| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Britain | |
| Fury as US SecDef says Brits can't fight insurgents | |
| 2008-01-18 | |
| |
| Posted by:Seafarious |
| #15 You're happy with the way "Washington insiders" run the World, Pappy? No. What part of 'duplicitous' did you miss? What I mean by 'insider' is that Gates is not a neophyte. His remarks weren't amateurish, off-the-cuff or I-want-to-be-friends-with-the-press. He said what he did because he intended to. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-01-18 22:54 |
| #14 Uh, isn't this rank insubordination? How's that different from what they do in the State Department? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-01-18 20:31 |
| #13 Gates is a long-time Washington insider. Duplicitous perhaps, but certainly not naive. You're happy with the way "Washington insiders" run the World, Pappy? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-01-18 17:57 |
| #12 Well, yeah; and don't forget that little ting involving the sailors and the Iranians a few months back. that was a real fight ( pansies) |
| Posted by: USN,Ret. 2008-01-18 16:08 |
| #11 The Brits have a damnable belief that they *understand* Muslims, and especially Arabs. This is a very bad habit, and self-delusional. It leads to several nasty mistakes. First of these is encouraging them to do things "their way". "Their way" sucks, and is the reason they have been an utter mess for so long. They desperately need a "new way" of doing things. Part and parcel to this is trying to support their failed and repressive regimes, tribalism, and Sharia law, instead of offering them better alternatives. This is reinforcing defeat instead of giving them the tools to extricate themselves from the morass. Americans come in acting like they know nothing about the locals and their customs, and in many cases, they don't. But this means that Americans treat *everyone* objectively. If they behave, they are friends, if they attack, they are enemies. What the locals say is meaningless, compared to what they do. They treat everybody, from the "High Potentate and Poobah, descended from the Prophet Himself", to the filthy street beggar, equally. They each have to justify themselves to the Americans, before the Americans will give a hoot. And truthfully, it is a lot easier for the beggar to do so, because he is just a victim of the problem, not part of it, like the HPaP. Americans also note that if the filthy street beggar can muster a hundred more filthy street beggars, all of whom have AK-47s, he has more *juice* than the HPaP who *promises* 10,000 soldiers, but can't deliver 100. Americans also point out the glaringly obvious, usually stupid things the locals do, that they don't even know why they do them, and just need some outsider to point out that they are stupid. This may not sound like a whole lot on the surface, but it is a cultural difference between the Brits and the US in how they do business. It permeates their ranks, from the top to the bottom. And though the Brits point to Basra as a great success story, Gates looks at it as a lot of wasted opportunity for productive change that would have helped Iraq in the long term. The Brits just shrug and say, "It's the Arab way". But the Arab, and the Muslim way, sucks. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-01-18 10:36 |
| #10 The US general Dan McNeill, commander of Nato troops in Afghanistan, called the British ambassador in Kabul as soon as the story broke to assure him Mr Gates was speaking out of turn. Uh, isn't this rank insubordination? |
| Posted by: KBK 2008-01-18 10:10 |
| #9 Yes indeed, the Poms certain put the "P" in the term asymmetric warfare. Quite. OTOH, Gates is a long-time Washington insider. Duplicitous perhaps, but certainly not naive. Methinks this controversy was deliberately constructed. Also, note that there's been silence on the Democrat side. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-01-18 09:44 |
| #8 Gates should take Chirac's advice (shut up) and withdraw US troops from those nations he finds deficient. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-01-18 09:06 |
| #7 Besoeker: put the "P" in the term asymmetric warfare. Pls explain? |
| Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar 2008-01-18 09:02 |
| #6 Well they sure as hell don't fight them at home. The loss of all their colonies proves the SecDef's point. |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2008-01-18 08:18 |
| #5 Is it true or false? |
| Posted by: Snort Hatfield4713 2008-01-18 07:06 |
| #4 Read Pundita's explanation of the British approach (multiculti to keep a thin veneer of control over the natives/colonies) vs. the US understanding that we need to defeat the insurgents & transform the country. As she points out, the British approach is by far the easiest and least expensive --- in the short run, and when the natives don't acquire, for instance, nuclear weapons. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-01-18 05:58 |
| #3 I dunno. Everyone seems to be able to fight just fine. When they want to. |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-01-18 05:06 |
| #2 One senior western diplomat said: "The British have demonstrated that they have a better understanding of the Afghan people than the Americans." "Understanding" may in fact be quite accurate, but please tell me once again how both the first and second Anglo-Afghan Wars ended? Yes indeed, the Poms certain put the "P" in the term asymmetric warfare. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2008-01-18 03:10 |
| #1 Gen. Eisenhower was pretty good at avoiding such problems a while back. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2008-01-18 02:31 |