A fairly senior British officer has written a none too complimentary piece about the effectiveness of the US Army in the latest edition of the magazine Military Review, published by the U.S. Army. This will proably have the wingnuts baying for his blood. However, you have to admire the U.S. Army for wanting to publish it.
The story is available in The Guardian, The Independent and via Reuters UK.
'DAMAGING OPTIMISM'
Aylwin-Foster, whose rank equates to a one-star U.S. general, referred to U.S. Army officers' "damaging optimism" that seemed out of touch with a more sobering reality.
"Self-belief and resilient optimism are recognised necessities for successful command, and all professional forces strive for a strong can-do ethos. However, it is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," he wrote.
"Force commanders and political masters need to know the true state of affairs if they are to reach timely decisions to change plans: arguably, they did not always do so," he added.
Aylwin-Foster faulted "moral righteousness" felt by U.S. personnel that "encouraged the erroneous assumption that given the justness of the cause, actions that occurred in its name would be understood and accepted by the population, even if mistakes and civilian fatalities occurred in the implementation."
Aylwin-Foster said U.S. forces in Iraq were more disposed to use offensive military operations than the forces of coalition partners, and U.S. rules of engagement "were more lenient than other nations', thus encouraging earlier escalation."
Aylwin-Foster lauded the U.S. Army's sense of patriotism and its talent, and said it was "in no way lacking in humanity or compassion."
"Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."