How to restore Britain's military standing

Patrick

Go and read books like Sniper One by Sgt Dan Mills or Eight Lives Down by Major Chris Hunter. You will see that the British Army was quite capable and keen to inflict a military victory in 2004 on the Iranian backed Shia militias. The rules of engagement didn't help.

The 2006 debacle was a political moral collapse pure and simple. We are governed by cowards who hate the military with a passion for ideological reasons.

The perfect exemplar of this contempt was Brown's trip to Iraq to make false troop reduction announcements during the 2007 Conservative party conference.

Not only can Labour never be trusted with the national economy (as they will always outspend the ability to pay for public spending) - they absloutely can never be trusted with the defence of the realm because they hate the armed services.

Polly and Alice's mum

"WHEN we have a public enquiry into Iraq..."???
I wouldnt hold your breath, my dear. We ain't going to get one, I am fairly sure.

TomTom

The British Army is too small, has poor quality recruits because of demographics and low-grade schooling. It is poorly equipped, suffered from Gordon Brown levying a "capital charge" on inventory which led the MoD to sell off equipment stores to avoid being taxed by the Treasury.

The Army spent too long training for Northern Ireland and acts like a Colonial Police Force rather than a fighting machine. Tanks were sold off and infantry became the default position for low-intensity fighting which is hardly preparation for invading a country where Britain had suffered horribly in 1916.

All in all it is British cheapness that surfaced again and is hard-wired into the DNA. The British are a nation of property-speculators who think they can bootstrap themselves into the first division by selling lives of the lower orders cheaply and hoping they can get away with it. Trouble is in Iraq the lives of those fighting are even cheaper than the few British combat soldiers available - what is it - 28000 are front-line combat soldiers - if they are fit ?

Hardly an Army when you consider 327,000 fighting men escaped at Dunkirk !

Searcher

We could start by looking at the staffing of the Miinistry of Defence. Once upon a time, it was fifty-fifty, military and civilians, and even then, most of the civilians would have done military service. Now the ratio is more like one to five, and the civilians are career civil servants who look forward to moving on to other ministries. Until that changes, not much will really change in Britain’s military capability. And let’s not even talk about the ministers over the past twelve years.

Dirk Blade

James: Nation-building (or state-building) isn't a purely, or even significantly, military task: delivering the security line of operations to enable the space to build capacity. That's pretty much what the Petraeus doctrine provides for in the post-major combat operations phase. It's one f the major lessons that will probably not be learned that the military cannot fill the space left by the failure of other institutions, host nation or occupier, to develop infrastructure.

But it is meaningless to divorce military capacity from political will. It's terribly comforting to argue that the British forces were capable of defeating the Sadrists, but the fact is that they did not, and a capability is not a capability if there is no will to employ it. Arguably, it becomes a self-generating critical vulnerability - a fact obvious clear to the Sadrists and Iran.

And it is too simplistic to blame 'the politicians'. The truth is that, at the national-strategic level, the chiefs of the defence staffs are effectively political figures. They help set the ends as well as the ways and means of achieving them. In our ignominious failures in Iraq, they are as culpable as the ministers.

Olaf Rye

The soldiers that we send into the field are excellent--well trained, brave and willing to fight without hesitation. I would therefore respectfully disagree with the sentiments of TomTom, for I do not think there are better trained men in any force.

Nevertheless, it is quite right to question our ability to deploy enough well trained men into any theatre of operations. The points made about equipment being sold off and the niggardly attitude of the public and the government to defence are nevertheless perfectly justified. The politicians want the soldiers to be some sort of police force, cribbed and confined by the rules of engagement concocted by leftist ideologues in Whitehall that perceive the enemy as some sort of criminal that has someone become a victim of poverty and lack of opportunity. It puts the soldiers in an impossible position. As we used to ask when I was in the paras: 'Is HQ still in friendly hands ?'. This government cannot be trusted with defence. The lives of the enemy and public relations matters more to them than the lives of soldiers. Of course, they rightly suspect that the service personnel are not keen on Labour, so they feel they can screw them without any consequences. It is venal, petty and ignorant policy.

