British Army Chief: Britain Needs to Prove its Worth to US

[greentoblue]

Gen Dannatt said: "There is a recognition that our national and military reputation and credibility, unfairly or not, have been called into question at several levels in the eyes of our most important ally as a result of some aspects of the Iraq campaign,"
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/05/15/pf-9471501.html
---
Talk about putting things politely!  I just finished reading "The Gamble" by Thomas Ricks, and it pointedly noted that in American eyes the British Army not only failed to control Basra, but retreated to the Basra airport and hunkered into ineffectiveness.  The book also noted that once vocal British military criticism of the US Army tailed off in 2007 due to the contrast between the American operations compared to their's.  Also, I believe the general is obliquely refering to the recent decision by the british government not send more than a Bn of reinforcements to Helmand province despite requests from the Obama adminstration.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Unfortunately, as we know only too well in Canada, an army can only do so much without the support of their government. The only thing 'robust' about Britain's current government is the number of scandals produced by the current government related to expense fraud. Of course, it would be a different story if a Thatcher-like leader were still in power.


Perhaps Obama can be persuaded to support a 'regime change' in the UK next!

 

[Old Sweat]

I am astounded and definitely not delighted by the extent of the scandal involving politicians in both the Commons and the Lords and from both sides of the aisle, including cabinet ministers. The depth of what sure looks like fraud makes anything our politicians have pulled (or at least been caught at) recently look pretty tame. Having strayed off the subject, I submit the Brits do have a credibility problem, and one they were not willing to confront until recently.

There used to be a haughty superiority among the British officer caste that translated into disdain for all things from the west side of the Atlantic. We got used to it, and laughed at it, in the old days when 4 Brigade was 'up north' especially as a lot of it was not matched by performance, with some notable exceptions. That was in the days when the officers almost exclusively were from the upper class twit public schools clique. When the American military was going through a bad spell post Vietnam, there was an awful lot of sneering in the British military journals. In particular I remember an editorial in the British Army Review circa 1983 that actually stated that the reason the Americans always did so badly was that they had no experience with large scale war in the Victorian era. I guess the author forget about the War Between the States and/or did not compare it to the Crimean or South African Wars, or bothered to compare the small war experience of both countries. Anyway, by the mid-eighties the Americans had put it all behind them. The carping by then was not only offensive; it was downright wrong.

I don't like to see any Allied military force go through a bad spell. The Americans had one, and so did we. It appears it may be the turn of the British. Their forces have been reduced to dangerously low levels; if what we read in the press is true, public support is low; the police couldn't even be bothered to provide an escort for a hearse carring a fallen soldier; and the politicians would rather defraud the taxpayer than provide decent kit for their troops in Afghanistan. It will pass. The British army is a remarkable military institution wirh a canny ability to win battles despite the seeming best efforts of its senior officers. In the meantime, what is happening ain't pretty.