Are you feeling 'smug' about your abilities?

[Len Ganley]

BBC NEWS | UK | Armed forces 'smug about ability' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7859707.stm)

[Whenurhappy]

Well, we are often smug with the Americans over our stunning victory in Northern Ireland. How many troops over how many years? I was working with the US when we went back into Iraq and then (back) into AFG. My US colleagues got a little fed up being lectured to by braying Lt Cols about the British Way of doing thing. Whilst there are transferrable TTPs, the conditions are so completely different. Similarly our 'victory' in Malaya is often cited as a COIN model. It only took 300,000 troops and police 12 years to defeat about 8,000 insurgents armed with bolt action rifles and a few rusty sten guns - and we fully controlled the country and the borders and had the compliance of most of the population...

[AllTrimDoubt]

Air Chief Marshal Stirrup said: "I think that we were a bit too complacent about our experiences in Northern Ireland and certainly, on occasion, we were a bit too smug about those experiences.

"You are only as good as your next success not your last one. You can never rest on your laurels and I think we may have done that."


To**er. Perhaps he can say a few more words to those out there and the families at home to further critique their performance and maintain morale?

Utter pr*ck.

[Beatriz Fontana]

I wrote off a laptop spluttering tea whilst reading that article.

[1.3VStall]

ATD,

I concur your assessment of the w@nker! What on earth could he possibly hope to achieve by offering such an opinion?:ugh:

[London Eye]

At first glance I had the same reaction as others to what appears to be an insulting quote. However, if you take the time to read the article in the Economist it is not as clearcut as that instinctive reaction, and the BBC precis might suggest. If CDS is criticizing anybody for complacency or smugness it must be the military leadership, a popular enough venture on these pages. He might have a point, we have changed our approach quite significantly since the early days when there was much collective criticism (from me amongst others) that the 'UK troops in a beret' approach was much better than the US more robust style. While we sat in the (then relatively quiet) South the US forces were taking on a much different task in Fallujah. As the Economist article points out quotes such as:

In 2005 a British brigadier, Nigel AylwinFoster, penned a critical analysis of the American army: he accused its soldiers of cultural ignorance to the point of institutional racism; of having a predisposition to offensive operations; and of displaying a moral righteousness that could distort collective military judgment.

must at least have been hurtful if not insulting to the US Forces then taking heavy losses and ultimately making a real difference in the area. Imagine how we might have felt in the reverse circumstances. If CDS was laying blame at the door of the troops on the ground in such a public forum then I would be outraged. Recognising 'mistakes' or identifying lessons as we now like to say is vital if we are to get the job done with the minimum loss of life.

1.3VStall asks what (on earth) CDS might have been trying to achieve, perhaps an indication that we learn and move on and that our approach now reflects the hard-won experience of these last few years - I for one am glad that it has.

[Shack37]

I wouldn't be so hasty as to jump in with the harsh words used by some posters. I'd rather give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he is using the "Royal We". The "We" referring to persons of his own rank or thereabouts and their political masters, not the lads and lasses on the ground who follow who follow "Their" policies, tactics and strategies.


s37

[Jackonicko]

Leaving yourself open to be misinterpreted in this manner seems to be a bit of an own goal (which is surprising from such an effective communicator and good leader).

One can only hope that (after an intensive course in finding and recognising his own feet), Sir Jock follows Glenn Torpy's example and hones his pistol shooting skills. Or perhaps he needs IFF in his boots, which are not, after all, the real enemy.

We wouldn't want him holing his left shoe as well, after all.

[Squirrel 41]

Read the Economist article at lunchtime - it's one of a pair in this week's magazine.

Actually, I thought that the articles were excellent, apposite and as the Economist is also the house journal of the Treasury, the FCO and No 10, it is probably very useful for the forces to have a cover story. The Economist essentially says that we need to have cash, personnel and kit to meet the political aspirations of the UK. This is (i) true and (ii) importantly being said by something that isn't the Telegraph.

So, full marks to the Economist (as usual) and to whoever in MOD PR set this up (unusually).

May not change anything, but it's a start.

S41

(edited for typoingk)

[taxydual]

Article here

British soldiers and their discontents | Losing their way? | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13022177&source=hptextfeature)

[dallas]

I thought 'smug' was a particularly poor choice of words, while complacent [compared to the Americans] would have better qualified things.

I thought this excerpt was quite apposite:
David Kilcullen, until recently a counter-insurgency adviser to the American government, says both America and Britain misunderstood Iraq: America thought it was dealing with a terrorist problem rather than an insurgency; Britain thought its job was peacekeeping rather than imposing control.
But then imposing control might mean roughing up local youths when they chuck stones, as opposed to letting the locals know we're so hamstrung by PC that they have to pretty much kill us before we can shoot back, with a reasonable chance of compensation at some point in the future. (I favour proportion, by the way, not unchecked brutality!)

[Jackonicko]

British soldiers and their discontents | Losing their way? | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13022177&CFID=39827486&CFTOKEN=21957959)

The sorry state of Britain's armed forces | Overstretched, overwhelmed and over there | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13022029)

http://downloads.economist.feedroom.com/podcast/t_assets/20090128/20090127_stirrup_laguardia_3AW9.mp3?site=economist&cid=2b684d4af869085edc1ac0fb0d07a7205c5ff7e8&sid=92b251c820ff63679bed867ba2af75104903e5ea&pid=1bceb2a17c7da8a1a32ce9ac347d34c40bec85bc

[Op_Twenty]

Yeah, it's the 'smug' thing that upsets here, he is probably right to say 'complacent', correct from a strategic view point but, not I feel, from the tactical level. It's when it offends the 'boots on the ground' that angers me - apply this sentiment to senior staff and planners (especially at governmental level) and you'd have to agree that, indeed, we are complacent in these insurgent ops - think of when (2006) Former Defence Secretary John Reid said that he expected British forces being sent into Helmand would leave again ‘without a shot being fired’. (Now a consultant on £50,000 with a private security company operating in Iraq and Afghanistan - nice work) If that's not complacency then I don't know what is, but I wish his message didn't seem to tar the little guys. If he want to call the government incompetent then do it, steer well clear of the men on the ground that many senior military staffers solidly refuse to stand up for publicly.