Bluebottle

You forget the Navy and the Iranian "hostage" debacle-hardly likely to inspire Uncle Sam's confidence in Britain's ability to conduct any military undertaking.

A British admiral (I forget which one) said, during the evacuation of Crete in 1942 when it was suggested that the Royal Navy squadron defending the island should leave:"it takes two years to build a ship but two hundred to build a reputation-the Navy stays".

In the Gulf the Royal Navy lost its reputation.

Max Kaye

And our captured sailors crying over their iPods and selling their stories of cowardice to the tabloids wasn't reassuring either....

When I saw the behaviour of that motley crew, I was truly embarrassed to be British.

Olaf Rye

Just an addendum to my previous post: for an heartbreaking account of political meddling in Afghanistan, it is worth reading '3 Para'. The MoD staff were querying the justification for using so many 81mm mortar bombs ! Moreover, the original mission was for 3 Para to move over the landscape attacking the Taleban but were given orders to hold isolated buildings for symbolic purposes, namely, to show that the Afghan government had a presence. Is it any wonder that the men are leaving the forces with this sort of political interference ?

I must also add how Labour was pushing senior NCOs out to save money, but then recalled them from the TA to serve but paid them far less. They would have never dared do this to any of their civil servant darlings. Soldiers, police, and intelligence officers are second class citizens to those on the left unless they are used to ruthlessly suppress their ideological enemies. Let us recall that a soldier upon entry into the forces makes less than a traffic warden in this country. On the other hand, we can have gay and racial outreach officers making more than a decorated SAS veteran.

Paul B

Its essential we have no hold barred enquiry into Defence, what we need as a nation need and what we are prepared to fund. Do we need a nuclear deterrent? its very expensive- does it have to be submarine launched? I personally would keep the deterent, not least to warn off Iran, but I would certainly question the need for two carriers. I think they have more to do with the egos of Admirals and Sea Lords at RN, rather than service need. If we are going for carriers though, two is not enough, we will need at least 4 to keep 1 at sea on point, at any one time.

As a country though we need a debate. That we are nowhere near the standard & quality of the US services, apart from in very small specialised units is really beyond debate, only our vanity kids that we are.

mac

Brown's interest in the armed forces extends as far as the next photo-op it presents as part of his reprehensible 'British patriot' act.

The Army is indeed too small for what's being asked of it. Moreover, it lacks the robust air support needed for campaigning in Afghanistan. We have Typhoons to interdict long-gone Soviet bomber fleets and Type 23 frigates optimised to fight Soviet attack submarines. But sufficient attack and support helicopters and close air support aircraft to fight effectively in Afghanistan? Forget it, that might mean reducing the RAF's and RN's sacrosant third of the defence budget.

Bluebottle: It was the indomitable Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham (although it was 3 years and 300 years he mentioned).

Anthony

"A British admiral (I forget which one)"

Andrew Cunningham

The Laughing Cavalier

Never forget that Chancellor Brown is the man who said " ... You think I don't care about the armed forces. You're right, I don't f***ing care"

Steve Green

No10 Petition - Gordon Brown to resign for economic incompetence.

bill

Read Lewis page's book.

Alfred T Mahan

Bluebottle - the admiral you refer to was Andrew Cunningham - and it was three/three hundred years, not two/two hundred.

I agree with most of the posters that the problem is in Whitehall not with the troops themselves. 'Twas ever thus, methinks, with our army; the navy, on the other hand, was properly funded for generations because its primary function was to protect our trade and not to pursue our Glorious Leaders' political tiffs, so we all had an interest in its effectiveness. No government for over two hundred years could afford to let the navy wither on the vine in the way our services have been hung out to dry in the last twenty years or so.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Anthony

Dirk is correct to note the inter-agency problems that have been going on and that the Americans have gone some way (partly thanks to Petraeus but in no small part thanks to Gates) to sorting the problem out, whereas we have failed miserably. He is also correct to note that, while the political leadership has been catastrophic, the military brass is getting off far too lightly (as they always do in Tory-centric attempts to deal with this sort of issue).

