I can easily believe that the US advisors had the attitude from the start that the "Limeys" couldn't teach them anything. Of course the question then becomes why they went for the training at all--except they were ordered to, I suppose.

Fascinating article in the WSJ recently on the conflict in the US military between the security and the WHAM (win hearts and minds) approaches in Iraq. As I recall, part of it had to do with the destruction of fruit carts in a town in Iraq. Letting them set up would be a step toward normal life, but it was feared they were sheltering murderous insurgents. So the carts were destroyed. And there were repercussions up the US chain of command.

And the US officer who was on the losing side of the argument was removed.

Bush (and his "team") was so stupidly naive in his expectations regarding Iraq. Now we are all paying the price--the Iraqis most of all.

I've also read that the parallel with Malaya may well not hold. In Malaya there were not porous borders for men and munitions to come in--or unfriendly states bordering. And, as I recall, in Malaya it was easier to tell who your opponents were--Chinese, as I recall, not indigenous Malays. But to Western eyes all Iraqis look the same. Any confirmation or denial of this?