't take long for us to realize that mistake, and we've been correcting it with good results.
Such an unsophisticated approach, ingrained in American military doctrine, is counter-productive, exacerbating the task the US faced by alienating significant sections of the population, argues Brig Aylwin-Foster.
The Brits have been calling our guys 'unsophisticated' since Algiers and Oran.
What he calls a sense of "moral righteousness" contributed to the US response to the killing of four American contractors in Falluja in the spring of 2004. As a "come-on" tactic by insurgents, designed to provoke a disproportionate response, it succeeded, says the brigadier, as US commanders were "set on the total destruction of the enemy".
We do get upset when American citizens are being killed.
He notes that the firing on one night of more than 40 155mm artillery rounds on a small part of the city was considered by the local US commander as a "minor application of combat power". Such tactics are not the answer, he says, to remove Iraq from the grip of what he calls a "vicious and tenacious insurgency".
Handing the south of the country over to Iranian-backed militas isn't the answer either.
Brig Aylwin-Foster's criticisms have been echoed by other senior British officers, though not in such a devastating way. General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the army, told MPs in April 2004 as US forces attacked Falluja: "We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans."

Yesterday Colonel William Darley, the editor of Military Review, told the Guardian: "This [Brig Aylwin-Foster] is a highly regarded expert in this area who is providing a candid critique. It is certainly not uninformed ... It is a professional discussion and a professional critique among professionals about what needs to be done. What he says is authoritative and a useful point of perspective whether you agree with it or not." In a disclaimer he says the article does not reflect the views of the UK or the US army.
I agree with Darley: get it out in the open and talk about it. Now then, some enterprising one or two-star general needs to write a piece for one of the Brit military journals.
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.
Posted by:Steve White

#24  "they treat the wogs differently"
Posted by: Frank G   2006-01-12 18:44  

#23  Well, one cahn't win a battle or a war by killing all of the enemy, now, can one?

What's that you say, General Patton?

Oh. Nevermind.
Posted by: Brig. Parabellum Smythe-Smythington   2006-01-12 18:23  

#22  What, we have too many black soldiers for the Brigadier's taste?
Posted by: Scott R   2006-01-12 17:14  

#21  Anonymoose wrote:
12 The British point of view has long been to engage Arabs, no matter how wacky and hostile their viewpoints. I suspect that this was a sea change for them, from having a far more aggressive approach at the time of General Gordon, which changed to fascination because of T.E. Lawrence.

The British public suddenly romanticized everything Middle Eastern, and their perception of Arabs jumped from "heathen brutes" to "cultured bedouins". This had a major impact in British foreign and military policy after WWI.
Which brings to mind another point... I'm under the impression that in most or all middle eastern countries, the Bedouin are mostly a powerless minority, kind of like gypsies in Eastern Europe. Why does the west keep trying to understand the Middle East via Bedouin culture?
Posted by: Phil   2006-01-12 16:20  

#20  The Brits have been calling our guys 'unsophisticated' since Algiers and Oran.

More like since Lexington.

Actually, the French & Indian War. George Washington complained about that attitude in letters home from the front.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-01-12 15:04  

#19  The old WWII refrain that the Yanks were over paid, over sexed, and over here. To which the boys replied that the Brits were underpaid, undersexed, and under Monty. Monty couldn’t take Massena on schedule, couldn’t take Caen on schedule and couldn’t take Arnham on schedule leaving the airborne out to hang. Now Patton didn’t let the airborne down at Bastonge.
Posted by: Glamble Elmeating6835   2006-01-12 14:42  

#18  Heh, Nimble - the first thing that came to mind after reading your comment was Fred's "We will smite them with soft power!" classic.

I'm afraid that, militarily, they are devolving into chew toys. It was fairly apparent from the MoD document that was posted on RB about 6-8 weeks ago (?) that the political leaders / MoD leaders have decided to opt out of compatibility with the US - and join the EU RRF.
Posted by: .com   2006-01-12 14:08  

#17  We must be able to fight with the Americans. That does not mean we must be able to fight as the Americans.

If Britain does not start investing in systems, especially communications, they will be able to fight neither with nor as Americans but only as Europeans. When that has happened, the British Army will become our most reliable peacekeeping force. Perhaps then we can hand off the ball from our racist combatants to the Euro-sensitive, beret-wearing Brits to peacekeep. Probably a better division of labour and so much more likely to minimize racial tensions.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-01-12 14:01  

#16  Upperclass Twit of the Year nominee?
Posted by: Xbalanke   2006-01-12 13:49  

#15  Pommie Poof!
Posted by: Chuck Simmins   2006-01-12 11:14  

#14  "A predisposition to offensive operations and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on" is a bad thing for an army??? I thought that was a prerequesite!

Shame on the US Army to be made of gung ho, agressive (bureaucratic, lol, I heard this one is true) warriors!
What you need is, well, something more in line with the belgian army... elite paratroopers-hairdressers...

This is weird, I'm always irked by the US stereotypes about suave, nuanced, sophisticated, and ultimately irrelevant and ineffective euros, but this gentleman proves them right.
I'm very conflicted, I think I'll take an aspirin.
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-01-12 11:03  

#13  11AS5 has it right. A-F cites as a benefit the fact that the British Army is always looking to minimize conflict. IMHO, the British military does this because they are afraid, and have been since Suez in 1956, that HMG's political will won't stand up in a prolonged or severe crisis. I'm sure they were grateful for the Thatcher era; she has been the only British PM since Churchill to really show any courage in office. And you can bet your last pound that the officer corps, particularly the senior members, doesn't trust a Labour government any further than you could throw Big Ben. The British military is, for good reason, always wary of being stabbed in the back by its own government.
Posted by: mac   2006-01-12 10:42  

#12  The British point of view has long been to engage Arabs, no matter how wacky and hostile their viewpoints. I suspect that this was a sea change for them, from having a far more aggressive approach at the time of General Gordon, which changed to fascination because of T.E. Lawrence.

