The cause of repeated British military failure: Over reliance on Generals?

Border-Rat

I have been pondering the causes of the strategic failure of the British adventure in Iraq, alongside the current war being lost in Afghanistan. Is this problem down to the over-reliance on Generals? The British military has over 250 Generals. Such widespread promotion will eventually lead to military incompetence, as seen in the Middle East. It removes responsbility, it induces blame. By comparison, the USMC which outnumbers all wings of UK forces has less than 90 Generals. This may explain why they were called in to bail out UK forces in areas like Sangin, where the latter could not get the job done.

However, that does not explain the grander strategical failure of NATO at large in Afghanistan. It does not explain the US failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as the US has an adequate number of Generals.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that it is more than a contributing factor for Briton forces.

cruasder777

Border-Rat wrote: »

I have been pondering the causes of the strategic failure of the British adventure in Iraq, alongside the current war being lost in Afghanistan. Is this problem down to the over-reliance on Generals? The British military has over 250 Generals. Such widespread promotion will eventually lead to military incompetence, as seen in the Middle East. It removes responsbility, it induces blame. By comparison, the USMC which outnumbers all wings of UK forces has less than 90 Generals. This may explain why they were called in to bail out UK forces in areas like Sangin, where the latter could not get the job done.

However, that does not explain the grander strategical failure of NATO at large in Afghanistan. It does not explain the US failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as the US has an adequate number of Generals.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that it is more than a contributing factor for Briton forces.

250 Generals also includes Brigaders.


The simple reason for failure in Iraq is the US got rid of the old structures Saddam had, got rid of the army, Police, structures of governance etc and allowed the country to be divided on sectarian lines.


Without doubt civil war is coming to Iraq.


Afghanistan is more complex, the Taliban are being funded etc by Pakistan.

As for Sangin its the size of Wales, how could 9,500 British troops possibly control an area that size. They gave 10 yrs there, its obvious unless Pakistan is sorted out you cannot defeat the Taliban.

The US Marines have 25,000 in the same area, once again nowhere near enough.


Most are pulling out from Helmand in 2012.

Cardinal Richelieu

cruasder777 wrote: »

250 Generals also includes Brigaders.


The simple reason for failure in Iraq is the US got rid of the old structures Saddam had, got rid of the army, Police, structures of governance etc and allowed the country to be divided on sectarian lines.


Without doubt civil war is coming to Iraq.


Afghanistan is more complex, the Taliban are being funded etc by Pakistan.

As for Sangin its the size of Wales, how could 9,500 British troops possibly control an area that size. They gave 10 yrs there, its obvious unless Pakistan is sorted out you cannot defeat the Taliban.

The US Marines have 25,000 in the same area, once again nowhere near enough.


Most are pulling out from Helmand in 2012.

Who is funding Pakistan?

bwatson

Border-Rat wrote: »

I have been pondering the causes of the strategic failure of the British adventure in Iraq, alongside the current war being lost in Afghanistan. Is this problem down to the over-reliance on Generals? The British military has over 250 Generals. Such widespread promotion will eventually lead to military incompetence, as seen in the Middle East. It removes responsbility, it induces blame. By comparison, the USMC which outnumbers all wings of UK forces has less than 90 Generals. This may explain why they were called in to bail out UK forces in areas like Sangin, where the latter could not get the job done.

However, that does not explain the grander strategical failure of NATO at large in Afghanistan. It does not explain the US failure in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as the US has an adequate number of Generals.

Nevertheless, I am convinced that it is more than a contributing factor for Briton forces.

Your history suggests that when it comes to matters regarding Britain and its armed forces, you are a bitter, obsessed little creep.

However, on a tactical level it is hard to argue that Iraq and Afghanistan have been anything other than successes for Britain (which is senseless as a statement considering the complex working relationships of ISAF, but hey, I'm pandering to your idiocy) when you consider the slow but sure progress made in Helmand, the rates at which the taliban are being killed, or in Iraq the swiftness of the opening actions in operation telic. Many would question whether we adapted quick enough, and would ask why it took so long to click that we were fighting a very different kind of warfare, however few (except brit haters like the OP) that lessons are being learnt, NATO forces (de brits, for the OP) are changing how they fight, when they fight, and what they fight for.

It is on a political, strategic level that there have been too many failures and instances of indecisiveness. The plan for the afghan security forces for example would be classed as a failure but not one of the British military.

twinytwo

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Who is funding Pakistan?

Dont you love how the world works.

Fr.Jack

The British and Americans are getting they,re A.. kicked in Afghanistan like the Russians before them.

Poccington

Fr.Jack wrote: »

The British and Americans are getting they,re A.. kicked in Afghanistan like the Russians before them.

In reality, they're not.

Militarily, the Taliban and HQN will never beat ISAF forces. ISAF are still pushing ahead with training Afghan Police and the ANA to a state where they can govern the country. Throughout the coflict, they've made some very big mistakes. However, they're in a position where, if executed correctly, they can walk out of Afghanistan with their pride intact.

