To win in Iraq, should the Americans learn from the British and switch to 'underwhelming force' ?

Question

Edit from BBC News:

Influential thinking on Iraq comes from US Col John Nagl's book ‘Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife’ (2002). The title paraphrases Lawrence of Arabia: "To make war upon rebellion is messy and slow, like eating soup with a knife."

The book compares the successful British campaign to stop communist insurgency in Malaya with the failure of Vietnam. Colonel Nagl argued: "The British army was a learning institution and the US army was not."

The difference said Nagl, was the British, unlike the Americans, employed "underwhelming force" as part of their strategy.

Col Nagl's ideas were amplified in Military Review (2005) by British Brig-Gen Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who served with the Americans in Iraq: "The US Army has developed over time a singular focus on conventional warfare, of a particularly swift and violent style, which left it ill-suited to the kind of operation it encountered [in Iraq]".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5049214.stm

Answer 1

Brig-Gen Aylwin-Foster hits the nail fully on the head. The Americans only understand total war and seems never to learn the lesson: Modern wars are not fought in this way.

In Malaya the British used small units of highly professional soldiers to kill only where necessary and to win hearts and minds wherever possible. These well-led fighting units knew their terrain and knew their enemy. They worked in amongst the people, in the towns and in the villages and deep in the jungle. More often than not, their successes were measured in the way they turned the local populace against the communists insurgents who'd spread like a cancer through the communities of the Malaysian pensinsula. This campaign was marked by brilliant soldiery - by the bullet and by persuasion. It was the skilful combination of the two that won the day.

Something in the American psyche (often revealed in the macho output of Hollywood) leads them to believe that overwhelming force wins wars and wins friends. It does neither. It has lost them every major military intervention since World War II. And before American respondents say American might won World War II, remember this - Germany's forces were mightier that those of the Allies, yet they lost.

America needs to look closely at itself. With every day that passes its swaggering, gung-ho approach becomes more of a pastiche of the goose-stepping Nazis pre-World War II. The Nazis are reviled and mocked in equal measure now - at once a joke and a horror. One day the America of the early 21st Century may be similarly seen by the civilised people of this small planet.

Answer 2

A lot of the answers here suggest people are not reading fully this clever and thoughtful question.

Some answers can be set aside because they're brain-dead thoughtless or insulting or both (notably K-9 Military, who serves to illustrate the problem with the American attitude). Some think this is about Iraq. They're close, but maybe not quite there.

I think you're asking about the American way of fighting versus the British way and you're using Iraq as an example. Its not a perfect example because the Brits are only playing a bit-part in Iraq. But you do contrast the Malayan emergency with Vietnam. This is interesting.

In Malaya the Brits were fighting the same enemy that plagued Vietnam (in effect the communist Chinese by proxy). The Brits chose stealth and intelligence. The Americans in Vietnam opted for big, murderous war - as is their style.

I lived in Singapore from 1956 to 1971, a time spanning both 'emergencies' and I remember them well. The Brits were always low key, calm, understated (even in the reporting of the actions, good or bad). The Americans were all over our radio bulletins (and later our TV screens) - big action, big hype, always about successes against Charlie. Yet somehow we knew the Brits were on top of the problem and we knew the Yanks were losing. How did we know - it was the word on the street.

Ordinary people understood the Brits were trying to look after the people of Malaya. They didn't necessarily agree with the politics of the Brits and they certainly didn't like the colonialist element (although that was already fading away at this time), but somehow they trusted to the good intent of the British Government and the professionalism of the British soldiers (Gurkhas included). On the other hand, the American's constant ramping up of the Indochinese war sent the message loud and clear - the Yanks were losing. Only the Americans didn't get it. They thought more bombing, more napalm, more Hueys, more troops would sort it. It just made things worse.

Since World War II the British strategy of underwhelming force has won them Malaya and many other African, Middle Eastern and Asian conflicts. The American strategy of brutal, total war has cost the American people in lives, pride and dollars and won them nothing since World War II.

A fine contemporary example of underwhelming force versus overwhelming might - the Brits restored stability and control in Sierra Leone with a small, high quality force. The Americans were humiliated and thrown out of Somalia despite their huge military advantage. Case proven.

America - tell your armed forces to change tactics and become learning organisations.

