What is the British way to Counterinsurgency?

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:26:49 -0500

The British were heavy handed in the foreign governments. They fought the kinetic fight, but also killed, starved, tortured, and imprisoned the insurgency base of support to win insurgencies. We are angels compared to the Brits. The took away the desire or instilled the fear of god into the insurgent. Are we too nice?

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 9 at 2016 11:30 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:30:18 -0500

Well, one must remember that the Brits did most of their counterinsurgency under the guise of "Empire" which means they believed they owned the land they were conducting COIN in. That in itself lends to a little bit different mindset than doing COIN in a country where we were "asked" to help in.

Response by SSgt David Tedrow made Feb 9 at 2016 11:31 AM

SSgt David Tedrow — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 11:31:18 -0500

Nice is not the correct word, but since that is what was used then YES, we are way to nice.

Response by SSgt Robert Marx made Feb 9 at 2016 12:53 PM

SSgt Robert Marx — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:53:21 -0500

The British utilized air power between the world wars to pacify riots. They were heavy handed in dealing with colonial unrest but their empire achieved its greatest land area by about 1920. Their lack of assistance for wide spread famine in the Indian subcontinent during World War II alienated many Indians and was cited by Gandhi as an inciter for the independence movement. As Ireland remained in the empire during WWI and left after peace so India remained in the empire during WWII and left with the peace.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Feb 9 at 2016 2:01 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:01:23 -0500

To make sense of it, the British thrived to:
1. Controlled the governing body
2. Control insurgents base of power
3. Control the people
4. Eventually control the insurgents and kill them
They were much more human terrain oriented.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Feb 9 at 2016 2:12 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 14:12:21 -0500

This sounds like a post from Lyndon Larouche who considered the British to be the source of all world evil. I have studied history for about 50 years and you are the first person besides Larouche [presidential candidate and jailbird] who has come down so hard of the British. British foreign rule relied heavily on indigenous civil servants and military forces using a small cadre of British troops in each colony. This was the only way that small nation could maintain an empire that stretches around the world with most former colonies willingly part of the British Commonwealth of nations. On the other hand the Portuguese and Belgians were notorious for their treatment of indigenous populations. The French and Spanish lost most of their colonies in conflict. The British generally transferred their colonies over to the indigenous populations - most notable exception is our nation which consisted primarily of european colonists versus the indigenous populations of most of the rest of the British Empire and Commonwealth of Nations.
Which counterinsurgency conflicts are you talking about: Malaysia; versus the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya; against the whirling dervishes in Sudan; or against the Boers in South Africa MAJ Ken Landgren?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2016 3:33 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 15:33:23 -0500

The SAS landed a bird in front of a van full of insurgents on a road, got out and unloaded into the van and the bad guys, and then got back in and flew away.

THAT'S how you win against an insurgency. Mercy? No, we can't have that here.

Response by SPC David S. made Feb 9 at 2016 5:57 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 17:57:24 -0500

The Brits and France ruled with heavy hand with Imperial desires and a little bit of keeping the Russian influence at bay. In most case over time things went sideways -

We then stepped up as the surrogate and got Vietnam, Iran and A'Stan.