It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Military Having More Say In Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 06:55 PM
link   
As things in Iraq are not getting any better isn't it time the British had more say in how to do things? The American way isn't working , just creating more enemies than friends. The British Army is renowned for its hearts and mind policies and i think we need some of that in Iraq now. I'm not blowing my trumpet for my own people just thinking it might help.




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Here's my thinking on what you are mentioning:
Exchange American and British force placements/assignments.
In other words, move the American forces to Southern Iraq and the British forces to where the American forces are now: Baghdad, Sunni Triangle, etc.





seekerof

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's my thinking on what you are mentioning:
Exchange American and British force placements/assignments.
In other words, move the American forces to Southern Iraq and the British forces to where the American forces are now: Baghdad, Sunni Triangle, etc.





seekerof

[edit on 20-5-2005 by Seekerof]
Thats not viable as the Brits dont have enough men , what they do have is people who understand how to win a war and still feel trusted by the local population. Perhaps the Americans would like to know how its done, let the Brits have more say in Iraq , instead of your gung -ho generals who have lost the plot



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Too bad it's not going to happen. We're in too much of a hurry to get things done. Looking at past engagements we can see that the UK looks long term at winning, whereas our policy coincides within presidential terms - 8 years. Who knows what the next presidential agenda will be. You Brits are riding the tailcoats on this one.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vincere7
Too bad it's not going to happen. We're in too much of a hurry to get things done. Looking at past engagements we can see that the UK looks long term at winning, whereas our policy coincides within presidential terms - 8 years. Who knows what the next presidential agenda will be. You Brits are riding the tailcoats on this one.

OK i know we don't seem to matter as we have a small Army but i think we have a better understanding of fighting wars . America will never win in Iraq because they don't see the people as human beings they just kill them for no reason , this is bad soldiering, if you make your military into a blind killing machine you might win for a short time , but in the long term you loose because you don't care. Its like Hitler all over again.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   
the brits are great at hearts and minds but trying to bring that into what is already a very hot central, north and west iraq would take a life time, shame though because the brits are the best at this... they would need american fire support to help as from what i have seen the suuni triangle is a very hostile place for any soldier regardless of nationality. i think the marines and other soldiers do a fantastic job of protecting and clearing but until the iraqi security forces are ready to take over this is going to be one long drawn out war, reconstruction is delayed everyday and they complain about water and electric when if they just left us to get on with it and stop shooting and blowing up the water and power plants they would already have much better services...



[edit on 22/5/05 by jayce]



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
If they want to take over fine, but as Seekerof pointed out, that also means putting their troops on the line.

It's not fair or right to put hundreds of thousands of US boys under the command of a few thousand Britts.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If they want to take over fine, but as Seekerof pointed out, that also means putting their troops on the line.

It's not fair or right to put hundreds of thousands of US boys under the command of a few thousand Britts.


Why not? We did it in the second world war during the Arnhem campaign, the battle of the bulge and a few other i cant thin of offhand.

However just putting US troops under UK command wouldnt make much difference, the whole US army would have to be retrained, not a practical job under any circumstances.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
If they want to take over fine, but as Seekerof pointed out, that also means putting their troops on the line.

I thought are troops already where on the line ?



It's not fair or right to put hundreds of thousands of US boys under the command of a few thousand Britts.

Why not?


Or why not just swap units around, have say some british unit swap with an american unit?

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I tried to be diplomatic as not to offend the American people but your army command sucks, let the British take control over your troops and things would be much improved. I know it wont happen , things will get worse till Americans give up and go home , like Vietnam. Why do you not see that a friend is a friend and listen to them?




top topics



 
0

log in

join