Thatcher's legacy - and why America is falling out of love with Britain all over again

Americans think Britian was defeated in Iraq and afganistan

Thatcher's legacy - and why America is falling out of love with Britain all over again

"The British Army is not the force it was 20 years ago,' claims a U.S. general who has held a senior command in Afghanistan.

'It is casualty-averse and lacks boldness. It is too ready to call in air support rather than "mix it" with the Taliban. I would describe most of the British commanders and officials involved in Afghanistan as defeatists.' "

(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod edit: Link fixed
Mod Edit - Headline: Please use the original story headline from your source.

[edit on 7 May 09 by Gools]

Now the war in iraq and afganistan is going badly for the americans and british the bikering starts. The problem in Iraq was the Americans where gun ho, shooting at anything that moved, while the british tried to win the people over with the so called hearts and minds.However this was undermind by two factors, the ameircans and the british government in london. The ameircans wanted the british to adopt a shot first policy and ask questions latter. This the british refused but the americans over rulled them any, so what did the british, packed their bags and left. The americans say ha your running you cannot fight. I hate all this sico fantatic musing of max hastings about ameirica. Does he not know that the US in decline that is why its having its stupid little wars. Thats what empires do and he know this fulll well. The second problem is the british gov did not provide the kit the army need, to the brits was defeated, is a gross insult and a poor ally.


While I totally disagree with the british army being defeated in Iraq, there is not evidence to believe this. I do believe the british are seriously over stretched in Afganistan. There are just not enough men there, and they are dispursed over a wider area. I am reading 3rd Para by patrick bishop www.amazon.co.uk... He desribes the command structure as a mess where, its over loaded to the point of stupid with some many officers about the co of 3rd para its an nightmare and confusing. The british wanted to win people over, sound policy in my view, by giving security, making sure the people feel safe, build infratsturers, like schools and hosptials etc. However this was repeatedly undermind by the americans and the afganistani goverment who wanted a presence in sagin and now zad. The aims of the the command was so confusing yoiu did not know which way is loose you get the american general screaming at the british do this do that, the british say we cannot, then the americans say your not fighing hard enough, the british say we are have fought off 3 times our number. etc and the problems go on . The british are hemmed up in their commpounds, partly because they have not strategy, to do anything about it because everything they try in under mind not by the taliban, the british defeat them easily enough, but they just keep coming back, and this in the end is undermining their resolve. It is clear the british do want to fight this war, the army is under resourced, they feel over worked and tired, when you have 100 men fightin off 100s of taliban, for 11 hours a day for months on end with a on few day break you can see the in the end, they are going to start to break. its appears in the book that 3rd par is fough to exhustian, its hard not enough amo or men. In the book the men where told not to use too much ammo as there are going over there quota and resupplly was difficult. there is not enough helicopters not enough food etc, its a shambles. To tell you the truth the british in helmand are doing a fantastic job there with the resources they have. The uk is not giving them right kit or enough men .


I do get in the impression in the end the british just do not believe in the war and do wish to be there and they are so fed up of the lack of strategy they are just plodding along and when the taliban shows up and its gets a bit too hot they call in an air strike. I feel they are just fed up and want out of the dam country they see no point in being there.

In hastings article he quotes the ameircan general as saying that the brits look down on the afgan soliders, because of our so call imperial attidue. Well its true the british soldiers do look down on themm, for a few simple reason, some are taliban spies, and they do not want to fight and some of them bugger little boys. How can you say to the locals hey we are here for you but are siding with the most hated memberts of society, its does no bold well. The briitsh do respect their taliban and its fighting abilty, now where have i read or seen on tv dispells this image.

Its seems to me the britis have come to realise this war is unwindable not because of the lack of will to fight, but because of the lack of reason to fight, they see it has an ameircan war and nothing else. In the books it talks bout the 3rd para, did saved an american convoy and how they did not respect these particulas soliders while they had great praised for the danish. what do you think?

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1177719/MAX-HASTINGS-Thatchers-legacy--America-falling-love-Britain-again.html]www.dailymail.co.uk[/url ]
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Mulberry


I didn't realize the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was going badly.

Iraq is doing pretty good considering the last few years.

Afghanistan, while not as good as Iraq, is on its way.

Could you post better links to your source.

OK first off why are you saying
"Americans think Britian was defeated in Iraq and afganistan"

That is one commanders point of view. If you reread the article he did not say defeated. He said defeatist. Second by what measure are you saying the war is going bad? Iraq is done we are pulling out and the Taliban are flowing into Pakistan. Where are you getting all of this dribble? As far as the rest of the post may I suggest spell checker?

I'm sorry trying to read the rest gave me a nose bleed.






[edit on 6-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

hi sure


www.amazon.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Max hastings is an historian so what he is writting here is toss. The books link i gave you says the british could not trust the local army or police because they were tipping off the tablian and plus they like little boys too much, ( not the taliban. The command structure is a mess, its so confusing, the americans wanted the british to fight but not build or win people over. The book says the british were continually fighting for six months from day one basically. It got so bad that the briitsh were told to stop using to much ammo, its pathetic. there is alot of tension between the british and the ameircans at high command. In one part of the book is desribes and american general in command telling the brits you are not pulling your weight and wanting to punch a british officer.