Paul is also correct to note that the plain fact of the matter is that any sort of serious debate has been seriously lacking and - I'm reading this into his words, but I don't think it's a step too far (open to correction) - that continually banging on about the notion that the British Army is "The Best In The World" (a phrase that seems to be a mandatory insertion into and Tory parliamentary contribution on defence) is not actually helping in terms of facing up to some uncomfortable truths and making some hard decisions.

James - on the issue of Lord Ashdown, he's an impressive man and his involvement in things going forward would be a Good Thing, but the Bosnia experience is arguably of limited relevance and I know a lot of people who are concerned that Ashdown doesn't get that it isn't one-size-fits-all. The fact of the matter is that, while there's overlap, there are vital differences between "nation-building" and full blown counterinsurgency. The failure to recognise this early on is one of our major problems and it's not clear that Ashdown is the man to take us forward in that regard.

Griffin

Brown showed his contempt for the armed forces openly when he made the Defence Secretary a part-timer.

Tom

In my opinion there are two questions you have to ask when setting the defence budget: "How much do we want our defence budget to be?" and "What do we want to do with our armed services?". The problem it seems in Britain is that the Government/Tony Blair through his vanity wanted to do a lot with our armed forces but Gordon Brown didn't want to fund them. The result is overstretch and underspend.

TGF UKIP

A brilliant post, James, matched by equally brilliant and authoritative comments. This is the Coffee House at its very best.

The only comments I would venture to make in such company is firstly I would suggest you look for the start of the rot in the government of J Major which slashed the defence budget with wholesale redundancies of officers and nco's.

Secondly, I suggest attention be drawn to those very senior officers who allowed themselves to be bewitched by Blair and Campbell and became the media generals and admirals so beloved of New Labour for peddling the governments cause cause on the telly.

Thirdly do not hold out too much hope from the Cameron Tories if, despite themselves, they actually make it into government. Until the last few days they had resolutely hung out against contemplating any protection for the Armed Forces budget and as for a change of culture at the MOD, well is anything more Cameron/Hilton than modern art in place of battle scenes as suitable decor for a New Tory defence ministry (and I'm sure Hilton will not be content with such belligerent nomenclature for a Cameron government department as that.)

Chuck Unsworth

@ Tom Tom

"The British Army is too small, has poor quality recruits because of demographics and low-grade schooling."

Certainly the Army is too small but your other points are, frankly, rubbish. Modern recruits are better schooled than their forebears, anyway. But there is a relentless toll of duty which is certainly damaging - and it is of an intensity not seen since the Korean War. As a former serving regular soldier I view these young men and women with enormous admiration. They are, simply, superb. And they are grossly and shamefully ill-served by their political masters.

Paul B

Anthony, spot on, its not helping that we (mistakenly) think our forces are the best. At this time they`re not, that is not a criticism of the boys/girls in green and two shades of blue, but rather how our politicians have let it all slip.

Ted Tedford

May 1940: The remnants of the British Army is struggling to hold the line in France, as three German Army Groups bear down on the Low Countries and race for the ports, and the Luftwaffe is preparing to destroy the last lines of defence before the invasion.

The Cabinet and the Chiefs of the Imperial General Staff ponder the gravity of the situation. The solution?

"What we need now," thunders Churchill, "is a new pamphlet on armoured warfare doctrine."

Seriously, James: a new nation-building strategy will restore Britain's military reputation? Nothing less than a purge of the guilty men in the MoD and Joint Operations is necessary, and a doubling down on our share of blood and treasure in Afghanistan. At least if we are beaten in the field, there is some honour to be gained from defeat. Our conduct in southern Iraq was a disgrace.

dilys

Why do we still need the RAF?
Increase the Fleet Air Arm and let the army run its own airforce. That wil save money and make the planes more effective.

colin

Tom Tom @ 3:43pm

Most of your post is complete rubbish.

The current field Army, is the fittest, best equipped, most battle hardened fighting force the UK has had at its disposal since the 1950's.

The problems in Iraq stem from the total failure or absence of vision, courage, morality and leadership at the political level. When you combine the cynicism and outright institutional hatred towards the armed forced by the likes of brown and his cronies, with an unusually weak and malleable cadre of senior military commanders, you end up with the betrayal and evisceration of a once world class institution, that will take decades to put right. This government has virtually broken the back of the Army, but we should not forget that the damage has been wrought with the help of a bunch of officer class donkey's every bit as politicised as those at the top of that other once world class institution, the Met...

Ken

Anyone else recall John Reid, the mad bad Scots doctor and then Defence Minister, saying on Radio 4 that not a shot would be fired as he deployed the troops to Afghanistan for a "short tour". Labour hatred of the military is pathological, well in line with its shoddy schoolboy marxism. How has a nation of learning allowed such tragic misgovernance to thrive?

Anthony

Paul - Plain fact of the matter is that one doesn't get to be (or to stay, anyway) the best army in the world by sitting around congratulating one another on the notion that you're the best army in the world. It's totally understandable that people wish to praise the armed forces, not least when they are putting their necks on the line like this, but the whole thing has simply turned into an article of faith and it isn't helpful. To the extent that the Americans have improved it has been because they have undergone a very painful period of self-examination and open-minded self-criticism. That's part of what a good "learning organisation" does.

Another quick thought - when we talk about the mess the politicos have made of things, aren't we leaving out a key element: The Electorate? The plain fact of the matter is that there simply aren't many votes in defence and to the extent that they exist they tend to be tied to things like jobs that are contingent on defence procurement decisions, thus feeding into the tendency to spend outsized wads of cash on big-ticket items that may be of limited utility or ill-matched with any coherent strategy. To a degree, aren't the politicians simply manifesting a broader public attitude? People say they want this, that or the other, but ultimately they don't vote on issues like forces accommodation and infantry levels and while Mr Forsyth suggests raising defence spending to 4%, I'd be interested to know where he thinks there's a demographically substantial constituency for that. I simply don't think it is plausible and on that basis, while I may share the desire, doesn't it just amount to so much navel-gazing?

Nicholas

". . . and acts like a Colonial Police Force rather than a fighting machine"

Unfortunately it was the contempt shown by senior army officers for policing duties in post-invasion Iraq that started the rot. Had they not stood by and ignored a complete breakdown in law and order the situation might not have deteriorated the way it did. I can still recall the most arrogant of battalion commanders on being asked how he was going to maintain control in Basra after liberating the city reply scornfully that he was "not a policeman". The policing vacuum that he and those like him turned a blind eye to soon became insurrection.

In Germany in 1945 British Army battalion commanders had a broader sense of moral duty and took full responsibility for maintaining proper law and order in the areas they occupied. The responsibilities of the occupying forces and the maintenance of civil order had been the subject of detailed military planning for several years and none of those involved, as far as I know, abrogated that responsibility because they were "not policemen".

Lou Dacht

Chuck.

"Modern recruits are better schooled than their forebears"

We are still talking of UK forces yes? Made up of young people who have just trudged through the UK education obstacle course?

Archie

Quite brilliant article and subsequent comments! I spend a fair bit of time in North America and it has to be said that Bluebottle and Max Kaye are quite right about the negative impression that the Iraq/navy hostage fiasco had on our standing with the public over there, even though I seem to remember that the commander of HMS Cornwall has quietly "moved on". Perhaps it shouldn't have been quietly?
Military coup, anyone?

Hysteria

Dilys - do you know of what you speak? Or is this an assertion based on an opinion?

from what will the Fleet Air Arm fly airplanes? The Harrier (or it's replacement) is not, I understand, an air defence weapon system.

The army has a requirement for aviation assets (helicopters) as well as ground attack systems - again, what about air defence (of the the battlefeild and the nation more generally)

And in any case - shuffling the ownership of the assets does not alter the cost base.

You might as well say disband the Army and let the RAF Regiment take over the entire ground operation.......

