Telegraph | News | Let the infighting begin: British and US rivalry resumes Page 1 of 3

Let the infighting begin: British and

US rivalry resumes
By John Keegan, Defence Editor
(Filed: 17/04/2003)

Now that the fighting is over, supporters of our

soldiers are beginning to ask how the respective
contingents did. The Americans captured Baghdad.
Does that mean that the American army is better than
the British?

War arouses highly

competitive emotions,
between allies and also
between armies and
within armies. No
doubt the American 3rd
Infantry Division and
1st Marine
Expeditionary Force are
secretly contriving A US marine guards an Iraqi
uncomplimentary power plant
remarks about each other at this very moment.
Soldiers are like that. They quickly forget whatever
hatred they had for the enemy. A rival organisation
getting above itself, on the other hand, is not a matter
to be forgotten lightly. There will already be British
anti-American gibes, American anti-British gibes. What
do they signify? Mainly, slight nuances of difference.

In fact, the two armies are quite like each other and
the American marine units are in some essential
respects more like any British regiment than they are
like an American army unit. Senior marine non-
commissioned officers, for example, are accorded the
same respect and responsibility as their British
equivalents; regimental spirit is similar and so is unit
identity. Ask a US marine to which unit he belongs and
he will say "3rd Battalion, 1st Marines", for example,
as automatically as a British soldier will say "2nd
Greenjackets". Because battalions are small enough
for all who belong to know each other, that sort of unit
identity is crucial to combat performance. It makes
marine battalions very formidable indeed.

It is a mistake, however, to think that American

marine units are superior to American army units, in
the way that they notably were during the Second
World War. The American army is not only highly
efficient, as British officers admiringly testify, it is also
a terrifyingly effective fighting force.

That has partly to do with its equipment, which is

superior in every category to that of other armies. It
has also to do with its personnel, who are highly
motivated and well trained.

If the American and British armies do differ, it is most

noticeable at the personal level.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/17/wkeeg17.xml&sShee... 4/17/2003
Telegraph | News | Let the infighting begin: British and US rivalry resumes Page 2 of 3

British soldiers join the army for the military

experience, which often runs in the family. They
choose particular regiments, which have very great
importance, usually because of a strong regional
connection. Many join for "boy service" (now also "girl
service"), which is a period of training before adult
enlistment.

Either way, they rapidly acquire an air of worldly

experience, an effect produced by the army's folk
culture of frequent campaigning, overseas travel and
imperial experience. That background explains why
the British, as opposed to the more insular Americans,
seem to fall naturally into "hearts and minds"
operations. They are often picking up threads their
grandfathers laid down.

American servicemen and women, by comparison,

seem young. Though they have to be 18 to enlist, few
have been away from home or outside their immediate
home area. Some, particularly those from the South, a
traditional recruiting ground, will have a military
connection.

It was noticeable that Private Jessica Lynch, from the

very military state of West Virginia, has a brother in
the army and a sister who wants to join.

Recent immigrants, however, another common group,

usually lack a military connection. They see the service
as a means of joining the American mainstream, a
path blacks took in the 1950s with marked success.

Enlistment provides work, particularly in regions where

work is scarce. Overwhelmingly, however, the motive
to join is to get an education. The government pays
college tuition to former service people with four years
of active duty. Jessica Lynch wants to be a teacher
and joined up for that reason.

There is a marked cultural difference between

American and British army officers (marines much less
so). The British notoriously exhibit an unhurried and
amateur manner, while Americans are formal and
conscious of rank. The British officer's tendency to
wear odd clothes and use Christian names to other
officers strikes Americans as unserious.

The differences, however, do not run as deep as might

seem. Officer training in both armies is intense and
prolonged. Moreover, though the British may privately
mock American earnestness, the sheer efficiency of
everything the US army does has made its impression.
The British are particularly impressed by American
logistics, which deliver necessities where and when
required, and their mastery of advanced equipment.

Despite their similarities, the armies will probably each

bring away from the action a fund of stories that
emphasise their differences and do each other

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/17/wkeeg17.xml&sShee... 4/17/2003
Telegraph | News | Let the infighting begin: British and US rivalry resumes Page 3 of 3

discredit.

Most will be quite harmless and for internal

consumption only. Soldiers preen themselves by
running others down. It is a very human instinct.
Fundamentally, Americans and British know they are
on the same side.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/17/wkeeg17.xml&sShee... 4/17/2003