The Black Watch et al

[Mr T.]

Sorry Dinger mate, the above poll's a little light (i.e. tabloid) in its options.


Firstly, and specifically NOT wanting to drag this into any diatribe about the rights and wrongs of the reasons behind the war in Iraq: Rumsfeld did not (as confirmed by former US head-shed on the ground, General Tommy Franks - who subsequently turned down, when offered, the job of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) send any where like enough US troops into theatre - relying, instead on the ('we'll now win wars by sound-byte') "Shock-n-Awe" approach: which, in turn, was nothing - with the exception of having 'smarter weapons' - that wasn't used to a highly successful degree in Hitler's 'Blitzkreig' tactics in WW2.

Bearing in mind this is Rummy's third bite at the being Secretary of Defense (sic) cherry - you'd think he might be a tad more 'battle worn' and clued up. Alas not. Choosing, instead, to tie himself in verbal knots at press briefings, he was not at the front of the queue when the good Lord was handing out CDF. He thought he was smarter than the Generals on the ground, who were crying out for the appropriate number of troops and logistics - he refused and chose technology over leather boots on the ground. Twat.

The US had more troops in theatre in 1991's Gulf War 1 (under Bush Snr.), and that was only to boot Saddam out of Kuwait - not to prosecute the set-piece and running battles (with all the planning, logistics, support, 'Force Protection' etc.) of a full scale Regime Change and subsequent internecine war, score-settling and insurgency which always follow said change.

You've all read how Bush has proclaimed that he's withdrawing US forces from those places which no longer pose the threat they once did: Germany for example - the Cold War being 'over'. The Philippines being another target for troop reduction.

This has two desired affects: it allows US troops more 'home postings' (i.e. they can be on campus with their wives and families at Fort Wherever Stateside) and it frees up whole divisions of men for movement to spots where they are needed - like Iraq and Afghanistan (where troop over-stretch is currently beyond worrying).

I wrote some weeks ago that you might just now see a break with the US's former overly-PC-drenched (and frankly unsupportable, in both military objective and strategic terms) stance of 'Oh, we couldn't possibly attack the wee darlings during Ramadan, it might upset them, and we have to respect their religious sensitivities...'

Well this is the set-piece to which I alluded then. Fallujha now looks like it is gonna (finally!) take the US onslaught it needs: in that town lie most of the men who do the 'Ken Bigleys' of this campaign.

US Marines (who'll see the brunt of the work out) have been encircling the town for months now and have been twiddling their thumbs and (like most servicemen at one time or another) just praying that the fucking politicians would either stand them to and commit to a battle-plan, or stand them down and redeploy or re-task them elsewhere. That's what they are there to do - fight - that's what they're paid to do and they just want to get on and do it.

Now, vis-à-vis any spurious, sound-bytesque, cynical and wholly unsupported claims and opinions above about this re-tasking of the Black Watch 'to help Bush in the US elections' - no politician wants to be fighting a war when going into a general election (Thatcher's Falklands gig was long over by the 1983 elections in the UK): they'd rather be talking about economic growth, more jobs, lower taxes and general prosperity and the usual voodoo than having to explain the numbers of troop deaths to the voters.

Other people tend to forget, in their rush to be cynical, that this process in Iraq will take years (Blair may well regret his "home by Christmas" pledge - a stupid thing to say and made by a man who obviously chose to forget that that claim has been made a number of times before and not kept - 'mission creep', Tony? World War 1, Tony?) - we were, after all, in Germany for over 50 years after WW2 - BAOR? Checkpoint Charlie? A four-sector Berlin?

And going back to the point about the timing of the re-tasking.

If the battle in Fallujha can be underway (finished, I'll reserve judgement on) soonest, then that means the main threat to Iraqi civilian life and her future 'democracy' (from the insurgents) can at least stand a chance of being crushed and 'a normal life' becoming established. The press don't, or rarely, report on the vast strides forward that Iraq has made in terms of infrastructure, water, electricity, the ability to sell its own oil, schools etc. It's not bad news and it doesn't suit their liberla agendas therefore they don't report it.