Unfortunately, I think once they leave A'Stan, the surrounding countries ie. Pakistan, Iran etc. will make sure that a Western style democracy, situated right in their back garden, doesn't survive.

Jaafa

Poccington wrote: »

In reality, they're not.

Militarily, the Taliban and HQN will never beat ISAF forces. ISAF are still pushing ahead with training Afghan Police and the ANA to a state where they can govern the country. Throughout the coflict, they've made some very big mistakes. However, they're in a position where, if executed correctly, they can walk out of Afghanistan with their pride intact.

Unfortunately, I think once they leave A'Stan, the surrounding countries ie. Pakistan, Iran etc. will make sure that a Western style democracy, situated right in their back garden, doesn't survive.

Miltary the Russians never lost either, they could have continued fighting for a long time had they wished, or had the benefits outweighed the costs. Yet despite never losing military most today would say they lost the war.

I fail to see how the situation is different in Afghanistan today. The Brits and Americans will/have won almost every battle with the Taliban, but they will lose the war.

The Master of Disaster

I think back in 2006 when the BA first moved into Helmand there certainly was a strategic failure by the top brass. Too few troops trying to cover too large an area led to a situation where they had isolated PB's too far apart from each other to have a meaningful impact on the province and population as a whole. While the soldiers and junior commanders performed at times heroically in repelling wave after wave of attack this served to alienate the very people they had come to help, either by calling in artillery or air support which destroyed property/killed people or by by the simple fact they weren't getting out and interacting with them. It was a complete failure to gather information on the dynamics of the people, the geography and general atmospherics of southern Afghanistan and a naive perception of the resurgence of the Taliban. The oft quoted saying goes "It's not that we didn't listen to the intelligence, it's that we didn't have any". It wasn't helped that at the time the more important effort was considered to be Iraq. The truth is simply that the modern British Army isn't big enough to conduct two counterinsurgencies at the same time. Counterinsurgency by it's nature requires huge troop numbers, 'boots on the ground'. Even now with Iraq finished ISAF has around 120,000 troops there. The Russians reckoned you'd need 500,000 men give or take in order to successfully prosecute a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

That said I think the tactical and strategic direction has been radically overhauled and since 2008/09 has been prosecuted in the correct manner. Again the end of the Irag campaign has freed up troops, resources and money to direct at Helmand, not to mention focussing political and institutional thinking. The surge of American troops has helped (again the need for actual troops) by allowing the BA to focus on a smaller geographical area and if you like increase their troops per square kilometre ratio. The reality is the problems in Afghanistan aren't military in the strictest sense. ISAF forces will kick the stuffing out of the insurgents every time they engage them. But the goal of counterinsurgency isn't to defeat your enemy on the battlefield, it's to discredit him and discredit his philosophy so that in turn the people will reject it outright of their own accord and that's a lot harder to do when he lives amongst the people. If it's not easy at the best of times it's made nigh on impossible when the insurgents are receiving backing from not one, but two, outside nations. Even then that's simplifying it considerably. You have to look at other factors viz. that for every $1 spent on development $12 is spent on the military effort, the Karzai government is probably one of the most corrupt in the world, Afghanistan is a tribal society not readily suited to centralised governtment etc. etc.

To answer the original question while the British are top heavy in the higher ranks, which will likely and rightly be culled soon, I don't think it really had anything to do with their perceived or actual failure so far in Afghanistan.

twinytwo

Jaafa wrote: »

Miltary the Russians never lost either, they could have continued fighting for a long time had they wished, or had the benefits outweighed the costs. Yet despite never losing military most today would say they lost the war.

I fail to see how the situation is different in Afghanistan today. The Brits and Americans will/have won almost every battle with the Taliban, but they will lose the war.

I dont think it would ever be possible to "win" in Afghan without someone sorting out Pakistan first.

Also you cannot defeat an unconventional enemy with conventional means... this hasbeen proven many times over.

neilled

twinytwo wrote: »

Jaafa wrote: »

Miltary the Russians never lost either, they could have continued fighting for a long time had they wished, or had the benefits outweighed the costs. Yet despite never losing military most today would say they lost the war.

I fail to see how the situation is different in Afghanistan today. The Brits and Americans will/have won almost every battle with the Taliban, but they will lose the war.

I dont think it would ever be possible to "win" in Afghan without someone sorting out Pakistan first.

Also you cannot defeat an unconventional enemy with conventional means... this hasbeen proven many times over.

Malaya?

who the fug

neilled wrote: »

Malaya?

Chinese Communists with no real local support, does not equate to what is going on now

Fratton Fred

I worked with a guy once who was a complete homophobe. Turned out he was actually gay and his outward dislike of homosexuals was just a smoke screen.

Methinks the same applies hera and that Border rat is a closet west brit.

who the fug

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I worked with a guy once who was a complete homophobe. Turned out he was actually gay and his outward dislike of homosexuals was just a smoke screen.

Methinks the same applies hera and that Border rat is a closet west brit.

Me thinks you have gone native, if you are referring to people as West Brit

neilled

who the fug wrote: »

Chinese Communists with no real local support, does not equate to what is going on now

They were unconventional. They were defeated.