We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Under pressure It has been reported that the 700 strong 1st battalion of the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment has been in contact with the enemy every day for the past six weeks, racking up 250 seperate combat incidents.
Capt Justin Barry, a military spokesman, is quoted in the Daily Telegraph:
The fighters engaged were basically terrorists and gangsters – people who are out to destabilise the area, drive out the Coalition and suck as much out of Iraq as they can. But at the end of the day, we got the better of them. The Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment were engaged in very heavy hand-to-hand fighting and bayonets were fixed. There’s a great sense of satisfaction among the men with the way this turned out.
Indeed, but no thanks to Tony Blair. The fact the government has not greatly reinforced UK forces is nothing short of a national scandal.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Were we not in the same boat I’d think that putting some US troops under British command would be at least a stopgap measure. Unfortunately it’s a moot point.
I doubt TB can reinforce them or anything in Iraq at the moment. Not when the Labour back-room boys have decided to put the blame on Iraq for the crap election results. I recognise why they’ve done it – a transparent ploy to push blame onto something “over and done with” so that they can claim a “fight-back” later. But that bodes ill for the warlike folks here – the excuse won’t wash unless the Iraq war actually IS “over and done with”. I suspect they’re planning to declare victory, tuck tail and run.
“…very heavy hand-to-hand fighting and bayonets were fixed..”
Very gallant, very brave, but unneccesary and unwise.
The privilege of a hand-to-hand fight should not be given to the fanatic terrorists. Superior fire power and technology should be used to keep the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment’s brave soldiers out of harm’s way.
“Very gallant, very brave, but unneccesary and unwise.
The privilege of a hand-to-hand fight should not be given to the fanatic terrorists. Superior fire power and technology should be used to keep the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment’s brave soldiers out of harm’s way.”
IIRC, the bayonet charge was made in a situation where a british unit had run out of ammo.
I was rather under the impression that the whole point of an army was to have something that actually does get in harm’s way…
EG
Tell me, Perry, how many years did you spend in command of counter-insurgency troops? Do you have the appropriate clearance and access to receive and interpret actual operational reports? Or are you just reading the Telegraph and the Guardian?
Honest to God, I’m growing so tired of non-military people running around with their hair on fire, repeating the current Received Wisdom — which generally comes from others of the tonsorially inflamed.
Simply put, the level of casualties that both the Brits and the US soldiers have suffered indicate that they are the result of opportunistic attacks. More soldiers would be very unlikely to improve the tactical position — there aren’t any pitched battles to be had, and it’s small units in small unit tactics that are engaging. (If they’re fixing bayonets and engaging hand to hand, that is by definition small unit tactics.) But if there were more soldiers, that would mean more opportunities for opportunistic attacks and therefore more casualties.
This has been explained at length by the commanders on the ground; it’s the armchair admirals who think reading a lot means they know better. Even now, when there is talk about increasing the troops in theater, the increase is only about 5 to 7 percent — and if you look more deeply, you’ll find they’re not looking for combat arms, but bringing in more MPs and the like.
IN the last few days, someone — LT SMASH, maybe? — referred humorously to the noted military authorities at Samizdata and Andrew Sullivan’s blog. This is basically another example.
Well, Charlie, I can’t speak for Andrew Sullivan, but we do have a genuine military source on the blog although he does not appear regularly. It’s our Man in Basra(Link), a British Army officer, a professional soldier, not a reservist, who served in Iraq and is well aware of the stuff you talk about…
Finally, if you disagree with what we are saying, give us your point of view in a civilised and succint manner, if you feel compelled. You seem to confuse us with someone who cares about you being so, oh, so tired of armchair admirals, sob, and as a result we do not respond well to personal attacks.
Charlie, Perry is just setting up a “if they listened to me and did it right, like I told them to, then Iraq would have worked out the way I predicted, so that failure is not my fault” defense. Its like the post-USSR socialists blaming poor implementation of socialist ideas instead of socialism for that Big Government Failure. Its just CYA – nobody really gives a damn if Blair sends more troops or not.
I rather think the soldiers there do give a damn
I’d love to hear from your man on the ground in Iraq, but from what you’ve pointed to, it sounds like he’s saying the same thing I’m hearing from other actual real live sources in Iraq rather than some second-hand whinging.
