Hostility between British and American military leaders (over Iraq) revealed

[Turborama]

Source: Telegraph (UK)

The deep hostility of Britain’s senior military commanders in Iraq towards their American allies has been revealed in classified Government documents leaked to the Daily Telegraph.

In the papers, the British chief of staff in Iraq, Colonel J.K.Tanner, described his US military counterparts as “a group of Martians” for whom “dialogue is alien,” saying: “Despite our so-called ‘special relationship,’ I reckon we were treated no differently to the Portuguese.”

Col Tanner’s boss, the top British commander in the country, Major General Andrew Stewart, told how he spent “a significant amount of my time” “evading” and “refusing” orders from his US superiors.

At least once, say the documents, General Stewart’s refusal to obey an order resulted in Britain’s ambassador to Washington, Sir David Manning, being summoned to the State Department for a diplomatic reprimand - of the kind more often delivered to “rogue states” such as Zimbabwe or the Sudan.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6631239/Hostility-between-British-and-American-military-leaders-revealed.html

[vadawg]

1. no surprise, two totally different military cultures...

[amandabeech]

2. This is an area where Obama might be able to do some good.

Perhaps he could encourage our military to better use all available resources, particularly those on offer by our allies.

The Brits are reliable, they speak our language after a fashion, and they have a long institutional memory in just about every place on the planet, including ours.

Sure, we pulled them out of the fire twice, and although I'm sure they don't like being reminded of it, they haven't forgotten. They would undoubtedly like to pay down that debt. They probably cannot do it in men and equipment (although they did pay the money back), but they can surely make huge payments in perspective and advice if we put the right sorts--patient, respectful and with a good sense of history--with them to hear them out. Let those folks put whatever the Brits say into power points for those who insist that the presentation is the whole message.

After all, they put the grandson of their head of state on the front lines in Afghanistan. Beau Biden is a jag officer--very honorable, to be sure, but a far cry from Prince Harry with a gun and a tank facing the Taliban.

That they still wish to be our friends and allies is all to the good.

[vadawg]

5. nope no one can change the friction between the two sides

its always going to be there just due to cultural differences, it was there in WW2, Bosnia, Iraq etc etc and will be there when we are all dead and buried, as i explained it before, think of the yanks as a baseball team, the brits as a cricket team and they are taking to field to fight an enemy who is playing golf, there is just no way that you can bring the two teams together without there being some problems.. your post shows one of the issues right away, pay down the debt is not something that the British military even thinks about, if you said that to them it would be hell of insulting...

[amandabeech]

8. I would never suggest saying "pay down the debt" to the British,

but I certainly would use it with Americans to get them to give the British a fair shake. The Brits are outnumbered on this board by a huge margin.

Obviously, there are cultural differences. Ike didn't earn that fifth star in the field.

Nevertheless, cricket and baseball have more to do with one another than golf does with either of them in the modern world.

I don't see you writing that the Brits have not been our friends long term, and you admit that they have a different perspective.

Why not do our best to learn from their perspective instead of throwing up our hands and refusing to cooperate? What good is that?

We don't have that many friends left in the world, in part thanks to shrub & darth. If we can patch this up with the Brits, then let's go for it.

[vadawg]

10. im simply giving you a soldiers perspective on the different culture that pervades both

militarys, though i can only give it from one viewpoint the differences are definetly there from the lowest ranks all the way to the top, it dosent matter how much one side tries to communicate harder as overall it wont change the fact that what you are dealing with is two completely different military cultures, it may make it look better to an outsider but you will always have the differences between the two sides...

[amandabeech]

11. Okay, I can appreciate that.

But how would you describe the differences, specifically. Maybe you have examples.

[Turborama]

6. Maybe the 'they owe us' attitude

...expressed in your main paragraph is something that turns them off? Maybe that's the cause of the "arrogance" which created the problems described in the article?

Sure, we pulled them out of the fire twice, and although I'm sure they don't like being reminded of it, they haven't forgotten. They would undoubtedly like to pay down that debt. They probably cannot do it in men and equipment (although they did pay the money back), but they can surely make huge payments in perspective and advice if we put the right sorts--patient, respectful and with a good sense of history--with them to hear them out.