(And whilst my friends in the Rock Apes might support the idea in jest, it would make no more sense than your proposal methinks)

George Steiner

Its all very interesting but pointless. British economy can’t support a half decent military. Britain is no longer an independent nation. You are in Europe remember? Your youth lack the moral and social fiber to supply a potent military. You live in a socialist paradise that will reelect labour mostly. There is no support for a potent military from the public. And lastly who is threatening Britain.

Michael

Before we disband the RAF and enlarge the RN, we might be better employed in deciding just what we are going to do with them.

The electorate do not support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not as they are fought at present.

The electorate would support defending this country. They would also support solving our internal security problems by deportation.

Hysteria

George Steiner - at the risk of enraging some of the other Coffee Housers I will again ask my standard question - what evidence do you have for your sweeping assertions?

Figures show that recruiting is up for the front line troops - this indicates to me that (perhaps for not very good reasons) at least some of the youth in this country are up for a fight and to serve.

Have you read the combat reports, the medal citations, seen the YouTube clips? Whilst I do not have a Panglossian view of the performance of the military and it seems there are questions to be answered at the senior and political level, in terms of the guys and girls on the ground the country is being well served.

To your point that there is no public support - again - evidence please? Check out the way in which home towns are turning out to weloome returning troops, and, sadly, returning dead.....not a patch on the treatment of troops in the USA that is true - but to claim "no support" is too far.

Michael - re your comment on "support defending the ecountry" - indeed - and just how do we do that then? - line up on the beaches? Defence in depth from Hastings back to London?

This may have been an appropriate strategy in 1066 (although we lost that one!) but is no way to defend the country in the modern era (and we only just scraped by with that approach in 1940) - unfortunately we will need to have deployable forces to take on our enemies wherever they may be.

I concede that the details of Iraq and Afghanistan may mean we are fighting the wrong wars (debatable) but I don't think that detracts from my general argument.

Chuck Unsworth

@ Lou Dacht

What you should consider is the (non-existent, in many cases) schooling of their predecessors. However, the British Army has always taken basic ability in English and Maths (inter alia) very seriously. The reduction in size of the army has, peculiarly, enabled a more rigorous selection process. This in turn has led to a (comparatively) higher standard of entrant - certainly higher than that demanded of counter-hands at MacDonald's, for example.

In any event, this is not entirely about academic ability. Many other aspects are considered before individuals are selected for military training.

The pity is that we do not adequately reward these excellent young men and women for putting their health and lives on the line as directed by our appalling politicians.

Charlie

If one looks at post WW2, many of the best fighters amongst the officers from the commandos, paras, special forces and SOE left the Army by 1948. Some were recalled for Malaya , then let go again. Is the old adage that the best potential generals leave as captains still true? Have we lost too many of the best fighters amongst the officers? Col Tim Collins, CO of 22 SAS, OC of SAS squadron in Afghanistan, CO 0f 3 Para have all left the army. Are their sufficient officers above the rank of colonel prepared to tell senior officers, civil servants and politicians that the Army is under resourced for the tasks it has to undertake? Is this compounded by the fact that hardly any Labour MP or major Labour supporter and/or their children has been in combat?
Blair's attitude to education was apparently shaped by various people he knew socially who complained about the comprehensive system, particularly in Islington. Post 2003 there were probably no people in Blair's social circle who could accurately report what was happeing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians are more likely to address an isssue when several personal friends who have first hand experience bring it to their attention. Some of the problems of the Armed Forces is that they have not tried to reduce the gulf in comprehension between themselves and the middle class university white collar types who make up the majority of the Labour Party who are at best indifferent to this institution. The days when the Labour Party contained MPs of the type such as , D Healey , J Callaghan ,Roy Mason and Don Concannon are long gone.

CharlieRay15

@ Ken

My thoughts exactly!

Michael

Hysteria: Michael - re your comment on "support defending the country" - indeed - and just how do we do that then?

My point is that the electorate don't support the current policy. Which in my personal opinion, consists of fighting silly wars in silly places.

Hysteria

Michael - point taken - I guess I am just keen to draw a distinction between support for the troops v the political leadership - I mis-interpreted your original post.