In his particular case, the facts are simply not on Perry’s side: the commanders on the ground haven’t been asking for lots more soldiers, and lots more soldiers wouldn’t have helped in the situation the Royal Scots faced. It was a lovely bit of eloquence, but ignorant eloquence is still ignorant.
Ignorant eloquence demanding something damaging is more damaging yet.
In the mean time, Gabriel, if I’d have meant to be nice I would have.
I don’t understand how reinforcing the troops is supposed to diminish the amount of fighting, unless by “greatly” you mean enough to picket the entire region. Leaving aside whether it would be desirable or sensible to take the Boer War approach, I don’t think Britain has had that many troops for a while. If the idea is to reduce pressure on the troops by rotating them or improving supply, then even that may be hard to find resources for.
Perhaps we should be pleased there is fighting. That’s what soldiers are trained for, after all.
Charlie: Your ill informed remarks does not really deserve a reply but what the hell… if you think the British forces in Iraq are well supplied and manned, you talking out of your arse. Which indeed you are. There have been a constant stream of reports from military people in Iraq about how there is not even enough body armour to go around and how manning levels are extremely tight. This is all well known and well publicised information.
Amen to that. And Charlie, what makes you think that you can comment on situation in the British Army?
Being nice is not an issue, informed and civilised is…
Charlie (as in “a right Charlie”) is a ignorant wanker. All the squaddies I know who have been out there (I have not) say the same thing, that they have to cannibalise and share kit because HMG keeps them so starved of funds.
Whether the UK needs to send more bodies and whether they need to ship over more body armor are two different issues. You can say more people wouldn’t help, but the body armor would. Charlie’s comment was about the number of men. The warmongers calling him an idiot are trying to shift the argument to the amount of supplies and are putting his “we don’t need more” comment into that different context.
EG,
“I was rather under the impression that the whole point of an army was to have something that actually does get in harm’s way…”
Well, EG, the point of an army is to get the results you look for with minimum harm to our boys. The result is what matters.
“…a british unit had run out of ammo”
That should not happen, unless someone in the military failed miserably at his task, for which he should be promptly fired and sent home.
I don’t know if more soldiers are needed; if so – are they available ? And is there enough equipment for them ? Ultimately the Government and the ministry of defence are responsible for these matters, but I suspect they neglected the Army to the point of criminality and Britain isn’t that different from France and Spain i.e. impotent.
“…a british unit had run out of ammo”
Some things just never change, and some people just never learn. The exact same thing happened in Korea, – now how many years ago was that? – There was a unit, the Gloucesters, I think, surrounded on all sides, and yes, you guessed it, they ran out of ammunition. What did they do? , why they ended up throwing beer bottles, (empty, of course).
A VC was awarded to Private Speakman(?), who then made the rounds trying to persuade us conscripts that the Army was a worthwhile career and trying to empty every other beer bottle that crossed his path.
A great example of the ‘salt-of-the-Earth’ type who are the backbone of the Army. Nice man…
NIfty example of changing the subject, guys. You want to complain that they should have more stuff per soldier, I’m right with you.
But you didn’t. You complained that Blair et al hadn’t “greatly reinforced” British troops. “To reinforce” is a term of art that implies providing more personnel; as it is, it’s apparent that the British Army can’t supply the materiel support for the people it’s already got. Sending reinforcements would just make the problems in supply more difficult.
Of course I suppose you may have thought “reinforce” meant “re-supply” … but that rather makes my point for me, doesn’t it?
Actually, from the face of it, it looks like the regiment is doing just fine. I mean, no fatalities in 6 straight weeks of contact? They’re doing just fine. It also doesn’t sound like they’re dealing with the IED’s that the US troops are getting peppered with, and has caused the greater share of deaths among the Americans.
Bayonetting people? Seems to me to be a time tested tactic of the British Army. And apparently works, too.
Some girl (I don’t remember which) once famously said: a girl can never be too thin or too rich.
Here’s an extension to it: no General can have too much troops.
As I notice I’m being referred to, under my psedunym “Our Man In Basra” (not where I’m working now I should say) I thought I would throw my two-pence worth in.