Her elections are in January - I don't expect the fighting against insurgency forces to be over by then - but why wait to take on these people? Why shouldn't the Iraqis have the opportunity to live in a country where these people know that they can't rule/attempt to enforce their religious bigotry by bombs, bullets, kidnapping, beheadings etc? We didn't, and don't, stand for it in the last 30-some years in Northern Ireland - so why should a Moslem nation have to put up with it today? How many more Balkans, Rwandas and Saddams do we/they have to live through before we say enough is enough?

Others might also forget that Iraq - left unattended/protected by UN-sanctioned troops - would become, in very short order, a target for its neighbour's (Iran) Sunni intentions and payback for their 1080-88 war - these including the expansion of its radical Islamic theocracy (something the beheaders and kidnappers would love to see).

Iran is already flooding agents, munitions and tons of money over Iraq's very porous borders to help support the insurgents in the 'Sunni Triangle' and anywhere else it can grab a foothold; it is also acting as a rally point for all graduates of the Madrasas (Islamic extremist training camps) in Pakistan, Saudi, Syria, Kuwait, Indonesia and a dozen other Muslim countries; these 'graduates' then making their way to the hot-spots of Iraq to take on the UK/US/Australian/Polish etc. troops.

We are to be thankful in the extreme that the Black Watch is to retain UK command-n-control on the ground and not be handed over to that of the US.

That said, there are already a number of joint US & UK units, not widely reported on in the press, currently working, living and sleeping together (though not in a Biblical sense) on any number of operations in-country - and have been since before the first bullets were fired in Iraq; repeating the work they carried out for nigh-on two years in Afghanistan.

It would do us well, also, to remember the proper etymology and true meaning of the adjectival term 'gung-ho': it is a Chinese term (gonghe) meaning 'to work together' and has only latterly taken on the rather more euphemistic tenet of 'enthusiastic' and 'eager'. It was adopted as a slogan in the 1939 to 1946 war by the US Marine Corps - but should be more properly used by those facing extremes or hardship whilst trying to maintain morale, team-spirit and any sense of esprit-de-corps - e.g. Scott of the Antarctic when facing sure death when trying to get back to safety. Most journalists, to their shame, never bother checking words or phrases for their proper use/meaning and just 'go with the flow', regardless of wrong they end up being or how stupid it makes them look.

On another point: when the Watch do move up-country, they will be lucky (even when given previous examples of US 'Blues-on-Blue) to have the air cover and 'force protection' capability of the US - although a number of them will be cringing at the prospect

There is a now age old understanding in the British Army which attempts to explain just why the action and deployment methods of the UK and US troops differ so greatly.

Whereas the UK (whilst being ferocious in battle) prefers to be professionally cautious, stealthy, prepared and - where it can - to reach solutions with an enemy which doesn't result in whole swathes of the enemy's civilian population needlessly being killed or UK troops killed by 'going large', charging headlong into battle and blasting the shit out of a given Area of Operations (AO), it is often the way that their US counterparts rely more heavily on the "we've got plenty of everything: troops, bullets, mortars, tank rounds, helo’s, tanks, air cover - the works, so we don't need to hold back or be subtle in our AO..."

By contrast, the UK soldier jokes - perhaps with a pressure/stress-relieving gallows-humour - that they don't know when or if they might get a re-sup, and consequently they are much more judicious in their use of all war materials - anyone who has seen today's footage of the UK troops in that fire-fight and read Paul Oliver's recent piece about his former regiment holding its post for weeks against ridiculous odds and then seen footage of US troops in 'similar' circumstances would notice a signal difference in attitude, deployment and effectiveness. If US troops get into trouble, they can, invariably, rely on massive air cover to 'dissuade' any would be attacker; the British squaddie, alas, from its own side, can not always, if at all, rely on that same capability.

Whilst all good infantry soldiers know that you always break off a 'contact', the US are more 'inclined' to do so earlier than their UK counterparts. And doing so at the wrong time might lose a valuable and hard-won objective and give it back to the enemy; and the topography of war (the taking and retaining of ground) is one of the elements which allow you to command the ground and deny it as an operational base to the enemy. Hence the much needed and 'can't happen soon enough' battle of Fallujha.

The other irony is that you will never meet a US soldier who will admit to having 'retreated'. The UK soldier recognises the benefit of a tactical 'fighting retreat' (during a contact) if it makes sense - it could always be a feint and part of larger plan to bring the enemy into/onto your chosen killing ground.

