View Full Version : British General published in US Army publication

11 Jan 06,, 16:17
Brigadier Aylwin-Foster had an article published in the US Army's Military Review magazine. It's an interesting read - I don't agree with all of his analysis, but I'm glad to see critical yet constructive pieces from foreign military observers being published in our own publications.


11 Jan 06,, 20:56

An interesting commentary.

It is worth noting and carrying out introspection.

The psychology and mentality of the two countries being different, there will obviously be divergence in views, but the only thing that goes in the British favour is that they have lorded over three quarter of the world successfully and have learnt all the tricks of the trade.

Americans being great champions of equality haven't learn't the way to lesson those they have invaded and yet at the same time keep them happy. The British are great ones to "fool" the natives and get away with it as if they did a favour - remember the words "white man's burden"? Rip the captive nation to the skin and bone and then declare that the captive nation was the white man's burden and the good old British were doing a favour sitting in the heat and swotting flies while the darkies slaved! ;)

Great joes all the same, the British.

They have some sterling qualities and some that outdoes the porcine specie!

13 Jan 06,, 14:18
Here's an example of a divergent view - the Brits dont' approve of our airstrikes as far as I know. I feel they are appropriate, but as the following blog entry points out, they are a dangerous proposition in COIN - this incorrectly targeting mission probably erased months of hard effort spent building up good will.

What gets me about this mission is that the munition dropped had effects on a house 20m away - IMO, that means that the munition was too powerful. Also, the plane had done a cannon strafing in the area, and if it was directed at the house in question, then it certainly would have had collateral damage, which is unnecessary and unproportional once again.


Friday, January 06, 2006
No way to describe this ...
Turns out the US hit the wrong house. Those six people killed really were innocent. I was 100 percent wrong.

The CNN article says that the bomb had "successful effects" against the insurgents. I'm not convinced. I'd like to see what the results were of any search of the targeted house. Explosives? Motorcycle batteries (with no motorcycle?) Garage door openers (with no garage)? Were the three suspected insurgents killed? What the hell does "successful effect" mean? The press is just letting that slide?

If there was another house just 20 meters away, too, I think we do have to look at whether the force used was proportional, under the old Jus in Bello doctrine we all had to learn during precommissioning training.

Much as I'd like to bring it to the bastards, I think an analysis in light of jus in bello and proportionality is entirely fair and should be constantly renewed.

And now, having written a post that sucks harder than an incontinent street whore with a plane to catch, I have to go commit sepuku in order to preserve my family's good name.

I'll leave it up for the record, but the post "A good strike" is hereby retracted. My heart goes out to the victims and their loved ones.

Well, except for their loved ones are moojies. Then to Hell with 'em.

Splash, out


[LINK] posted by Jason : 00:59 EST, Friday, January 06, 2006

14 Jan 06,, 04:36
This is exactly the type of stuff that alienates the people including those who are for the strikes and against the terrorists. It keeps the pot boiling for the terrorist propaganda too!

It may be time consuming, but one must strike only on hard intelligence and with all the publicity at one's disposal so that the correct picture emerges.

One must also take care not to give the impression of being "itchy fingers" or "gung ho"! Such brashness takes the shine off the good work done and also add "credibility" to wild propaganda of the terrorists.