Kevin

Never having worked there, I know no more about the internals of the British Army than I do those of, for example, Marks and Spencer, but some things are clear. The Government has a schizophrenic attitude to killing. On the one hand, it was quite happy to take military action that obviously jeopardised the lives of innocent people, but, on the other, it was resolutely opposed to the execution, upon conviction, of the very dictator who gave them their casus belli. These facts are compatible with the accusation that Basra was lost because of politically imposed rules of engagement.

Stevey

“I think it would be fair to say that in 2006, the British army was defeated in the field in Southern Iraq.”

Kilcullen's comment, from a supposed expert, is farcical. The Australians in Southern Iraq barely left base and were then pulled out. Funny how he doesn't include his own countrymen in this statement. Of course this was all a result of politics and not a reflection of the forces themselves. The British operations in the country were scaled back far too quickly. We didn't have enough boots of the ground and the politicians decided that Iraq was not a priority and continually pulled British forces out. With the same resources as the British, the US would have experienced the same thing. Look how few troops we had to tackle a much harder problem than NI and the lack of resources deployed compared to that endeavour. Depite US bravery and resource commitments, they got very lucky that the Sunnis decided to switch sides (up until that point the US had been defeated in the field in Anbar province, by their own admission, despite the huge resources they could bring to bear). By Kilcullen's own definition, the Australians in Iraq were 'defeated in the field' in Iraq without a shot being fired. Perhaps Mr. Kilcullen would like to explain when/ where the British battlefield defeats occurred? It seems pretty obvious the problems in Southern Iraq were caused by the political lack of commitment and nothing more.

RE: US opinion of UK forces. With all due respect to the very brave personnel of the United States, their post WW2 military record is hardly outstanding. Somalia, the blundering invasion of Grenada,the surrender of the ship the USS Pueblo to the North Koreans (note this was a ship, not 15 lightly armed personnel in an inflatable craft),Vietnam, the initial panicked flight of the US Army from the Chinese in Korea, the Iranian hostage crisis disaster, the retreat from Beirut, the fiction surrounding the Jessica Lynch capture, the 10th Mountain Division that couldn't 'do mountains' in Afghanistan, the reluctance of the US Army to deploy troops outside the base in the Balkans (their US Marine colleagues referred to this base as 'Disneyland')amongst many other incidents hardly gives them cause to criticise the surrender of a hopelessly outgunned Royal Navy party in the Gulf and the problems encountered by a woefully under-resourced UK military in Southern Iraq. Let us not forget that, despite our casualties, we are the only US ally still available for combat operations in the country and actively have troops on the streets of Basra still. Our military are also doing a damn fine job in Afghanistan, again, despite adequate resources. Its interesting to note that all of the doom-mongering at the moment seems to be coming from the UK media, the worst in the Western world.

Dirk Blade

@Stevey: Mr Kilcullen's comments are no less valid for his being an Australian. It is precisely this precious, chippy attitude which, if replicated in our forces, will hinder reform.

I doubt Kilcullen could point to a single encounter and say 'that was the point of defeat'. But, cumulatively, our experience in southern Iraq looks very much like it: the initiative was ceded to the militias, and our manner of withdrawal from Basra palace does not suggest an Army that dominated its environment and dictated the sequence of events. Once we made it possible for the enemy to paint our withdrawal as a surrender, we lost what little confidence the Basrawis had about our resolve to maintain security. That, to a disinterested observer, looks like a defeat - or more like a defeat than a score-draw or victory.

The US might have been 'defeated in the field' in Anbar. But it had a campaign plan, even in the darkest days of 2004, within which context this defeat should be seen. The fact is, the US government and military leadership acted to change the facts on the ground, in Anbar and in the rest of Iraq. That is why the US is a serious power, the UK a second-rate one. Regardless of our tactical successes during the invasion, we have pursued a failed strategy, and for that, the uniformed chiefs of staff bear every bit as much responsibility. Why was the RN 'hopelessly outgunned'? And why did the US forces have the resources their commanders asked for? Because one government wants to run wars on the cheap, the other wants to achieve its strategic aims.

