British Apache crews 'lack extreme aggression'

[Lazer-Hound]

'Banter'?

Why is it when it's Brits having a go at the Spams and the Spams say it's unfair, they get told it's just 'banter' and to get a sense of humour, but when it's the other way around the Brit's get all uppity and display a comlete sense of humour failure. Just wondering...

[The Helpful Stacker]

Because we said so and as a country are your elders, so get back in your box junior.

[brickhistory]

Because we said so

Now that kind of rejoinder I understand and respect.












My reply would, of course, have to be stamped NOFORN.

[BEagle]

"British commanders made ceasefire deals with local leaders in a number of areas of Helmand last year, arguing that a halt in the fighting would strengthen the hand of the tribal elders.

But America believed that the ceasefires merely allowed the Taliban time to re-arm and reinforce its positions, and American commanders and diplomats criticised the deals."

Perhaps the wiseheads amongst those Americans remember what happened during a similar ceasefire some 39 years earlier?

The Tet offensive.

The US learned a lot from that.

[Two's in]

As we have narrowly avoided a "George Bush ate my Baby" thread, thanks to Brick, (always room on JB for that though) I do have to ask; what on earth was the point of that article in the Telegraph?
Just to stir the crap; to make the USA look like baby killers compared to our own steely-eyed ROE indoctrinated Aircrew; drive another wedge between international Military co-operation; provide a bit of comfort to the enemy, act in a seditious manner and undermine good conduct and military discpline, be a fifth columnist in general, or just to be another self-opinionated Journo who hasn't got the balls or intelligence to go out and find or accurately report some real news - I'm just curious you understand.

[Mick Smith]

The article not only reported what was happening where the reporter was, on the ground in among the **** that was going down, it raised serious issues which everyone knows exist. Why is it that whenever a thread goes quiet on here, some idiot throws a brick at a journalist. In this case, the journalist was putting himself in the line of fire and reporting what he saw. What exactly do you think is wrong with that Twos In and where do you get off accusing him of not doing his job properly or reporting it inaccurately when you patently werent there?

[brickhistory]

some idiot throws a brick at a journalist

Nicely done................


As the 'idiot' who first raised the question about a lack of journalistic accuracy, what makes you think he did get it right?

There have been many, many threads here regarding media buffoonery and sensationalism. I simply ask why does the inaccuracy stop when applied to US forces?

For all I know, the reporter could have been absolutely, 100% spot-on. Or, judging from too many examples given in this forum of 'sexing up' a story to sell papers or gain ratings, not. I fall on the skeptical side personally.

[Two's in]

My dear chap, if Gethin Chamberlain wishes to continue his well documented and endless anti-US rhetoric using the sensationalism of a bloody and thankless military task, that's entirely his affair. But when he purports to report this as "news" he can expect to be challenged. Finding a quote from some red-blooded and loud mouthed adolescent who still gets a buzz from taking out the bad guys is hardly the pinnacle of journalistic integrity or even difficult (in any Army), but reporting it in a manner to deliberately undermine the confidence of Joint US/UK Operations and further his personal and long running agenda of America bashing is seditious and provides comfort to those who would harm us.

In over twenty years of Military service it was an honour to work with a small number of reporters who had a clear understanding of the responsibilities of journalistic integrity, and fully understood the impact that lazy, opinionated, Murdochesque reporting could have on Military morale. My guess would be that number is even smaller today.

And just a minor distinction, getting his ass shot off is entirely his choice, a choice that the deployed Military personnel currently do not enjoy.

[West Coast]

The only judgment on the differing levels of aggression should come from those that the Apaches provide support to. Those opinions are not offered in defense of the flag but rather in defense of their own arse.

[Mick Smith]

Chamberlain was embedded with the Americans. He quoted them. He did not put his own opinions into the piece. Indeed, one of the chilling things about it was that there was virtually no analysis of the situation, just one line pointing out the differences in UK and US approaches. The carelessness and aggression in targetting came out in the words of the US airmen themselves. Since he was embedded with them they will no doubt have been reading his copy on the internet, it seems unlikely he will have misquoted them. They were frankly damned with their own words. That sort of attitude and behaviour is not going to win us any friends in Afghanistan, indeed it has already lost the Americans friends across large tracts of southern and eastern Afghanistan. Now they have come onto our patch using the same methods. The ordinary Afghan will not differentiate between UK and US forces. The attitude exhibited by the US airmen in that article was disgraceful and will only ensure failure for coalition forces in Afghanistan.

As for what was the point of that article. It is his job to report what is going on. He did that. Maybe, just maybe, someone will have read it and maybe, just maybe, things will be moderated. If they aren't we might as well pull out now.

[owe ver chute]

Why not ask CO 3PARA about the AAC AH pilots? He knows!

A quote from West Coast "The only judgment on the differing levels of aggression should come from those that the Apaches provide support to."
I think that for the US Army pilots to quote about the level of aggression displayed by UK Army Air Corps pilots is a little naïve. I wonder how many times they have actually flown with UK Apaches supporting troops in contact. It is interesting that there are no quotes from any CW rank, who, traditionally are there more experienced pilots in command.
Having listened to two UK Apache pilots at CFS recently I think that those who have seen the aggression at first hand, both UK and US ground troops have no complaints about the AAC pilots. Maybe CO 3 PARA could give his opinion!
I think it might also be worth noting that none of the AAC AH pilots have given this story so much as a sniff, good on'em.

[MrBernoulli]

"US aircrews show Taliban no mercy" says the headline! The silly buggers don't even show their allies mercy, paticularly when they are sitting behind a big thing that goes bang (or bang repeatedly at a rapid rate). "If it moves it MUST be the enemy - kill it!"

[WhiteOvies]

I know a couple of people who, while being quoted accurately by the embedded journo, were quoted out of context (i.e. long into the night after a beer call and allegedly off the record). This led to a sensationalist story being produced. Sound bites are all very well but do not give the full picture. Brick and the rest of our brethren across the pond make a good point and West Coast's point is spot on.

Maybe we should not be so quick to spam bash because of the actions of a few? Could this just be harsh banter from US Apache pilots to the AAC?

There is a significant difference of approach between Brits and Spams but which is the more correct - probably only the history books will let us know.

Awaiting inbound......

[scopey]

Well, our colonial cousins did win their independence by being more ruthless than the wishy washy loyalists/Crown Forces...