British Marines have reportedly “dominated” U.S. Forces on American soil in a combat training exercise and forced American forces to surrender just days into the exercise.
During the training exercise, which took place in California, British forces reportedly eliminated “almost the entire unit” of U.S. forces, The Telegraph reported, adding that “US forces asked for a ‘reset’ half way into the five-day war fighting exercise, having suffered significant simulated casualties.”
British forces reportedly used the training exercise as an opportunity to test out their new Littoral Response Group (LRG) structure, which will serve as the basis for how their special forces teams are built in the future.
Lieutenant Colonel Andy Dow, commander of the British team, said that the goal was to integrate the new fighting structure to “deliver [a] disproportionate effect in the face of a free-thinking peer adversary.”
The report added:
At one point in the battle, the commandos’ “kill board”, an intelligence assessment of the level of damage inflicted upon enemy equipment and units, had a tick against almost every American asset, indicating it had been deemed destroyed or rendered inoperable. …
The Royal Marines’ success was achieved by targeting the US headquarters and valuable equipment, paralyzing counter-attacks from the Americans. British artillery also focused on destroying enemy vehicles and artillery positions. The US were eventually defeated by a British long-range commando assault supported by fighter jets. The exercise concluded with a last minute US assault which was repelled, leaving the Royal Marines in control of over 65 per cent of the entire area, having started with less than 20 per cent.
Britain will eventually have two LRGs; one based in the UK and one located in and around the Omani port of Duqm.
🇴🇲The LRG based in Oman will focus on British military activity in the Indo-Pacific region pic.twitter.com/fjyjq2Gzmx
— Telegraph World News (@TelegraphWorld) November 2, 2021
The training exercise is likely to cause headaches for Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration as they have repeatedly been accused of being focused on being “woke” while America’s enemies, like China, are rapidly expanding their size and capabilities to beat the U.S. in war.
House Intelligence Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA) warned late last month that the Biden administration was focused on the wrong things when it comes to protecting the U.S.
Nunes said in part:
Meanwhile, the international threat matrix does not take time out as our national security agencies become enthralled by critical race theory and pronoun etiquette. To the contrary, we’re facing an array of pressing challenges, including but not limited to China’s increasing aggressiveness towards Taiwan alongside its systemic campaign of intellectual property theft, espionage, currency manipulation, corporate corrosion, and cyber crimes against the United States and our allies. China’s testing of hypersonic missile which, according to press reports, took the intelligence community by surprise. The continuing fallout from our withdrawal from Afghanistan, including the empowerment of the Taliban, and their longtime ties to al Qaeda. The decline in U.S. deterrence capabilities, the loss of intelligence streams, and U.S. citizens and allies who were left behind. The spread of ransomware attacks on U.S. targets, an unknown number of security threats entering America through our southern border and from refugees from Afghanistan. Continuing Russian aggression towards its neighbors. Advances in nuclear weapons programs of North Korea, Iran and other malign regimes. And I could go on with that list, but those are at the top of the list.
Unfortunately, we can’t counter hypersonic missile launch with better pronoun usage. And a deeper understanding of white rage won’t rescue Americans stranded in Afghanistan. I’d argue that woke obsessions are the proper jurisdiction of faculty lounge Marxists, not our national security agencies. The politicization of our national security apparatus is utterly destructive. It has severely eroded trust and institutions that have long received bipartisan support.
Related: