Posted on 05/07/2006 6:14:11 PM PDT by blam
Mobs cheer British deaths as Basra slips out of control
By Oliver Poole, Iraq Correspondent
(Filed: 08/05/2006)
It took the soldiers from 1 Bn Light Infantry all the night and most of yesterday to remove the wreckage of the Lynx helicopter that came down in Basra at the weekend, killing five British servicemen on board.
As they used heavy lifting equipment to separate twisted metal from the debris of a house that the aircraft had crashed into, military experts were trying to establish whether the crash was caused by mechanical failure or hostile fire.
British officers believe the most likely cause was a lucky shot with a rocket-propelled grenade.
But one thing is already clear: Basra is slipping out of the control of British forces.
Saturday's televised pictures of a local mob cheering the deaths, pelting British soldiers with stones and hurling petrol bombs at their armoured vehicles belie the Government's assurances that the political situation in Iraq - and particularly in the British sector - is steadily improving.
Soldiers on the ground have long known that the reality is grim. They regard many of Basra's elected leaders as crooks at best and agents of Iran at worst.
The Shia militias that operate in the area do so with near impunity; good policemen are too frightened to confront them while the secular middle class now either dresses its women in headscarves or has moved abroad.
The tragedy is that the British have been unwilling - or unable - to stop this. With London terrified of the political effect of casualties, the Army has been forced to adopt a policy of appeasement to those they know are behind many of the worst outrages.
Yesterday Des Browne, the new Secretary of Defence, called for Saturday's events to be seen in context. It involved, he stressed, only a few hundred people in a city of more than one million.
The trouble is that the minority throwing petrol bombs at British soldiers are the ones who are taking control of Basra. They already have a powerful foothold in the provincial government and the police force, and have the power of the gun on the streets.
The wider context that Mr Browne ignores is that Iraq is collapsing. In another day of violence yesterday, car bombs killed at least 16 people in Baghdad and the Shia holy city of Kerbala, while dozens more bodies were found dead.
Amid the blood-letting, Iraq is splitting into three parts: an Islamist Shia south, a bitterly anti-American Sunni west and a Kurdish north where the vast majority long for independence.
The fault line is Baghdad with its intermeshed sectarian neighbourhoods. Basra is emerging as the capital of a new Shia "state". Several Shia militias are vying with each other for power.
British forces are the only moderating force left. But over the coming months they will be withdrawn, leaving the armed gangs, including the one led by the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, to fight it out for supremacy.
Not even the most optimistic intelligence assessment believes that Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to combat the fanatics.
Major Toby Christie, the British intelligence officer for Basra city, was resigned to the "flag-waving" that would accompany Britain's departure.
"Those people who actively worked against us will be able to play the nationalist card and hold themselves up as the heroes," he said. "There are no moderate leaders here. We will not be leaving behind a Westernised theocracy - and there will be a certain amount of killing once we go."
I recently asked Iraqi friends what would happen when the British leave. They laughed. "It will be the law of the jungle," said one.
Huh?
We need more soldiers there to take control of the situation.
We do not need more soldiers in Iraq, that in and of itself would solve nothing -
The reality is we have fought and continue to fight the most successful unconventional war in history. The realities of all we have accomplished simply needs to be touted much more often.
The Brits did lose the heart for overly gungho empire building missions after the Suez adventure went belly-up.
In terms of N IReland, the whole point was that there was only a small corp of armed militants, but they could hide easily, had a huge population who supported their aims (if not their methods) and the entire scene was cluttered by the presence of the pro-British terrorist groups and their support base.
The first fifteen years of the troubles was a painful exercise where the British attempt to be heavy handed and firm provided the bIRA with their best recruiting by angering the segments of the population who sympathised with the goals of the IRA but not their methods.
The Brits latter stages of the troubles - 1987 on were a lot smarter.
And before you get too snooty about the Brits (And I'm Irish orginally and anti-British rule in Northern Ireland), remember they faced an extensive and prolonged campaign in their own heartland that cost many innocent lives and was economically devastating (As the City of London attack proved).
I can't say I'm fond of the British army, but I respect them and I think that over the last twenty yrears their skills in this form of warfare have become second to none.
I agree. The danger is you'll blunt your amazing army where you should have a secondary force specialising in this to leave your real army freed up for real combat duties.
There is indeed nothing new under the sun....
As to the need for the killings to be effective, the numbers involved and the disparities of power would be so great that America would have looked more of a monster at the end thean the 911 terrorists. Bush resisted total war for good reasons.
Absolutely.
This story is further evidence of your point.
Infidels with money they desire.
If we ever stop sending suitcases loaded with cash...
Check your math. April 2003 is when Saddam and his regime was removed from power. This is 2006. 3 years, not 5. In two years things will be either better or much worst. Pretty sure you're on the side rooting for much worst. Pretty sad to root against the interests of your country. Perhaps you should start shopping for a new one.
Try reading the whole thread asshat.
Send the snake eaters in to snuff al Sadr. He should have been snuffed long ago.
'Actually, they've been up against amateurs for decades - people of the same skin color and religion who killed a few dozen Brits a year for roughly the last 100 years. We're up against professionals who were good enough to take down the entire 9-building World Trade Center complex and a sizable chunk of the Pentagon.'
Your ignorance is breathtaking. You think the IRA were the amateurs and Al Quaeda are the 'professionals'? Where do you think Al Quaeda learned it's stock in trade from? From it's meetings in 1993 and 1994 with IRA training units in the Libyan desert, that's where. The IRA were kind enough to sell Al Quaeda the skills it needed for 911 in return for weapons and cash. Ironic that all the money sent from the US to support the IRA terrorists during the 80's and 90's returned home with interest on 911.