Whilst there will always be a strident (though begrudgingly respecting) rivalry between the Royal Marines and the Para's in this country (and even though the Para's in turn call every other regiment in the British Army "Hats" [short for 'crap-hat']), both units know that every other regiment in the British Army can be relied on to give of its best and is as professional as the next regiment in battle.

The final irony: one of the Battle Honours on the standard of the Black Watch is 'Baghdad - 1917' when fighting the Turks and Germans; it is to be hoped that they, one of the oldest and proudest regiments in the British Army, are not now ordered to go into bat in that same place and then be brought home (before Christmas?), stood down, 'marched out' and their standard retired to either their regimental church or museum.

[Mdemon]

They're soldiers. The fact that they may be going somewhere "hot" is neither here nor there, they'll go where they're ordered. And I don't expect you'd hear any of them complaining about it either.

Whinging about kit on the other hand is a squaddies' right - and if they're not whinging they're not happy! And yes, we do have some of the best kit in the world. Most relevant being NBC gear (for those pesky hard-to-find WMD ).

The americans may have lots more toys, but they're happy to lend, and as one guy I knew put it when thermal imagers came out... "what do you do when the batteries run out? Another useless piece of sh*t to carry...". Says it all really. That's the difference between the Brits and the yanks - we use what we can beg/borrow/steal and don't rely on the technology...

Just a thought, but if you search the archives here you may find the posts on how long people thought the Iraq war was going to take. It'd make for interesting reading...

[Tony F]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Sorry Dinger mate, the above poll's a little light (i.e. tabloid) in its options.


Firstly, and specifically................

FFS what do you do for a living????? If you've a boss I hope he's not a diver and has never heard of time and motion study!

Great post btw, throughly readable.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by Tony F

FFS what do you do for a living????? If you've a boss I hope he's not a diver and has never heard of time and motion study!

Great post btw, throughly readable.

Being a 'man of leisure', I am the boss

[Tony F]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Being a 'man of leisure', I am the boss

Ah..... I see it all now, some of it

[Conor]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Now, vis-à-vis any spurious, sound-bytesque, cynical and wholly unsupported claims and opinions above about this re-tasking of the Black Watch 'to help Bush in the US elections' - no politician wants to be fighting a war when going into a general election (Thatcher's Falklands gig was long over by the 1983 elections in the UK): they'd rather be talking about economic growth, more jobs, lower taxes and general prosperity and the usual voodoo than having to explain the numbers of troop deaths to the voters.

Well, I admited I was being cynical

Are you saying that you believe there is no possibility of there being a political benefit to GB?

I belive in Bush's camp there still remains a need to play up his role in commanding the Iraq campaign, moving UK troops up in preparation for a US assault makes big news and gaurantees headlines and focus on 'strong assertive leadership' just at a time when el presidente is bolstering this side of his political self.

(BTw as always well written, but where do you find the time )

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by camdiver

Are you saying that you believe there is no possibility of there being a political benefit to GB?

To the UK or the US?

How might this move (the Black Watch moving to the US's AO) benefit Blair, given the norz he's already gone through after four reports in to 'why' we went into bat in Iraq in the first place and a good deal of unrest and indignance about same from Blair's own back-benchers, the Liberati and Guardian-wallahs?

Apropos the above, I don't know if you're aware, but the Guardian currently has a an Editorial request out, to all its readers, to write a letter to the swing-voters of various strategic US states where the election outcome is still in the balance?

Constituents of said states have, to date, received over 14,000 letters from Guardianistas demanding (never something you do to a Yank and hope to carry the day) that they vote Kerry. Those recipients of these letters are now, vurtually to a man and women, going to vote for Bush.

Talk about a backfire for the Grauniad!

We are not, as has been claimed, "bailing out the US" in this re-tasking: rather freeing-up US troops to get in amongst it in another part of their AO - Fallujha. Unless we hear different, UK troops are not going to Fallujha.

Originally Posted by Camdive

I belive in Bush's camp there still remains a need to play up his role in commanding the Iraq campaign, moving UK troops up in preparation for a US assault makes big news and gaurantees headlines and focus on 'strong assertive leadership' just at a time when el presidente is bolstering this side of his political self.

I have no doubt that Bush might say any number of things to try and get re-elected: though asking for the, in relative terms, modest number of UK troops which make up the Black Watch battlegroup is not one of them and won't make a ha'pe'th's worth of difference to the average US voter who can't even place Iraq on a map of Iraq.

