A relative in and out of Basra in the period 2006-2007 had nothing good to say about British troops. With lightly armed vehicles they preferred to hunker down rather than hit the road. Their miserable performance did nothing to help the economy of the region — one that the Japanese had been ready and willing to support. There were great parts of Basra city they would not enter, and it was only thanks to South African mercs that any meetings could be arranged for consortium folks. If it hadn’t been for the coalition that Bush cobbled they would have been sent home and replaced by Eastern Europeans, or a company of National Guard, all of which were more dependable.
Well, I have heard some very unflattering opinions of US forces from friends and from articles. However, I have taken these for what they are: anecdotes. I know that US in general forces have served with utmost courage. However, UK forces have done the same and I would expect that they would be given the courtesy (still staying in Iraq for the forseeable future) of not being labelled ‘miserable’ after handing over responsibility for a city that, one month later, seems perfectly stable with none of the violence of regions further north. Please, read some of the articles about UK gallantry posted on this very website.
Funnily enough, despoite only having lightly armed vehicles I have not heard of a UK unit refusing orders to go out, unlike a certain National Guard unit. Bizzarre that you therefore name them as more ‘dependable’. Also, while loathe to criticise troops on the ground, I have read articles that Polish and Eastern European forces in Iraq have been anything but dependable. A Ukrainian unit literally downed weapons and ran away when supposed to be guarding a UK diplomat in 2004 and I have read several incidents of Poles refusing to help coalition forces under attack.
There are great parts of Iraq, like Sadr city, that US forces have been reluctant to enter. The US has also made pragmatic deals with former insurgents to further security.