I think its plain to see the british are not being out fought they are being drained by too few numbers, no clear aims, not enough resources, and no respect from the americans. The britsh loved the ameircan air man though eeeh

reply to post by SLAYER69


if you would of read the rest then you would of read this quote

"The Americans perceive the British Army as having suffered a defeat. They see us as leaving southern Iraq with our tail between our legs. Contempt for our showing there increases scepticism about what we are achieving, or not achieving, in Afghanistan."

when you say your ally is defeatist it means they have given up or about too and that the above quote says it all.

I can hardly understand you through your poor writing, broken English, and lack of any supporting facts to back up your claims. Sheesh. I'll withhold judgment until after I understand thoroughly.

reply to post by Johnmike


lol then why bother eeeh

Originally posted by Mulberry
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

if you would of read the rest then you would of read this quote

"The Americans perceive the British Army as having suffered a defeat. They see us as leaving southern Iraq with our tail between our legs. Contempt for our showing there increases scepticism about what we are achieving, or not achieving, in Afghanistan."

when you say your ally is defeatist it means they have given up or about too and that the above quote says it all.

I'm sorry was that your opinion or was that from the article?

Because I could not tell from the poor spel oh never mind....

I give up.


[edit on 6-5-2009 by SLAYER69]

A link to Amazon and an opinionated article that doesn't back up any claims or name the "general" is hardly a source.

I can give you a link to a book that says the Queen is one of those reptilian things along with an article stating the same thing.

as for facts i posted the article/link and i have given you the book title and link and its late here in the uk and i hate writting and i am lazy. also you did not read the article at all till.

reply to post by Mulberry


Yes I did read it.

It was an opinion article that didn't back up any claims at all. Who is the "general" that said these things? Is he still in the military? If not did he say these things while he was in the military or after he retired?

I find it amazing that the US "spokesperson" mentions the strategy of relying on air support rather than "mixing it".

I thought this was an American strategy - leading to their Special Forces focusing on purely improving their muscle definition rather than fitness when in the gym! I actually have a fair knowledge of Iraq.

Maybe he should fix the problems internal to his own military - it's divided by race (for example, Hispanics form their own units and speak only Spanish), and one of the biggest problems they have is soldier on soldier rape.

Fix that and maybe his guys would perform better. It's well known that the military in the US is predominantly made up of those who are of a lower social and educational demographic.

And don't tell me...the Americans saved the whole world in WW2 and the Brits should be grateful.

That would have been the case had they entered the fray earlier rather than supporting Hitler's war machine via an IBM subsid, which had on its board a key American government contact who lobbied to keep them out.

The American guy is talking out of his bicep.

America - and Americans - I love you....but sometimes you really do get carried away with your own hype.

reply to post by jd140


mate if you want to argue samantics then lets do and to use poor sophistory as an arguementative point, then please go a head. I have read the book and i have read the article and its all about opinion. Even the people who are there or been there write their opinions but hey if you want to stick you head in the sand and dismiss it please go a head. All opinons are relevant and should not be ignored.

Max hastings is a tory historian, he is a sickotfant of america and slags off the uk but he writes and about afganistan and iraq, and what the americans percieve based on his political views and his experiences of speaking to americans, so his opion is relevant, and the books is about people who have been there done it seen it and tased it. If you thnk thing the book is wrong then get another book or go to afganistan yourself or talk to the former co of the 3rd para and ask him yourself

reply to post by Mulberry


I'm not willing to buy the book to read what he has to say about it.

As for the article. Is it to much to ask for evidence?

The evidence I asked for shouldn't be to hard to come by.

Like I said. I can link you an article stating the Queen is a reptilian and link a book claiming the same thing. Doesn't make it fact though does it?

edit to add- I have been to Afghanistan. The British soldiers are great guys. Have you been lately?

[edit on 6-5-2009 by jd140]

reply to post by jd140


I do not know, article, its up to max hastings to give the name of the general who states this, but the general might of said it to hastings on the baisis of him being not named. I know of max hastings work, he is a military historian and i do not doubt for one minute he would invent this story of the ameircan general not saying this. Go and write to hastings and and ask him to provide his sources, if he says no i cannot then you make your own mind up. Me i believe him, that the general said this. Also gates of the cia said the british cannot fight

all history is bunk and all the bunk is mere opinion. Without opinion were would not know was is happening in the world.


So i could not clearless if it opninated, to dismiss the article as such is rather blatant and narrow minded.

reply to post by Mulberry


So if I posted that link about the Queen you wouldn't dismiss it?

Basically what you are saying is that you believe the article that doesn't provide evidence because you read a book that none of us can read unless we buy it and you want us to take it at face value?

reply to post by jd140


Yes you do have to buy the book if you want to know what is going on and you have to access it based on your knowledge and plausiblity and by qouting oh if the article says it about reptiles do have i have to believe it. well you underminded your argument there, because in this statement you are saying u have to get the evidence, and flattly refused to do so.


The article is an opinon, the soldier who has fought in a battle and gives an statement to that battle is giving an opinion, abit from his perspective, becuase from all angles the room is different. the book is based on primary soucres and witness to the events. If you are not willing to read about it then you have no business giving your opinon and stating that others have not provided you with the evidence just becasue it disagrees and hurts your national pride.

No i have never been to afaganistan and the point is what?

reply to post by jd140


no i got mine from the library its good read and i did not pay a think go and get it from you library. its great



its quite honest. Ah i htought you were british at first your ameircan eeh