What's new

US general says Britain risks 'special relationship' if it cuts military

neehar

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
2,725
Reaction score
1
Country
India
Location
India
found this article interesting.two months older though.thought to share with u guys

Britain will be shut out of key decisions in the 'Special Relationship' with the US if it does not maintain credible military capabilities, Stanley McChrystal, America's former top commander in Afghanistan has warned.


Retd. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the author of America's counter-insurgency strategy and among the most influential and controversial US generals of the post-September-11 era, said that British defence cuts could not be made without a future cost to US-UK military relations.
"It will take a little while to reach that reality," he said in an exclusive interview with The Daily Telegraph, "but what worries me is that additional cuts could be made and everybody thinks 'it's okay', because people are still polite, but at a certain point you just find you're not consulted when important decisions are made."
The warning came as Leon Panetta, the out-going US defence secretary arrived in London on the final leg of a four-nation tour of Europe, aimed at highlighting the importance of maintaining the transatlantic security relationship at a time of budget cuts on both sides of the Atlantic.
Gen McChrystal, who commanded US Special Forces for five years before taking command of the War in Afghanistan in 2009, recalled the effects of British shortages and over-stretch in both Iraq and Afghanistan, where British forces struggled to hold off a Taliban insurgency in Helmand.
"When we started the fighting in Baghdad seriously in 2004, the Brit [special operations] forces were under-resourced significantly," he recalled of his time in Iraq leading an intense phases of special operations raids that lead to the death of Abu Musab al-Zaqarwi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

We had to lend them a lot of equipment, we had to do a bunch of things; we even had to use forces to help them, because they just didn't have the stuff. Within a couple of years they were just like any of my other forces; they were extraordinary."
When Gen McChrystal took command in Afghanistan in June 2009 he found British forces in Helmand "essentially besieged inside sandbagged outposts the Taliban has surrounded", according to his newly published memoir My Share of the Task.
Meeting a group of Black Watch soldiers that June just after a combat mission, Gen McChrystal recalled that even at an early stage in their six-month tour, the soldiers looked "gaunt and weary, their matted hair blanched and skin yellowed from the film of sand clinging to it.".
The book remains tactful on the arrival of a 17,000-strong force of US Marines sent to rescue the British and the resulting intense friction between British and US commanders who felt Britain had "made a mess" of the task, according to a State Department cable that was leaked in 2010.
Gen McChrystal said that British failures in Helmand were caused by the "hubris" or "ignorance" of British military and political leaders who took on more than they could handle, leading to a dangerous over-stretch of forces.
"You could argue that it's hubris, that it's ignorance – whatever it is – but there was a reality that there was an effort to do more than could be done effectively. And I think the soldiers on the ground knew it. The commanders knew it and they tried to work their way through it," he said.
Asked what lessons Britain should learn from Helmand, Gen McChrystal suggested it would be prudent in future to match political and military ambitions to hard capabilities.
"When you look at Sangin and how hard that was for so long, and of course in all of Helmand," he recalled, "I think the take-away is, to try to do something with less military capability that is required."
The failures in Helmand and in Basra - where British troops were widely seen to have been forced into an ignominious retreat in 2007 - had not irreparably damaged the UK's standing with the US soldiers, who understood the realities of war.
"My sense is that Brits are probably more sensitive about it than Americans, who don't really think about it," he added, "I'm not saying that that sensitivity doesn't have some value because we're sensitive about our shortcomings too."
Gen McChrystal, now 58, remains an influential voice, despite being the first wartime commander to be fired in 60 years after he was dismissed by Barack Obama in June 2010 following an article in Rolling Stone magazine in which his team were quoted openly disparaging the administration.
He has raised questions about the Mr Obama's heavy reliance on unmanned drones to prosecute the war against al Qaeda, predicting the strategy will become unsustainable if the US fails to forge a meaningful strategic partnership with the Afghans after troops withdrew in 2014
"It's very tempting for any country to have a clean, antiseptic approach, that you can use technology, but it's not something that I think is going to be an effective strategy, unless it is part of a wider commitment," he said. "Unless there's something in it for the Afghans, then their willingness to accept it is diminished."

US general says Britain risks 'special relationship' if it cuts military - Telegraph
 
.
in other words stay committed to F35 and other American missions around the world.
 
.
David baboon hasnt got a clue what he is doing...
 
.
wonder what would be ur reaction to this @Abingdonboy

in other words stay committed to F35 and other American missions around the world.

well any where in the world ally means u watch my back i watch urs..but with america its only the frst one...not just with britan.same case with aus,canada and others..they have no independent foreign policy

David baboon hasnt got a clue what he is doing...

i think this is not new to brits..they were well aware of their ally
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
rogue head is calling the shot....

Eagle: dah... we aren't care nothing about your damn financial troubles, your old lady in Barkingham Palace is still live in luxuries.
 