Originally Posted by camdiver

(BTw as always well written, but where do you find the time )

Thank you. Time? Time's what you make of it

Have a swaatch at this article which goes to the core of this very issue.


Mutual incomprehension is no basis for a special relationship
By Stephen Robinson
(Filed: 20/10/2004)

To anyone who spends any time in America, this type of awkward encounter has become familiar. You are standing in a queue in a shop, and when your turn comes and you start to speak, someone will turn round, beam and say something like: "I just want to say how great it is that you Brits are right behind us." Occasionally, older Americans will add glowing words of approval for "your Tony Blair", with some flattering reference to Winston Churchill or Margaret Thatcher.

If I worked for the Independent, I would probably feel duty bound to correct my interlocutor, to suggest that the conduct of the occupation leaves something to be desired, and that, in some respects, Mr Blair might well have been less than candid with the British people about going to war. But I tend to bask in the warm glow of national approval and mutter lamely, "Thank you" or "You are most welcome", and so by default, I am adding to the great fog of misunderstanding that shrouds that most asymmetrical of alliances, the Anglo-American "special relationship".

Perhaps because of re-runs on US cable stations of 1950s war films, and 1970s British sitcoms, we perpetuate a giant fraud. Americans think we are still a martial nation and have no idea how soppy our culture has become. They assume we are right behind Tony Blair in being right behind George W Bush. Americans think we joined the coalition of the willing because we want to kick butt, when in truth we are there because we find it very hard to say no to an American president (which is not necessarily a bad reason for being in Iraq).

They may have some vague memory of our weird spasm of national mourning after Diana's death seven years ago, but surely they cannot believe that, when we go to contemplate her water memorial in Hyde Park, we are supervised by uniformed "paddle police" to make sure we don't slip over and bruise our coccyx.

It is not hard to imagine how this week's rumpus over the deployment of the Black Watch might have started. One can visualise a cigar-chomping colonel in the Sunni Triangle, maybe weary of writing letters of condolence home to the families of dead GIs, thinking of those Brits stuck down by the Kuwait border not doing very much. He might be cross about the patronising views leaked to the press by "British military commanders" deploring the "gung-ho" approach of American soldiers.

This colonel might have thought, let's see how the guys with the soft caps and the feathers do against the Sunni headbangers. Now, if the special relationship had been functioning properly, word would have come back quickly from the Pentagon that Mr Blair already had enough trouble with his backbenchers. If the channels were open, and if Washington had any concept of the current sensitivities of Mr Blair's position, the idea would have been quietly knocked on the head. But we now know the Bush Administration has a tin ear for domestic British realities.

Our national relationship with America may well be embarrassingly asymmetrical in terms of the respective power and wealth of the two partners, but at least the all-encompassing misunderstanding is mutual. Witness the immediate reaction of Nicholas Soames, the Tory defence spokesman and Churchill's grandson, to news of the American request to move the Black Watch to south of Baghdad.

The request was no less, Mr Soames thundered, than a cynical electoral ploy and a "political gesture to reassure the Americans of... Blair's support".

The notion that this deployment might have been conceived to persuade American voters to rally behind the president is not just wrong; it is pathetic. Even in the heyday of Mr Soames's grandfather, surely no British politician could have aspired to swing a presidential election for FDR.

Does Mr Soames seriously think that, in the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, voters will be pausing over the ballot paper, wondering whether to give Mr Bush the benefit of the doubt because of his good friend Tony?

This mutual incomprehension is now so severe that it is quite possible - if sanity is not restored - that Mr Blair's decision to support Mr Bush could have the perverse consequence of destroying the Atlantic alliance.

Labour MPs who voted for the war, but are now flaunting their contempt for Mr Blair and Mr Bush, are surely the most risible figures. To take just one, Paul Farrelly, MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme, voted for our troops to be deployed within a US-led mission, but, when it is suggested that they move closer to the danger zone, he now says "there is no way we should give this dangerous American president any encouragement".

Belated regret at having supported a war that has been badly run, and was dubiously justified, is prompting spasms of anti-Americanism, not just from the usual subjects on the Labour back benches, but from the Conservatives, too.

