British Army Chief : I now realise I'm a European, not an American

There is a fascinating report in the Telegraph concerning the tensions between the British and American army leadership during the Iraq conflict. Now as a rule the Barnet Eye doesn't cover national and international politics, there are other bloggers who do it much better, but this is too big an issue to ignore. You see I know people who served in Iraq and lost friends out there. Some are serving in Afghanistan and if this pattern is being repeated, them British servicemen are still dying.

There is a comment from Col Tanner, who served as chief of staff to General Stewart and of the entire British division during Operation Telic 3, from November 2003 to May 2004. He says the following :-

He said: “The whole system was appalling. We experienced real difficulty in dealing with American military and civilian organisations who, partly through arrogance and partly through bureaucracy, dictate that there is only one way: the American way.
“I now realise that I am a European, not an American. We managed to get on better…with our European partners and at times with the Arabs than with the Americans. Europeans chat to each other, whereas dialogue is alien to the US military… dealing with them corporately is akin to dealing with a group of Martians.
“If it isn’t on the PowerPoint slide, then it doesn’t happen.”

They detail how the Americans attacked the Medhi Army and the whole of the British sector dissolved into violence and bloodshed. Even worse :-

Gen Stewart added: “I spent a significant amount of my time ‘consenting and evading’ US orders

So we have British generals openly saying that the execution of the war was mishandled. I'm no expert on military matters, quite the opposite, but it is crystal clear to me that if the generals are carrying on like this, guys in the field will die. Our soldiers have been put in harms way by the lack of cohesion. I don't know if 1, 10 or 100 British Servicemen died as a result of all of this. What I do know is this. The whole Iraq war was based on dishonesty and executed (at a political level) by incompetents. The price was paid in blood by ordinary soldiers. If we can't work with our allies, we shouldn't have been there at all. I suspect that when the dust settles on the situation in Afghanistan, then a similar pattern will emerge. I heard Gordon Brown say earlier in the week that the purpose of the Afghanistan campaign was "to damage Al Qaeda's morale". "What are we fighting for Lads?" - "To give Osama Bin Laden the hump". It's completely bonkers.

Ignorant and mean spirited

It seems that the Hendon Times can't be bothered to put the letters they receive on their website any more (standards have dropped since my blog disappeared!). There is a letter in the paper this week which really got my goat up. As I can't post a link, here's what James S. Fluss has to say :-

Gurkha debt is on foreign soil

I disagree with your claim "Fighting talk to support Gurkhas" that the British people owe a 'special debt of gratitude' to Gurka soldiers.

Firstly, almost none of the conflicts in which the British Army has fought since the Second World War have been to defend British people. Instead the British Army has defended the people of Korea,Cyprus, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

I am sure the Gurkhas fought bravely in all those conflicts, but the beneficiaries if their bravery have been foreigners, not British people. It is those foreigners who owe a debt of gratitude to the British army and Gurkhas.

Secondly, the main reason why Gurkhas have enlisted in the British Army is that alternative well paid work is hard to find in Nepal.

According to the International Monetary Fund, the income per capita for 2007 in Nepal was only $377, making it the 12th poorest Country in the world.

The British Army offers a career which is far more financially rewarding than other possibilities in Nepal.

This is probably the most ignorant and mean spirited letter I've seen in the Times. The British Army fights to support British interests. The reason that the British army is in Afghanistan is because this was the operational hub of Al-Quaida. Sympathisers of this organisation carried out the 7/7 bombings in London. Saddam Hussein was a very dangerous man in a key region of the world. He posed a threat to our oil supplies and our economic prosperity. The rights and wrongs of that conflict are not issues to be debated here, but the army's mission was not humanitarian, it was in support of British interests. The British Army didn't fight a war in Hong Kong, they provided security to a key British economic interest. In Cyprus they supported colonial rule and then provided security to a key military base which allows Great Britain to support it's economic interests in the region and beyond. In Malaysia the army was involved in supporting colonial rule, again maintaining British interests. That leaves Kosovo and Korea. Anyone with a knowledge of history would know that the first world war started in the Balkans. The British army helped to keep a lid on a situation which could have easily escalated. A war in europe would not be good for Great Britain. As for Korea, we were supporting the United Nations in a conflict against a regime and an ideology which was seen as a threat to Britain and British interests.

The British Army's operational strength and the security of Great Britain is enhanced immeasurably by the Gurkhas. I've yet to meet a single military man who has had anything but admiration for the Gurkhas and their contribution. The sheer number of VC's awarded to members of Gurkha regiments speaks volumes for their contribution and our debt. I would be interested to know what James G. Fluss has done with his life to warrant the right to criticise the Gurkhas? Maybe he'd care to show us his campaign medals.

I can think of few groups we have more of a debt to than this fine group of soldiers from a faraway land.