According to a recent article in “British Army Review” the Taliban are referring to British Squaddies as “Donkeys” and saying that they “waddle” around the battlefield due to the heavy loads they have to carry. The article, entitled “Donkeys Led by Lions” is an obvious play on words. During WW I the British Army was said to be made up of “Lions Led by Donkeys”. The author who chose to write anonymously, further contends that, while Tommies are being referred to by the enemy as Donkeys, the headquarters are like so many “fat, lazy” lions saying, “Lions, contrary to Victorian opinion, aren’t brave or noble; they are fat, lazy creatures that lie around all day licking themselves.” He goes on, “They get others to do the dirty work and they have a penchant for infanticide. We are not saying our commanders are fat, lazy child killers, far from it, but it has reached a point where their headquarters are.”
He writes of a “bloated over complex system that sucks the life out of operations” and that “decision and action get lost in Chinese whispers and Chinese parliaments that turn most of operational staff ‘work’ into operational staff waste”. Sounds like the cries for help from a small unit leader drowning in a sea of militocracy. He’s right. In the western way of running armies, those deemed the best, lead units in combat and the marginal become staffs.
As for the issue of mobility v. protection. Make no mistake, everyone in the Coalition is up against the same enemy and terrain as the United States. Afghanistan is a Soldier-centric environment with other systems acting in supporting roles. We, as well as our allies, have taken great pains to protect our troops but this has come at a cost of mobility and agility. Over the last year, the British military has further modernized their personal equipment providing enhanced camouflage as well as new armor systems that has netted a 10 kg weight savings. On the US side PEO Soldier is keenly aware of the situation and each enhancement in capability is looked at from the perspective a SWAP (Size Weight and Power) analysis once reserved for aircraft and vehicles. Work is being done to not only lower the weight but also to add no additional weight as new capabilities are fielded. Additionally, here in the US, programs such as SPD 9 are looking at ways to better handle the weight of armor systems.
As for bloated commands? I got nothing for you. It might be a lousy war, but it’s the only one we’ve got.
The nameless author does leave us with one excellent observation, “If we don’t work out now how we are going to lose that weight we will do the old trick of starting the next war by repeating the mistakes of this one.”