More equipment? Absolutely, enough personal radios, body armour, working LandRovers- I could go on for hours. (In fairness, where I was the food was excellent). Some more helicopters would be hugely useful, but beyond fantasy as a hope.
However, more troops- abso-bloody-lutely. I can’t comment in detail for reasons that I take to be obvious, but to give generic examples of why more troops would be useful in a counter-insurgency-
More patrols, at more frequent intervals, so you can dominate the ground, throw uncertainty into your enemy, and essentially take the initiative. As all the military experts commenting above must know, having the initiative is the key to winning any kind of military confrontation. And if all your troops are tied up guarding your bases and vulnerable points, you can’t do anything to get the initiative. You can’t reduce the number of bases (much) or vulnerable points, so you need extra troops. QED.
More (reliable) troops to guard the vital infrastructure, i.e. the electricty and oil lines. Not necessarily by sitting on them, but by frequent unpredicatable patrols.
Troops to act as dedicated QRF (Quick Reaction Forces), so that you can react rapidly to any enemy action- so that eventually he learns that any attack by him gets a very rapid response, thereby reducing the scale and effectiveness of what he can try.
More guards for your own installations- not necessarily to boost the number on guard, but so you can rotate them more regularly, and keep them fresher/more alert.
Crowd control. One man with a machine-gun can shoot a loot of people. But if you need to control a large angry crowd with sticks and stones, and you don’t want to shoot- well then you need a lot of hard men with batons. Crowd in Iraq are in the 100s and up. That means you need a lot of troops- crowd control is labour-intensive. Unless you want to take the capital-intensive solution, and start shooting.
I’m sure readers can think of plenty of other tactical uses for extra troops. At the higher level, the more troops you have, the better you can rotate them and manage their morale, thereby avoiding the kind of cynicism and depression (“I hate this hole, I’ve been here 9 months, I’m exhausted and I’m not leaving for another 6 months. Who gives a shit what happens to the Iraqis?”) that undermines the basis of counter-insurgency, hearts and minds. The British rotate our troops far more frequently than the Americans (average 4 months versus over a year), which IMHO is one reason for our relative success at hearts and minds.
The idea is not to carpet the country with troops, Boer War style- although it’s worth noting that such an approach would actually work if we had enough troops. No, the idea is to have enough troops to do what we are doing now effectively.
Charlie- “But if there were more soldiers, that would mean more opportunities for opportunistic attacks and therefore more casualties.”
So, if there were no troops, there would be no opportunity for opportunistic attacks? True, but the point is not just to minimise casualties, or else why go there? The mission (should) come first, followed very closely by what are American cousins call “Force Protection”. And that means you need enough troops to do the job. In this case, the job isn’t protecting our troops, it’s protecting the poor average Iraqi from all those who seek to prey on them, from ex-Saddamites to gangsters to religious fanatics (or at least those who claim religious backing for their own grab for power).
There is an amount required to do the job. At present it might be thought that a great deal of what we are doing is being driven by a desire to minimise our troops numbers and expense, rather than to actaully do what is best for Iraqis (and in the long term for us).
Of course, one way to make do with fewer troops is to use what are known as “force-multipliers”, anything that increases the effectiveness of your troop numbers. A good example is the helicopter, because it enables you to dominate larger areas of ground with fewer troops. But the UK has nowhere near the helicopter numbers of the US, because of far smaller funding. Another potential force multiplier would be reliable British Arabic translators. But to have lots of those ready to go would require more funding for Defence languages. You get the idea.
Oh, and in this type of operation in particular, the distinction between “combat” and “non-combat” troops is spurious. The RMP took a lot of casualties, I don’t think they would appreciate being told they aren’t needed to fight. They (and many other supporting troops) are in great demand to, for example, run PW camps (better than giving the job to reservists I would suggest) as well as all kinds of other tasks from advising the infantry on how to effect arrests while on patrol, to helping to train the Iraqi Police Forces. That said, more infantry would be good as it would avoid the need to use other troops, such as RMP or Artillery, to perform patrolling functions in which the Infantry are the specialists. But as Jacob actually correctly said, you can always use more soldiers in any kind of fighting situation. The point was made quite simply by Field Marshal Slim, one of the greatest military minds in history (I highly reccommend his book “Defeat into Victory”, I think mentioned on Samizdata before). “The more you use, the fewer you lose”.
