[Restayvien]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-revealed.html

[hr]

An interesting article. I always assumed that there would be large egos flying around in military command positions that could cause problems but I didn't think it would have such a detrimental effect operationally. It sounds dangerously unproffessional. I know there is likely to be bias towards one's own country, but I would be interested to hear from anyone working in the military (or even civilian organisations) who's fought/worked in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Have you seen evidence of the problems they talk about here? Any incling as to who's to blame? Is the US command right to pursue their own policy so vigourously (if indeed that is what is happening)? Is the UK right to be offended, and hence to be uncooperative in return?

Discuss away - as usual, no flaming/flamebait please. :P

[Farseer_Emlyn]

Right or wrong, this is nothing new. In WWII Montgomery & Patton had very big disagreements and very rarely cooperated with each other. It just so happens that in today's version of warfare it's more important than ever to cooperate. In WWII they could get away with it to some point because of the nature of warfare. But that the US military is less than cooperative is no surprise. Though, I doubt it has anything to do with a disdain for the British in so much as it does a difference in military cultures. Please keep in mind that inter US military agencies often have difficulty in communicating with each other. And they speak the same language. I can't imagine the difficulty that would be involved in trying to translate all of our military data into British.

[Genmotty]

Just goes to show how pig headed the Americans are when it comes to their foreign policies. No wonder there are extremists crying Jihad on US arse.

Gen

[Ace cipher zer0]

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Just goes to show how pig headed the Americans are when it comes to their foreign policies. No wonder there are extremists crying Jihad on US arse.

Gen

Gen, it might be time to refresh yourself witht he first stickied article at the top of the page, however wrong My nation was.

However, the behavior shown in that article is inexcusable. I was in NJROTC that time (a paramilitary program set up by the navy to build leadership and also get recruiting done), and in our leadership manuals never did it say do not communicate; instead it stressed jsut the opposite.
In addition, I would also like to communicate: THIS IS NOT TO BE LINKED TO OBAMA. Since the time given in the article (2004), every single person in the Chain of Command I had to memorize has been replaced, from the President to the MCPON, and all between. Even the most notable holdover from the Bush Administration, the Honourable Robert Gates, was not in the Chain of Command at that time--instead it was the Honourable donald Rumsfeld (yes, I did have to say honourable, even if I did not believe it). Everything was very different from what is now in command, and the eyes have shifted back to Afghanistan, instead of being distracted in Iraq (which the article fails to mention).

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Just goes to show how pig headed the Americans are when it comes to their foreign policies. No wonder there are extremists crying Jihad on US arse.

Gen

From what I read of the article today (bear in mind this is like a 42nd hand account of being a civilian who only read one source) this did seem to be the case. America could have used some slack in its policy - if they expect allies to fight and die alongside them, they need to be willing to compromise.

[Ace cipher zer0]

Originally Posted by Rafe

From what I read of the article today (bear in mind this is like a 42nd hand account of being a civilian who only read one source) this did seem to be the case. America could have used some slack in its policy - if they expect allies to fight and die alongside them, they need to be willing to compromise.

yeah, it was called the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. I bet i could find a ton of posts agreeing with you, even from Americans. Once again, I do wish to remind everyone that this was in the past, not now, when El Presidente didn't really give a flying rat's ass about Afghanistan since he was chasing after Sadam because that was the primary objective of the war in the first place, and then he was democratizing the nation because that was the primary objective in the first place.

[Genmotty]

Originally Posted by Dark Ace Cipher

Gen, it might be time to refresh yourself witht he first stickied article at the top of the page, however wrong My nation was.

Be careful not to make a fool out of yourself DAC;
Slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
Pig-headed: stupidity obstinate; perverse; stubborn.

Now I don't think that my terms are slanderous with regards to the article presented. No, they are carefully chosen to be accurate as possible . In that I believe that my statement is spot on and directed specifically at the examples of such behaviours.

Is it an insulting comment...? Well, you'll have to make your own mind up on that one, but if it is, then certianly it holds grains of truth to it

Gen

[Ace cipher zer0]

Originally Posted by Genmotty

Be careful not to make a fool out of yourself DAC;
Slander: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another
Pig-headed: stupidity obstinate; perverse; stubborn.

Now I don't think that my terms are slanderous with regards to the article presented. No, they are carefully chosen to be accurate as possible . In that I believe that my statement is spot on and directed specifically at the examples of such behaviours.

Is it an insulting comment...? Well, you'll have to make your own mind up on that one, but if it is, then certianly it holds grains of truth to it

Gen

Well, yes I completely agree with them, for the people in charge at that time. I'm just worried somebody will start bashing current politicians with this mess, politicians who weren't in federal government at the time, and the thread will be dragged all off topic. But now that I've pounded it into your heads enough, I'll let it drop, as long as everyone remembers the time frame, since you can't RetCon history. Unless you win .

And as someone who Has wanted to, and still wants to (but can't... damn genetics!) serve in the US Military, I must repeat, this is SHAMEFUL to us. There have been generals in the past who have been plenty great, and understood this communication (if you want some interesting literature, read Gen. Anthony Zinni's biography that was co-written with Tom Clancy). The US's military should take this as a lesson, that to preserve your allies, you can't cut them out of the Chain of Command (once again, in the basic leadership section of the NJROTC NS1 Manual). And if we truly have progressed as a society, Europe should take this lesson to heart--all militaries should take this lesson to heart--so that we can work together in a better way.

[Mrgame]

I kind of see it as both sides fault. The U.S. should have said something and maintain relations(which is the smart thing to do in any war zone), the British probably should have pursued them even though it would be a pain in the ass it would be better then doing nothing and being uncooperative.
Probably should hold exercises with each other, not to mention install a damn phone or radio? You know, on every level. From the squad up to divsion level, have joint operations, mix up officers and leaders, mix up intelligence and logistics. Have a bi weekly chat or something.

But the be perfectly honest I'm not suprised, there has always been some sort of miscommunication between the two for one reason or another.