They could just as easily say something like, if it wasn't for "us" sending our settlers over you'd all be speaking French, or the suchlike. What mattered then in Iraq and what matters now in Afghanistan was/is not some historical debt that our ancestors owe each other. Why do people have to keep framing it that way?

Let those folks put whatever the Brits say into power points for those who insist that the presentation is the whole message.

The point Col Tanner was making about the powerpoints wasn't that they wated to be able to have their own ones, they wanted to communicate properly. The British wanted to work together with the US as a team but the feeling wasn't mutual.

[amandabeech]

7. I understand your comments, but I am writing to an American audience.

not a British one. The "we pulled them out twice" is an American response to any dissent by the British in many quarters here. I'm trying to suggest a deflection of that sentiment to the benefit of the British view and to the benefit of we Americans if we could only see it.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear, ironically, but what I am calling for is better communication even if achieved by means that might at some level amuse or offend the British. I expect that they would be better able to see and play along with a motivation that might seem a bit twisted. Or am I overestimating them?

As to the power points, what I am suggesting is finding some Americans who actually can listen and then translate for those who can't. I'm not expecting to change the mindset of the entire American military establishment, and I don't suspect that you do, either.

[go west young man]

20. As a brit living in Georgia who has served in the U.S. marines I have a bit

of a unique perspective on this subject. I cross trained in 1986 in Nato exercises in Norway with British Royal Marine Commandos and believe me they are an impressive bunch. At times I wondered if I joined the wrong army after watching them in action. Compared to our unit they were very serious and worked incredibly well together. My own unit was always hurry up and wait, totally disheveled, arguing. It was at times pathetic.

In regards to WW2 and "pulling them out of it" most Brits will tell you it was Roosevelt who wanted to help and help he did with "Lend Lease". They will tell you that the U.S. congress was nearly half against helping and actually somewhat pro nazi due to American interest in German banking and steel. Look up Prescott Bush and Harriman Steel. The U.S. actually stood by while Britain got blitzed twice. As I said roosevelt wanted to help early. The Republicans prevented him from doing so. Pearl harbor got the U.S. involved but troops initially fought only in the Pacific against the Japanese.

It wasn't until Anzio, Italy that U.S. troops went on the ground in Europe in January 1944. Roughly 5 years from the beginning of the war. Then D-day was the big push in June. From there it was all the way to Berlin. The Americans helped bring about a quick end. But Europeans pay greater respect to Russians who lost roughly 28 million souls. Half of WW2's total loss. America lost 550,000 I believe. Sadly the Russians hung out in Europe afterwards. And unbeknowest to most Americans the English have a lot of respect for the French Resistance. I would venture to suspect that many Americans don't even realize that Hungarians were also fighting brutally for the Axis. Russians considered the Hungarians worse than the Germans.

My overall point is America has a skewered view of WW2 even now. I don't think your rude or arrogant as someone else posted. I just think history is taught differently in America.

One other thing... as an Englishman I consider England to essentially be the 53rd state with Israel being the 52nd. They are states of strategic importance for the U.S. and that's what the U.S. uses them for. England's interest is not truly in the U.S.'s interest. England would do well to wake up from it's slumber. They do have some amazing rock bands with the right idea's though.:)

[amandabeech]

25. I'm sorry if I have given offense.

Actually, your estimate of this American's knowledge of WWII is quite off, but perhaps I'm not representative. I'm quite aware of all the points you made about the European theater, but perhaps the shading is a bit off.

I don't see any other nation as a U.S. state, either in a de facto or figurative sense. If you see Britain as the 53rd state, then perhaps it would be much better if you put a bit more distance between yourself and us, although this American would still like to remain close friends and allies. That is why I wrote in the first place--I am alarmed that our military is not listening to yours. However, perhaps I've learned a bit about communicating with the British from this exchange.

[go west young man]

26. No offence either Amanda.

I'm not picking on you in particular. I'm just pointing out what is general thought in the U.S. in regards to WW2 vs what is taught in the UK. I understand your point was in good spirits. Cheers.

[amandabeech]

27. Cheers. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. I admire Eisenhower much more than I do Montgomery, I admire him, period. His son, too,

whose account of De Gaulle's truculent rise to power from a non-existent power-base, which filled Roosevelt with such rage, was very droll and amusing.