'Brits are lousy at guerrilla warfare unless they're fighting a few thousand people with surplus weapons. This is why they were mauled and pulled out of Iraq during the 1930's.'
Your knowledge of history is shocking - do you work in Hollywood? :D
Britain successfully invaded Iraq in 1914 and ruled it relatively peacefully until 1930 when when democratic elections took place and Britain signed a treaty with Iraq which would lead to it's independence in return for Oil. In 1932 Iraq becomes independent but still with strong British influence under King Faisal. He dies and his son takes over along with much interference from the Pan-arabists until he dies in 1939 which leads to a 4 week war in 1941 which sees the British regain full control and form a pro-British govt. In 1943 pro-British Iraq declares war on the Axis powers. Britain only left Iraq and closed it's bases there in 1955 following the baghdad pact.
'Note that British empire is basically a thing of the past. Uncle Sam took most of North America and is still in control of all of it. The Brits lost the heart for this kind of thing a long time ago, and they're projecting their defeatism onto Uncle Sam.'
Have you told the Canadians you control all of North America? :D We lost so much heart that SAS troops were first into Iraq in 1991 and first into Afghanistan. The Yanks lost the heart for war when they lost to a bunch of paddy-field farmers in Vietnam and since then they have been projecting their defeatism onto John Bull. ;-)
It seems one of your fellow Britons on this board strongly disagrees with you over the approach of the current British Army. ;-)
"What about the Marxist Guerrillas in Malaysia in the Fifties? And Greece and Turkey after WWII? I had the impression the British military was due a great deal of credit for keeping these areas from falling to Communist influence during the Cold War."
The bad news is that they were from the British military of a bygone era. There are probably not a few bigger gulfs between the fighting ethoes of the British militaries personnels who came of age before and after 1965.
Excellent analysis. the fundamentals of war have not changed.
"Also, don't give too much credit to this puke "journalist" from the defeatist, antiAmerican, antiBush Socialist country of Britain".
I wonder why the ENTIRE world hates your guts when you talk about your allies who have fought and died in the same dirt and sand as your precious Americans as you just did about the British.
Instead of doing the decent thing and commenting on the sorry news that more British soldiers have died supporting YOUR war, you have a go at our Army, our people, our nation and our bravery in the face of the enemy. The nation of Britain has never shirked a fight, against all odds and have never dishonoured the nation when in conflict. They give everything they have, their blood, sweat, tears and when there's nothing left, their lives.
You haven't earned the right to talk about a nation you know nothing about, and disrespect the lives of the soldiers who deserve something more than some xenophobic Anti-Anglo Doodle spewing vast amounts of sewage in his fat wake.
Note above comment to the other geezer, and refer it back to yourself.
And the IRA was made all the more difficult to defeat due to the arms (Hey, you said the arms were shoddy, are you that bad at making weapons now boys?)and financing they received from our closest ally, the USA. So cheers for doing your bit in killing British soldiers, we wont forget, nor forgive.
You idiot. We British dont care about 'Empire' anymore. Funnily enough the only nation wno does at the moment is a Republic, in much the same vein as France before Napoleon took over. Comparisons anyone? Emporer Dubya, or Empress Condi....
A new form of contagious 'Idiocy' was found to be rampant on parts of the Internet, and has infected a number of people, who are now suffering from the advanced stages of muppetness and lameitis.
A source claims the only way to contain the spread of the virus would be to isolate those effected and treat them with some study in International Affairs, Geopolitics and Social Philosophy
Can I call you 'Imperialist, Anti-Anglo, Anti-Everything, Facist country of America', or would you get offended?
"Have we taken the Iraqi treasury home with us? No. We've pumped in a hundred billion dollars, and counting"
Actually man, yeah you/we all have. US pledge $100 billion dollars on reconstruction etc (by the way, the funds are loands that are to be repaid with Oil from Iraq, thats not aid, its a bridging loan)... In real life less than a fifth of the funds allocated have been spent on the Iraqi people. 150 new medical centres to be opened around Iraq, less than 6 built and best estimate is no more than 20. Schools? Roads? Pipeline? Jobs? Infrastructure? No security, no construction. And all the while a massive building project is taking place inside the Green Zone. Costing billion of dollars, its the new US 'diplomatic mission'. I dont know of any 'diplomatic mission' that needs 8,000 staff...
You're trying to rationalise that because the British have such a bloody and Imperial past, that they somehow deserve what they are getting now?
And you have gone back all the way to the US civil war looking for wrongs done by the British against the world. Ok, I know your history starts around then, but ours goes back thousands. We had been pillaging and doing evil deeds long before your country was invented okay?
I dont want to get into a 'my terrorist attack was bigger than yours' contest, cos thats just cheap man. Just as I wont, and dont wish to, argue over the ratio of dead soldiers. Its as bad to lose one life over an event as thousands, the amounts dont matter. My complaint with your comments, perspective, socio-political thinking, is that you are trying to cheapen British sacrifice by stating that the US lost more soldiers fighting in the two world wars. Well, a world war will generally create a little more carnage than a scuffle in a dusty, neglected part of the world.
As for your comments about US troops being in a position to occupy Europe, much the same as Napoleon years before, you're right. The US could have, didn't and got it right. But the leaders then were vey different to the leaders now. During that period you had a group of leaders who were essentially Wilsonian Isolationists, with a bit of Jacksonian theory thrown in, and so had no need, nor desire, for Empire. I say, thats things are a little different now.
PS: Can you explain why you have a seemingly unending hatred for the us? Have our evil Kings and foul Knights despoiled your back yard in Rhode Island, or Maine, or Kentucky?
You hate the British because we have done what you're doing now. We have been the Imperial aggressor, stolen, looted, and pillaged and have evolved, as a social grouping, beyond that kind of desire...its the Third Way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.