Michael Howard may think he is playing a clever game by flirting with this anti-Americanism, but that just shows he has learnt nothing from the Australian election 11 days ago. There, a stridently anti-American leader of the opposition named Mark Latham lost comfortably to John Howard, the prime minister who resolutely refused to pander to an electorate that overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq war.

Not that the Americans make it easy for the British who want the relationship to thrive. No president in recent times has been so careless in keeping allies onside. Mr Bush cites his support from London, Rome and Poland when John Kerry accuses him of being diplomatically isolated, but it is a rhetorical tic, and he shows not the slightest inclination to work hard at fostering good international relations or bolstering allies who have taken huge political risks to back him.

If you find you are unable to put a name or a face to the American ambassador in London, that is because there hasn't been one here since the early summer, and a replacement is unlikely to arrive until the middle of next year. An administration anxious to reward Mr Blair for his loyalty might have been expected to make its case to the British public, but I cannot remember the last time I saw the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, or the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, on British television. Come to think of it, most of us would probably struggle to remember what Mr Powell looks like, so invisible has he been since the Iraq war started.

A relationship so unequal as the one between Britain and America has immense potential for awkwardness, particularly for the junior partner to take umbrage when it thinks it is being taken for granted. It would be a shameful reflection on the combined political skills of George W Bush and Tony Blair if the historic Atlantic relationship completely unravelled at a time when American and British soldiers are fighting and dying together.

[Dinger]

Originally Posted by Bren Tierney

Sorry Dinger mate, the above poll's a little light (i.e. tabloid) in its options

Sadly it shows the limitations of my so called 'brian'. Thick as shite me!


Dinger

[Paul Oliver]

Personally was i there i'd have no problem with the depolyment, unless its extending my 6 month tour, but then i'd just get on with it.

Kit is not an issue, they have what they need+ some. Troops will always gripe, and compared with the old days they are in luxuary.

As for the Black Watch, well a few years ago i got into a ruck with some INLA shooters on the Falls road, very, very happy to have 2 teams of BW backing me up. Tough Guys, just need to learn how to talk english

Mind you i also spent a weekend on the pish with them in Werl years ago, VERY, VERY dangerous thing to do. Good fun as well though.

Bottom line Fcuk the politicians let the troops and in theatre commanders get on with it. To much discussion on the news and in parlament of future operations and deployments, THAT will cost lives, and it will focus the terrorists efforts into an area that will get them MAX publicity. i.e. Kill some jocks and wait for our press to do the buisness for them.

Oh and appologies to the poor peace activists in Canterbury City Centre last week who tried to get me to sign a troops out petition

[Conor]

To clarify, it was the US electoral benefit I was alluding to.

I agree there is no chance of Blair getting a benefit from this.

I was surprised to hear news of troop redeployments on the news, I thought the reporting of this so much in advance could not make the troops lives any easier. Obviously the troops will go where they are sent and do a good job, but more from the point of view that the reporting of this has surely got to have been done for a reason, as knowledge of redeployments are at least a matter for military commanders in theatre or are potentially a cynical concern. You can just imagine the ad in the bagdad papers '60 Land rovers containing British troops and personnel will be travelling through bandit country on Thusday afternoon, come one come all'.

It just strikes me that this much attention has to have a reason behind it. Two weeks before an election, I doubt there is a single decision made by the US administration that is not weghed up in terms of its electoral impact, those that would be negative are postponed, those that may be either are probably shelved as well, and only those that are of a postive nature are allowed to happen.

I agree that the decision to move the troops has a viable strategic advantage, but I can't believe the decision would not have gone ahead if it did not benefit George Dubja at this time.

And yes, I am cynical enough to believe that GB2 may well have contacted the commanders and said something along the lines of 'This guy kerry is nagging me about not having international support, can you organise and leak something that will appear on CNN and will show that its not just our guys fighting over there......actually try Tony's lot, he'll do anything for a trip to the states'.

Whether or not this redeployment was already on the commanders minds at the time of the request is debateable, maybe they were moving the Scots, or maybe they were moving the Kentucky womens Auxilliary and then switched, or maybe they had no need to move anyone but thought this would make the point. I don't think any of us know the answer.

I reckon none of us know what really is happening, I know there is enough motive kicking about at the mo, I believe we would all agree that if anyone is capable of doing this for electoral benefit it is GB2.

Conor