As for your litany of post-war US military failures, it's petty point-scoring. Most of your examples could be matched by an equally silly British version (the extent to which we relied on sheer good luck in the Falklands, as well as sending battalions straight from public duties; the capture of SAS soldiers in Ireland and Chile). Many (Beirut, force protection in Bosnia, 'Vietnam' - which aspect, exactly?) were the consequence of political decisions of the type from which you seek to exonerate the British military. Others (Lynch, 10 Mountain Div) are plain bizarre. 10th Mountain Division is the resurrection of an old honorific name for a light infantry division based in New York, and no more refers to its environmental specialities than does the 9th/12th Lancers describe that regiment’s current weapon systems.

The fundamental point is that the modern US armed forces have undergone a major transformation, and have not hidden behind mythology to declare reform 'off-limits' or unnecessary, or deluded themselves that they'd have done better if they'd been allowed by 'the politicians'. That seems vaguely reminiscent of the 'stab in the back’…

Stevey

@Dirk Blade

Thanks for your comments, I think you make some very interesting points. I admit that my earlier post may have been somewhat incoherant (due to the speed at which I had to type it!).

Just to address some of your points:

RE: Kilcullen. I have absolutely no problem with valid criticism of the UK military. Its vital for such an important institution to be kept on its toes. The problem I had with Kilcullen's statement was its assertion that the 'defeat' in Southern Iraq occurred 'in the field' and by implication was a primarily a failure for our military. When as few resources are committed to a difficult campaign as those committed to post-war Iraq by the UK government, I believe that there is very little scope to examine the failures (or indeed the successes) of the UK military itself in Iraq. Kilcullen makes the episode sound something like the fall of Singapore (a military catastrophe) in his neglect, in the given quotation, of what seems to me to be the overriding political reasons for failures. I highlighted Kilcullen's Australian origins because, if you take his non-political argument and apply it to, for example, the Aussie commitment to post-war Iraq you reach the absurd conclusion that the Australians must have been 'defeated in the field' because they never really got out in the field to begin with. Its all really down to the politics in this case.

"our manner of withdrawal from Basra palace does not suggest an Army that dominated its environment and dictated the sequence of events."
Agreed, but how were a few thousand troops (around 10,000 and less soon after the invasion) going to effectively police a huge geographic area with a population (2 million citizens in Basra alone) with a history of violent autonomy?

I certainly didn't mean to get into petty point-scoring RE:the US. I love the US as a country and hugely admire its proud military history. My point in listing some US failures of the last few deacdes was to highlight the fact that both the UK and US have had their fair share of failures (amongst the successes)and that one cannot claim absolute military superiority over the other because of the result of one campaign (Iraq), where the US committed adequate resources and the UK did not. If Bush had lost his nerve in 2006 and pulled US forces out of Iraq, we would not even be having this discussion now. Indeed this discussion may have been along the lines of 'what can the US do to restore its military reputation?'. The surge of 30,000 extra troops (and the political message this sent out to wavering Sunni militants) turned the course of the war. Just as UK failures primarily stemmed from lack of political will to reinforce the Iraq mission when it started going wrong (inspite of the courage of UK troops), the strength of US political leadership turned the Iraq endeavour in the US's favour (as well as the courage of US troops).

If the UK had committed the same resources to Northern Ireland that it has to Iraq I think similar problems would have surfaced. Because the political will in the latter case was stronger, the result was different.Indeed, I agree with you that alot of the Somalia, Beirut situation in the US case were also failures due to politics. I don't remember, however, the US media agonising on the standing of the US military in the world after these episodes.

Its the exaggeration surrounding British failures in Iraq that grates. Reading opinion pieces in certain newspapers one would think the military had just experienced another 'Fall of Singapore'. The fact that UK personnel are actually still on the ground in Basra, in significant numbers, is all but ignored by the press.

I am not laying all of the blame at the feet of the politicians and I agree with you that the opening of the US military to scrutiny should serve as an example for the UK military.