I don't think either Montgomery or Patton can have had much idea of the epic magnitude of the Russians' role in the war, partcularly at Kursk, and wanted to occupy Berlin, before the Russians could get there. Eisenhower evidently did, and understanding the politics, put paid to their ego-trips. It was unfortunate, but realistic.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

12. Ugly American

I'm sick and tired of shit like this.

[amandabeech]

22. Then don't read it. n/t

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Er, no

the First World War would have probably come out the same had the US not gotten involved; in the Second World War, the major turning points against the Nazis came at Stalingrad and El Alamein, well before any American soldiers were fighting against the Germans. So much for having a 'good sense of history'.

[amandabeech]

23. You aren't telling me anything that I haven't known for 30 years.

Do you perchance have something to say about how we and the British might communicate better?

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. Avoiding arrogant nonsense like 'we pulled them out of the fire twice'...

and talk of 'paying down the (nonexistent) debt' might be a good place to start.

[Joe Chi Minh]

29. We don't deserve friends like you, Amanda. We're a bunch of post-

imperialists still clutching to our delusions of grandeur. It sickened me to read columnists in the Guardian, of all places, bringing out the excuse for a joke about the Belgians never having had any famous person. Not true, of course. But it's a nasty, arrogant mindset that I'm sure doesn't go unnoticed in Europe.

[go west young man]

3. Wow... numerous stories on the U.S. and Britain's screw ups in Iraq

in the Telegraph UK. Link here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/ Finally the truth is coming to light and it isn't pretty. The real question is will the U.S. pull it's head out of it's ass and prosecute those responsible for the war crimes and blunders?

[go west young man]

4. One additional link as the Sunday Telegraph has obtained leaked

British Government documents that they will be slow releasing over the next few days as the Chilcot Inquiry goes on. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6628792/The-Iraq-war-files.html There should be plenty of info gleaned from the UK in regards to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crimes over the next couple of weeks.

[JohnyCanuck]

17. Good grief, don't tell me it's a conspiracy!

One of those supposedly rare and seldom seen animals that lurk in the shadows of the deepest, darkest woods and forests and are only rarely spotted out in the open. Most often one just gets to see their tracks and the piles of smelly shit they leave behind them.

Seems King George the Dumber along with his court and his chief adviser...er, manipulator, along with prized poodle and reliable ass licker Phony Tony, conspired to stage a war crime by invading a foreign country against the rules of international law.

[T_i_B]

9. “our ability to influence US policy in Iraq seemed to be minimal.”

Fat lot of good Blair's poodling seems to have done.

[SpiralHawk]

13. Could the Brits have resented Commander AWOL Bush and Five-Deferments Cheney?

The feeble chickenhawk status of the republicon 'leaders' who started the war with a Pack of Lies -- and strutted around pretending to have honor and to be Tough Guys -- would tend to get under the skin of military pros.

[T_i_B]

14. Very few British politicians have ever served in the armed forces

So British military types are more likely to be annoyed by Gordon Brown and Bob Ainsworth at present. Great Britain is not short of chickenhawks in high office.

[vadawg]

15. nope, makes no difference. they are military pros as you put it

its their job to fight who they are told to fight. Professionally i wouldnt give a shit who was in command of an allied force, its nothing to do with me, my job is to do what i need in order to carry out my orders.. and at the end of the day the commander in chief of the UK forces is her maj the queen...

[SpiralHawk]

16. Well, that will make the Republicon chickenhawks feel a lot better

about all the lies they told to start their oil-profits crusade.

[vadawg]

18. dosent make any difference to the British military who is in charge of the US, they follow the order

that are given by HM government.. it wouldnt matter who was in charge of the US there would still be the issues between teh different cultures in the militarys of the UK and teh US..

[sojourner]

19. the US was under the leadership of a pack of IDIOTS ...who can be surprised?

I'm rather amazed to be reading comments that put the Brits in the wrong for their "different" military culture/attitude, or for being resentful of the US in general. But with respect to the OP, I don't believe that to be the case, notwithstanding differences in military mindset and other national resentments. It's not Obama's military being addressed here, it's the BUSH NEOCON crazies who were hellbent on invading Iraq! I think the Brits were simply astounded by the extent to which those people were, well, CRAZY. Except that rather than resist the CRAZIES, Bush's puppy, Tony Blair went right along --