TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- U.S. military officials are taking exception to an article written by a British officer, who said that U.S. officers in Iraq displayed "cultural insensitivity" bordering on racism toward Iraqis, and seemed weighed down by bureaucracy.

The 14-page article by Brig. Nigel Aylwin-Foster was published in the latest issue of the U.S. military magazine Military Review.In it, Aylwin-Foster, who served as deputy commander of a British program to train the Iraqi military, praised American military leaders for showing flexibility in moving troops from combat to reconstruction efforts in Baghdad.

But Aylwin-Foster, who for four months in 2004 shared offices with Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the Iraqi training programs, said the Army "seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchal outlook a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense of duty that required all issues to be confronted head on."

Furthermore, he said U.S. officers displayed "cultural insensitivity" that bordered on racism toward Iraqis, and that the decision to disband the Iraqi army alienated segments of the population that could have eased the transition and quashed the insurgency.Petraeus, who now commands Fort Leavenworth, was unavailable for comment Wednesday, an Army spokeswoman said.

But U.S. Col. Kevin Benson, the director of the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, was quoted by The Washington Post as calling Aylwin-Foster "an insufferable British snob."Benson, who was also director of planning for the 3rd Army in Iraq until 2003, was more conciliatory Wednesday."I'm sure that most of my colleagues will not react like I did, because I already did that for them," Benson said. "We try to be thoughtful professionals. Anything that makes us think better is appreciated."

"I don't think he knows everything we did," said Benson, who plans to write a rebuttal article.Aylwin-Foster's article went on to say that the Army was ill-prepared to fight a counterinsurgent battle in Iraq and overestimated the willingness of Iraqis to cooperate with coalition forces. The military's missteps helped fuel the ongoing insurgency and instability after the fall of Saddam Hussein, he said.

"Despite political and military leaders' justifiable claims of achievement against tough odds, others claim, justifiably on the face of it, that the coalition has failed to capitalize on initial success," he wrote in Military Review, which is published by the Combined Arms Center at Fort LeavenworthThe article first appeared in 2005 in the Seaford House Papers, a collection of dissertations published by the Royal College of Defense Studies.

U.S. Col. William Darley, editor of Military Review, said a college official suggested it publish the article because of its insight on Army operations. Darley said the Review frequently uses material from foreign officers to supplement discussions of current Army trends and practices."This guy's a highly qualified guy, highly respected. He's a British officer who does these things and studies these issues," Darley said. "This article will have global reach by now."

Benson said even if the British officer's assessment were accurate based on his time in Iraq, the Army has revamped the training that officers receive prior to deploying to Iraq, including the nuances of working with Iraqi sheiks and power players. Benson also takes issue with Aylwin-Foster's characterizations of tactics used by the Army to fight insurgents and terrorists."Are we successful as we want to be? Obviously, no. But are we learning? Yes," said Benson.Critics have long assailed the Bush administration of its handling of the Iraq war and the subsequent efforts to restore stability to the country.

Calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal have grown more vocal as the American death toll has steadily climbed above 2,100. Britain's roughly 8,500 troops in Iraq, meanwhile, are stationed in the largely peaceful southern Shiite part of the country and have endured far fewer fatalities.Aylwin-Foster, now stationed in Bosnia, anticipated Americans would bristle at his comments."There can be few acts more galling than a soldier from one country publicly assessing the performance of those from another," he wrote.

"However, this is not an arrogant exercise in national comparisons. It is, rather, an attempt to understand and rationalize the apparently paradoxical currents of strength and weakness witnessed close hand over the course of a year."Ultimately, the intent is to be helpful to an institution I greatly respect."Lt. Col. Lee Tafanelli, commander the 891st Engineer Battalion of the Kansas Army National Guard in Iraq until December, said while he may not agree with some of Aylwin-Foster's assertions, he's not bothered that a British officer critiqued the Army.

"Hindsight is always clearer," said Tafanelli, who also serves in the Kansas House. "I don't have a problem with the article being in Military Review. We are looking at ways to do things better and we definitely want to take those observations in mind."You could probably find U.S. officers who would have similar observations."