Unfortunately, having said all the above, there simply aren’t that many soldiers left in the Army, and there are still loads of commitments elsewhere, from Northern Ireland to the Balkans, not to mention Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, etc etc. The “Harmony Guidelines” which said that for the sake of their families sodliers should get at least 18 months at their home base between operations are already a poor joke. We might need to send more soldiers, but unless we cancel everyone’s leave, we haven’t got them.
Sorry, rather longer than I planned, but I thought it was worth saying.
“The more you use, the fewer you lose”.
I do not wish to be over critical, but did that phrase apply in WWI?…
Another small point, how does one define a “great military mind”, I am sure that General Wingate would have disagreed with your definition of Field Marshall Slim.
Most of our casualties are from bombs set off as supply convoys go by. Twice the troops, twice the convoys.
Controlling mobs with batons and shields? Stupid. We give our soldiers guns and ammunition to use to accomplish a mission and to protect themselves. I would issue an order that any time a rock was thrown at a soldier and the rock thrower lived, the soldier would be fined one month’s salary.
Soldiers are not policemen. We defeated Saddam’s army handily without herds of cannon fodder. Why, now, be panicked by mobs?
More body armor? Sure. Fewer softside vehicles? Sure. Summary courts martial and execution for armed but ununiformed attackers? Sure.
Charlie. Some education: Reinforce(Link)
1. To give more force or effectiveness to; strengthen: The news reinforced her hopes.
2. To strengthen (a military force) with additional personnel or equipment.
3. To strengthen by adding extra support or material.
To increase the number or amount of; augment.
…Though as it happens I do think more troops should be sent as well as proper support for the ones already there. There is little I can add to the remarks of ‘Our Man In Basra’ (see above).
Well Charlie, I just hope Lt. Smash never rises above that rank then. I get the distinct impression the pseudonymous Brit called OMIB has a better handle on the reality in Iraq. And I would be willing to bet he is more than a Lt. from the way he writes.
You know, some people seem to think that to be critical of something means you are opposing it… if Charlie and Lt Smash want people to mindlessly salute every time something happens in Iraq (like some of the wrong people get killed), rather than try to ponder how things might get made to turn out better and faster, you know, like sending MORE FUCKING TROOPS, maybe they would do well to consider a career in Public Relations rather than the military as in that line of work they can say up is down and black is white and actually get paid for saying it.
Hmmm…Where are you going to get the British Troops from, then?
OMIB is indicating that there aren’t any more to send (if I understand his remarks correctly).
The US Army is already going through that. I mean, did any of you really think that the Penatgon wanted to send National Guardsmen?
Watch for the US to pull the entire 2nd Infantry Divsion from Korea before this is over.
This is reminding me of the ‘Vexillations’ that the Roman Empire was increasingly forced to pull off its Legions in the 2nd and Third centuries AD. I and I don’t like where that leads.
If Britain and the US don’t have the manpower and the material or equipment needed to “do” a job like Iraq then they have allowed their military to deteriorate to very dangerous levels.
What about the doctrine the US had, about being able to wage two regional wars at the same time ? Faced with half a war can’t the US and Britain manage it ? Maybe pacifism triumphed in the 90’ies, and OBL wasn’t that wrong when he claimed the West is a paper tiger.
That’s not to say that the Iraq intervention is a failure. To the contrary. Despide the shortcomings and problems, it seems it is advancing reasonably well.
Brigadier (not General) Wingate may well have disagreed about General Slim, but Wingate was an original, and completely wrong headed in his strategies. His ideas bear a similarity to those tried in the North African campaign, and which very nearly lead to total disaster there before Montgomery stepped in reverted to sound military tactics. Chindit style infiltration tactics can work on small scales, and in fact were valuable as a lesson that jungle fighting was not restricted to the Japanese, but ultimately the campaign in Burma did not militarily justify its implementation costs. And that is the considered opinion of some who were involved as well.
As for reinforcements, sure, a dictionary may include the meaning of re-supply, but in standard usage regarding the military, it means more troops, not just material.
Ed