British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said in his address to the U.S. Congress this week, "Past British prime ministers have travelled to this Capitol building in times of war to talk of war. I come now to talk of new and different battles we must fight together; to speak of a global economy in crisis and a planet imperilled."
But although Britain plans to draw down to only a few hundred
troops in Iraq by mid-2009, British troop levels in Afghanistan
are as high as they have been since 2001. Much of the debate in
Britain is still about whether the British have achieved their
goals or lost the political will, as well as what lessons can be
applied in Afghanistan.
"If I had to sum up the debate in Britain about the counterinsurgency strategy, it's a sense of being stunned by the realization that not only have we not done this counterinsurgency flawlessly, but that others, namely the U.S., know how to do it, too… just as well, if not better," says Paul Cornish, head of the international security program at Chatham House, a top British policy research organization. "I've heard it time and time again in discussions."
With their colonial past, the British have a long history of counterinsurgency; a British general coined the term "winning hearts and minds" more than half a century ago.
"For a very long time it's been assumed that the British armed forces were almost genetically predisposed -- could trust in our historical and cultural disposition -- to being successful at counterinsurgency," Cornish said in an interview.
Senior British military personnel used to frequently argue that the British experience in Northern Ireland translated to preparation for Iraq and Afghanistan, but do no longer, Cornish said.
While the British already respected Americans for their fire power, equipment, tactics, and the courage of their troops, they have only recently gained "respect for American doctrine and operational ideas" and a sense that they could learn from the Americans, Cornish said.
"The tables have turned -- lessons and ideas and advice are now flowing back the other direction," to Britain.
For example, the British now have a greater appreciation of varied aspects of the American way – from the use of heavy fire power in counterinsurgency operations to cultural sensitivity training before personnel are deployed, according to Cornish.
The co-author of the U.S. military's "surge" strategy, retired U.S. Army General Jack Keane, said in an interview, "I hope the British will analyze what the U.S. did well and what they can learn from it. The Americans learned a lot -- we had the wrong strategy for three years and almost lost the country, but we had intellectual honesty to face up to it, to change the strategy and put the right leaders in place, and it worked."
Keane and American Enterprise Institute scholar Frederick Kagan's 2006 report calling for a sustained increase of U.S. forces to secure critical areas of Baghdad was largely adopted by President Bush and credited with reducing violence in Iraq.
AEI scholar Kagan agreed that "the American military has earned a new respect in the eyes of our partners" and has heard British commanders and experts say so. "The American military has one of the most successful counterinsurgency campaigns in the history of counterinsurgency, after having screwed it up so badly. And none of our allies have been able to replicate that in their areas either in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Kagan expressed concern that British political leaders from all parties are not making a strong enough case to the public that "Britain's core national interest and security are tied to success in Iraq and Afghanistan." He added that British tolerance for casualties has not been fully tested, because progress did not accompany high casualties in Basra.
The British had a peak of 46,000 troops in Iraq. British troop levels in Afghanistan are now about 8,300 -- as high as they have been since 2001– making Britain the largest contributor of military personnel behind the United States.
General Keane said, "These irregular wars are very protracted by their nature and if you're going to get involved, you have to realize you must make progress to keep the political will." Progress toward goals and objectives must be constantly reevaluated and political support needs to be cultivated at home.
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Grant Johnson| 3.9.09 @ 9:32AM
In reading about the British areas of Iraq and Afghanistan, I was always struck by the contrast between the British and American approach. Even when the US was doing poorly, our troops were trying to get the bad guys and promote democracy, freedom and decency. The British seemed to just camp out and let the locals do whatever they were used to doing. They seemed unwilling to "impose" their cultural norms.
I think the biggest obstacle the British face is the lack of conviction in their own society. You cannot advocate for good or fight evil if you have forgotten how to discern the difference, and lost interest in trying. A military will not be effective in advancing freedom when the society from which it draws its recruits is itself ambivalent about freedom.
John| 3.9.09 @ 10:49AM
Agreed, Grant. This is why western Europe as a whole is dying. Moral relativism, non-judgementalism, anything-goes-as-long-as-you're-not-Christian-ism are prevalent here.
Unfortunately, the same has been happening in the US too, though it's not quite as far gone. However, Obama will 'change' that for you guys!
O. Cromwell| 3.9.09 @ 2:18PM
British success in Northern Ireland was accomplished by appeasement to the IRA. They tried the same approach in Basrah but were called on it by the Americans.
Michael Tomlinson| 3.9.09 @ 3:24PM
The British military is on the slippery slope of becoming another useless European civil service in uniform. Despite being well trained with competent if unexceptional leadership they are underfunded, ill equipped an unappreciated by their civilian leadership and people. It wouldn’t take much to make them little more than another pathetic European mockery of a fighting force.
To make matters worse their civilian leadership is insipid and pathetic. Barack Obama insults and treats Gordon Brown insolently and what does Brown do? Sticks his head up Obama’s ass and tells the world everything is sweet smelling with Obama as “world president.”
Hopefully, the need never arises for the old British Lion, because all we’ve got now is a tabby.
Molon Labe| 3.9.09 @ 4:50PM
Michael, as an American I was appalled by Obama's treatment of Brown and the return of the Churchill bust.
Appalled, but not surprised. Those of us who were paying attention understood that he's a radical leftist who grew up in the thuggish local politics of Chicago - a corrupt Democratic empire - and who has never run any organization. Ever.
I was bemused and dismayed at the starry-eyed, religious fervor with which Europeans and British alike hailed his candidacy and openly, gleefully, hoped for his apotheosis.
Well, world - you've got it, as have we. And the damage is just beginning. Those who applauded his disdain for American power and heritage are just beginning to find out that he has little respect for yours as well.
And speaking of respect - from what I've heard the ranks of British military deserve it, although the senior leadership is abyssmal.
Jon Wright| 3.9.09 @ 8:33PM
I was saddened to hear that Obam..ma removed Churchill's bust from the White House. Since I named my son after Churchill, do you think Barry will give me the unwanted "trash"?
Christopher Holland| 3.9.09 @ 11:31PM
How on earth did the British ever get a reputation for excellence in fighting terrorism? They surrended to the IRA and the IRA still shows its contempt for them by killing them. The experts on fighting terrorism are the Israelis but fat chance anybody will ever talk about that.
Pingback| 3.10.09 @ 5:34PM
American Enterprise Institute Images links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 3:02AM
Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.