Footnote: To anyone else answering this question - First read the BBC article quoted by Number 3. Its very interesting and worthy of intelligent comment.

Answer 3

Agree with much of what has been said before and would just like to add one important point.

You cannot train your "shock troops" to kill and win conventional wars quickly, and simultaeneously turn them into policemen and diplomats. They are two very different beasts.

In the WAR phase of this operation who could have wanted a better campaign than that mounted by the U.S forces towards Bagdhad, and the British thru Al Faw up to Basra? Maximum force, speed, agression, and ruthlessness.

That was over in three days. You then need a very different kind of soldier to act as a policeman.

1) You do not use shock troops like Marines or Para's. They are hard men who are trained to kill the enemy under the most extreme circumstances and using whatever comes to hand. Thats the way we like them. They are not policemen.

2) You do not use young national guardsmen or conscripts who are scared to death, because scared people make fatal mistakes.

3) You do not bully or push the locals around, but you are robust with "civil" law breakers.

4) You do not throw candy to the kids as that is patronising and crass. Instead you talk to the adults and treat them like humans.

5) You let indigenous forces take the lead.

So in summary we shouldnt be too critical of the U.S tactics as if I was in a firefight I would be very grateful for some intervention of shock and awe to support me.

Lets not forget as well that us Brits get it wrong occaisonally like when we sent those six military policement to the town near Basra armed only with 50 bullets each, no helmets, no working radio, no grenades and then we were surprised when a mob of 500 Iraqis butcherd them, when the patrol leader tried to negotitate with them.

Answer 4

Americans cannot win in Iraque.The local muslims are mostly against them.The puppet govt has only support of USA and not people.Same thing happened in Vietnam also.Americans had to retreat after a lot of loss of human life to both American and vietnamies.We should learn from past mistakes.The earlier USA withdraws fro Iraque,that will be better for US citizens as well as Iraquis.The only way to win in Iraque is total destruction of entire population by nuclear bomb,which may not be possible in modern times.What I understand from media is that American and British youth and population is against continueing war.Iraque war is just a personal fight between Bush and Hussain,in which thousands of innocent Americans and Iraquis are killed.WE KNOW NOW THAT THERE WAS NO MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS IN IRAQUE AND THE REPORT WAS FALSE,based on which US propelled war was started.Only public opinion in USA and Britain against genocide can restore peace.

Answer 5

Yes softly softly British tactics work well because we work along side the leadership of Basra rather than against it. But we are having trouble right now but I predict it will calm down eventually. Remember it took ten years to put Germany back on an even keel after the war so Iraq will not be fixed in a Year or two it might take another ten even!

Answer 6

The underwhelming argument seems to work, in Sierra Leone, 17000 UN troops failed to keep the peace when 1500 of them where kidnapped by rebels and their weapons stolen,
800 British troops went in and sorted the rebels out, in Somalia (another Vietnam) the Americans failed again the brits were not involved.
However do not suggest this to Bush he might remove his troops from Iraq and leave the Brits to sort out the mess there.

Answer 7

the first thing the British army did when they began policing Basra was to revert back to soft hats as opposed to the traditional hard combat helmet.it eases the tension a little .it tells the people we are here but we do not want any confrontation nor do we expect any we are your friends.its a softly softly approach.that the British army have used all around the world.the Americans seem to act as the school bullies.its like a we are here and you will do what your told attitude.they are far to slow to put down their guns and far to quick to pick them up.gung ho is the word i think for it.you need to gain respect.and you do not get that by shooting first and asking questions later.

Answer 8

No, the allies cannot win in Iraq because the Iraqis don't want them there. British-controlled Basra is now becoming another Baghdad. They should cut their losses and get the hell out of there and leave the Iraqis to fight each other.

Answer 9

i'm American and that i say England has produced the extra perfect bands universal Led Zeppelin, purple Floyd, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Judas Priest, Black Sabbath, Queen, The Who, Deep pink, and a number of of alternative others

Answer 10

When you say win you mean there is a battle . is it ? and to win what ? and to gain what ? and for what reason ? . haven’t you read history ? Occupation is always met with resistance .so why not win the situation politically . don’t you think that if this operation was done with UN approval things would have been a great more difference ? .