.
true,military is needed to maintain the clout that they have.
 
. .
Only the Brits seem to think there is a "special" relationship with the Americans.
 
.
Only the Brits seem to think there is a "special" relationship with the Americans.

how dare they think "Only Israel has "special";) relationship with the America.
 
.
how dare they think "Only Israel has "special";) relationship with the America.
That is your belief. Albeit a twisted one.

The words you have quoted came from a high ranking British MP himself.
 
. .
x american generel actually
I wasn't talking about the General.

'Mention the special relationship to Americans and they say yes, it's a really special relationship,' notes sardonically Sir Christopher Meyer, a former British ambassador to Washington.
 
.
how dare they think "Only Israel has "special";) relationship with the America.

that's a big difference:
Israel having its own policy and having (now) excellent relations with USA
UK didn't have their own real policy and are known in Europe to want to be THE favorite of USA

that's very different
 
.
Realistically Britian, for the past 2 decades any way, has only been seen as a "rubber stamp" of approval used by the US to claim that its unilateral action is actually part of a "coalition". The Military capabilities the UK brings or offers to the the US is negligible when compared to the might of the US military. The ENTIRE UK army is SMALLER than the USMC. The USMC arguably has more firepower and capability than the entire UK army. Similarly just one fleet of the USN or a couple is foreign deployed air groups to the USAF are more capable and larger than the RN and RAF respectively. As such it is nonsense for anyone to say the US is after the UK's military assets because by and large the US can do almost all of what it wants flying solo.


What the US desperately seeks is to spread the blame and make sure of is not seen as the "bad guy" of aggressor, more that it is acting with authority and as part of a coalition and this has become apparent more and more of late. Just look at the Libyan campaign- the US took a very hands-off approach and let it appear it was a Europe-led combat mission when in reality most of the "heavy lifting" (EW support, AWACS coverage, intel collection, transport lifting etc) was done by the US military. The US chose to remain a silent partner when it could have easily handled the entire campaign on its own.


What the US is really worried about is that the UK's military budget cuts will reduce the expdtionaty warfare capabilty and this the mindset to deploy UK military assets abroad to support US military campaigns wherever they may be. The US is worried their omnipresent stamp of approval is cutting back its capabilities so much that eventually it just won't be able to support the US whenever it calls.


If the US was interested solely in actual military capability they would be focusing on the French who have the budget, assets,mindset,capabilities and not to mention foreign bases that trumps the UK almost hands down. However the one thing the UK has (that makes it so important to the US) is the need,the burning desire, to remain relevant and this is a need the US exploits to get the UK to act as the aforementioned "rubber stamp" of approval whenever needed.

The French have no desire to be some parasite or to leech of a greater power and thus the US Doesn't cosy up to them as much.
@neehar there you go!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Realistically Britian, for the past 2 decades any way, has only been seen as a "rubber stamp" of approval used by the US to claim that its unilateral action is actually part of a "coalition". The Military capabilities the UK brings or offers to the the US is negligible when compared to the might of the US military. The ENTIRE UK army is SMALLER than the USMC. The USMC arguably has more firepower and capability than the entire UK army. Similarly just one fleet of the USN or a couple is foreign deployed air groups to the USAF are more capable and larger than the RN and RAF respectively. As such it is nonsense for anyone to say the US is after the UK's military assets because by and large the US can do almost all of what it wants flying solo.


What the US desperately seeks is to spread the blame and make sure of is not seen as the "bad guy" of aggressor, more that it is acting with authority and as part of a coalition and this has become apparent more and more of late. Just look at the Libyan campaign- the US took a very hands-off approach and let it appear it was a Europe-led combat mission when in reality most of the "heavy lifting" (EW support, AWACS coverage, intel collection, transport lifting etc) was done by the US military. The US chose to remain a silent partner when it could have easily handled the entire campaign on its own.


What the US is really worried about is that the UK's military budget cuts will reduce the expdtionaty warfare capabilty and this the mindset to deploy UK military assets abroad to support US military campaigns wherever they may be. The US is worried their omnipresent stamp of approval is cutting back its capabilities so much that eventually it just won't be able to support the US whenever it calls.


If the US was interested solely in actual military capability they would be focusing on the French who have the budget, assets,mindset,capabilities and not to mention foreign bases that trumps the UK almost hands down. However the one thing the UK has (that makes it so important to the US) is the need,the burning desire, to remain relevant and this is a need the US exploits to get the UK to act as the aforementioned "rubber stamp" of approval whenever needed.

The French have no desire to be some parasite or to leech of a greater power and thus the US Doesn't cosy up to them as much.
@neehar there you go!

i was curious to know the reaction among general public regarding the u.s .do they see u.s as a close ally or do they have some dissatisfaction regarding u.s policies and their foreign policies a sfar as u.k is concerned??
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom