Are US ARMY the worst in the world?

Question

Lets be honest its not the 1st time we have seen this and wont be the last!

how come you never read this about the British Army?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6743409.stm

Answer 1

The British Army is the best in the world, the Americans only know how to fight one way, thats in retreat, without John Wayne and Charlto Heston they would not have even been in the last few wars

Answer 2

In a conventional war, they are undoubtedly the best.

Unfortunately, conventional war (two sides lining up in uniform at each other) no longer exists. War these days is, as Frank Kitson described it, low intensity operations, ie assymetrical warfare.

Previously, a war had very definite aims, ie invade France, destroy Germany. These days the aims are very difficult to measure, such as bring peace to Iraq, make war on terrorists. This requires a paradigm shift which the US Army has not generally accepted, with some notable exceptions such as General Petraeus. The British Army spent 30 years diving around Northern Ireland, which at a guess is no greater than 5% land area of Iraq. From that, they learnt valuable lessons which perhaps the US should take note of. The political dimension cannot be ignored.

Answer 3

No, the US Army are very definitely NOT the worst in the world. They have virtually unlimited budgetary and political backing, which enables them to roll out a breadth and depth of military capability currently unequalled anywhere in the world (and probably for the next 50 years+).

I take it your question really means 'are the US Army the worst in the world for fratricide incidents'? If this is your question, then it would be very difficult to answer. Certainly, the US Army (and their Armed Forces generally) collect and publicise more data on their fratricide incidents than anyone else in the developed world. Also, with the size and military capability of the forces the US are routinely able to put in the field (as opposed to those of European nations, for example), the US Armed Forces are inevitably going to have more of these incidents. Put quite simply, if the UK puts 2,000 troops and 30 aircraft intio an operation, but the US puts in 4,000 troops and 60 aircraft, then the US is statistically twice as likely to become involved in fratricide incidents. That's just simple mathematics, quite aside from any shortcomings in training, procedures, command and control, etc.

The British Army DOES have fratricide incidents, and quite a lot of them - there were numerous examples during both World Wars (as there were for all nations), plus some very serious examples of fratricide in Korea in 1950-53, at Suez in 1956, in the Falklands in 1982, and in the Iraq conflict in 2003.

The US Armed Forces have spent more money than anyone else on trying to reduce fratricide on the battlefield - they have expressed serious concerns over it, particularly in the aftermath of the first Gulf Conflict in 1990-91. Because of their size and their reputation, however, any US fratricide incidents get front-page coverage in the news, whilst those of other countries don't get anyhting like the same level of media scrutiny.

As to the US being the worst nation ofr fratricide? Don't bet on it. Second and third world Armed Forces have nothing like the procedures, training, communications and information systems that the US and European nations have. For example, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a very high level of fratricide incidents amongst the Chinese and Indian forces during their periodic fighting in disputed regions in the past few years. However, they're never going to make front-page news, whereas anything involving the US Armed Forces will.

Answer 4

ever since we kicked the sh1t outta brittain 250 years ago, they hve become castrated. they try to barter peace and get burned everytime. The U.S. military is the strongest the world has ever seen, and if we treated this war like all the wars of humankind, we would have won in a week. Did the mongols, the romans, the germans, the brittish ever care about civilian causalties in war? We are trying to thread a needle, when we should be crushing the roaches and any other bugs that arent smart enough to get out the way.

Answer 5

as an ex british soldier i would have to say no they arent, the americans have one thing a lot of other armies in the world dont a heart and soul.
they dont just tear stuff up for no reason yes mistakes are made but by the powers that be an not the soldiers themselves so leave the americans alone.

Answer 6

There are lots of things we don't hear about the British army, do you really think it's blameless?
How about the atrocities committed in N Ireland, Cyprus, Aden etc etc?
We get to hear many years after the events .
Yes I do know the British have had many atrocities commited against them!!
What I'm saying is the British army are not pure as the driven snow!! Neither is any other army.

Answer 7

The British soldiers are far more superior to the Americans and the American soldiers panic on the battlefield which leads them to killing innocent people.

I wouldn't say the US Army are the worst in the world but they sure aren't the best.

Answer 8

to ilikethixchix we do not all sit around drinking tea and watching benny hill we are in 2007 not 1987!! As far as the question are the US army the worst in the world heck no they are not. Yes there was friendly fire but it happens!! this war is getting out of hand when its going to stop nobody knows but i can still see this question being asked in 10 yrs time!! i don't condone killings of innocent cillivians but there must of been a reason for friendly fire i don't know what but there must of been.

Answer 9

Ask the Iraqi Army of 2003.

Answer 10

When you figure that we have the highest number of bodies currently mobilized in the mideast, "friendly fire" deaths will happen. Factor in the nature of our enemy and use of IEDs and things can be really confusing. The brits have only one fourth as many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't hear about their casualties because the U.S. press is biased and agenda-driven. In essence, they wish to see our men fail to fuel their anti-Bush sentiments. War is never popular, but I'd rather have our professionals fighting them there than in our own backyard!