The British public suddenly romanticized everything Middle Eastern, and their perception of Arabs jumped from "heathen brutes" to "cultured bedouins". This had a major impact in British foreign and military policy after WWI.

Perhaps the best comparison to their mood would be the guilty feelings many American liberals have towards African-Americans. Translating into both an utterly patronizing attitude, yet one that is utterly forgiving of their social trespasses.

Americans, however, are totally objective to Arabs. We notice their cultural traits, but we still treat them as individuals, not as a "people" with stereotypical behavior hard-wired into their brains. We miss many subtleties of their behavior, but have a certain clarity because we do not factor in such eccentricities.

Our relations with them are thus simplified, and with the expectations that they are just as capable of reaching out to understand us and our ways, as we are to them.

So, the General's mistake is in thinking that we, like the British used to think, see them as unthinking brutes, whose must be punitively supressed as a people; when in fact, we use a "carrot and stick" approach on the assumption that the vast majority of them would far rather live in peace, prosperity and democracy than subjugation, colonialization and oppression. And are quite capable of telling the two apart.

So, ironically, what the General sees as racism, is in fact his own cultures racism, past and present.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-01-12 10:06  

#11  The Colonials really must learn to treat the wog with respect.
Posted by: eLarson   2006-01-12 09:40  

#10  American soldiers, says Brig Aylwin-Foster, were "almost unfailingly courteous and considerate". But he says "at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably intentional, amounted to institutional racism". a refreshing sense of realism.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-01-12 08:20  

#9  The WAPO's take: Army's Iraq Work Assailed by Briton

The orginal Aylwin paper: Changing the Army for Counterinsurgency Operations
warning: 1.2MB PDF file
Posted by: ed   2006-01-12 07:39  

#8  The Brits have been calling our guys 'unsophisticated' since Algiers and Oran.

More like since Lexington.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2006-01-12 05:34  

#7  a predisposition to offensive operations

Well jocko, we saw the cost of a defensive predispositon form you Brits in WWI and WW2, and on 9/11. Basically, you sit o nthe defensive, you LOSE.
Posted by: Oldspook   2006-01-12 02:24  

#6  First impression comment: Here we go again. Some dippy ponce asshole UK officer having ago at the Americans - must be linked to the school tie or bad teeth genes. Why do they just go off like that? You never hear the US Mil slinging shit on them - and you know there have got to be moments when...

Then BAM! It hit me...

2 werdz: Bremer's Book
Posted by: .com   2006-01-12 01:59  

#5  I'd like to note that it is fine for the British to bash the our army in a public manner, but if we returned fire, then we'd be called crass cowboys lacking in tact and nuance.

Besides, we were guilty of institutional racism, moral righteousness, misplaced optimism, and of being ill-suited to engage in counter-insurgency operations back when we kicked his great X10 ancestor Nigel Aylwin-Foster home to mamma - so what's his point?
Posted by: 2b   2006-01-12 01:02  

#4  Oh,Boy. Where to begin?

Yet 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
And this is why we succeed. Despite the bureaucracy.

Brig Aylwin-Foster says the American army's laudable "can-do" approach paradoxically led to another trait, namely "damaging optimism". Such an ethos, he says, "is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command
Workstyle conflict with a bit of projection--he obviously has not sat in on a PLT/company/BN AAR. We tend to handle problems at low level, and let the BDE/DIV/CORPS echlons worry about big picture issues. I would add that he may simply be unable to process that we are actualy succeeding in our AO.

As for the bit about our reaction to Falluja, he missed 1 minor detail: at the end of the exercise, there was a heap of dead jihadis, and none of the survivors since has seriously attempted a city takeover in Iraq since.

in conclusion, I have to concurr with steve. This was projection provoked by one of two things- , he got chopped up in an AAR, or he was feeling the heat from home over the mess in Basra, and didn't care for the experince at all. All in all, a Monty-esqe performance, without the class.
Posted by: N guard   2006-01-12 00:39  

#3  I read the article. The good brigadier makes the racism charge up front and then never addresses it again. It must be some kind or Euro (I know, here I go picking on those poor souls again) Tourette's syndrome: every time you mention America, you must spout out racist or cowboy or some other lame epithet.

He makes some good points. He makes some really bad points. Not every furriner's a de Tocqueville, I guess. It's funny how the Brits always flog us with Malaysia but never bring up the Huk rebellion and our successful suppression of that little conflict during the same time frame. Read the article. It's not that long and it beats the hell out of the WaPo's interpretation of it. Plus you get the added bonus of seeing once again how the MSM distorts everything!
Posted by: 11A5S   2006-01-12 00:22  

#2  "insufferable British snob"

Allied British spade still = spade. I like this Colonel Kevin Benson. ;-)
Posted by: twobyfour   2006-01-12 00:21  

#1  Nigel Aylwin-Foster this is an upper class English snob name if I ever heard one. The military is used as a hammer. Hammers are not used to repair brioken pottery. Aylwin-Foster wouldn't know this since he and his family hire out the under class to do that kind of work.

Racist? I think you need to ask General Colin Powell about that racism thing. How many Black generals does Her Royal Highness have in her Mitilary?

Oh yea hows that giving Basra over to Iran thing going?

"Sod off swampy"
Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom   2006-01-12 00:19  

00:00