Warning shots. Whats next?
Severe taunting?
Posted on 04/09/2008 8:58:55 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Relations between Britain and Iraq suffered “catastrophic failure” after Baghdad bypassed the British military and called in the American “cavalry” to help the recent offensive against Shia militia in Basra, The Times has learnt.
About 550 US troops, including some from the 82nd Airborne Division, were sent from Baghdad to Basra to join up with 150 American soldiers already serving with Iraqi forces in the southern city.
The Ministry of Defence made much of the fact that British troops, based at Basra airport outside the city, were not requested in the early stages of the operation. British officials claimed that the Basra offensive was proof that Iraqi troops could cope on their own.
The Times has learnt, however, that when Britain’s most senior officer in Basra, Brigadier Julian Free, commander of 4 Mechanised Brigade, flew into the city to find out what was going on, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who was orchestrating the attacks on militia strongholds, declined to see him.
Brigadier Free flew to Basra city with Lieutenant-General Lloyd Austin, the commander of American and coalition forces in Iraq, on March 27, two days after the operation began. The Iraqi Prime Minister spoke only to the US general.
A source familiar with the sequence of events said that Mr al-Maliki seemed to have it in for the British because of the alleged “deal” struck with the Shia militia last year under which they agreed not to attack Britain’s last battalion as it withdrew from Basra in return for the release of several of their leading members from prison.
According to The New York Times, Baghdad turned to the Americans for help when the Basra operation was launched. Two senior American military officers, Rear Admiral Edward Winters, a former member of the US Navy Seals special forces unit, and Major-General George Flynn, a Marine, were sent to Basra to help to coordinate the operation. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were drafted in as combat advisers and air controllers were positioned to call in airstrikes.
Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Baghdad, told The New York Times that the first he learnt of the Iraqi plan for Basra was on March 21. “The sense we had was that this would be a long-term effort, increased pressure gradually squeezing the special groups [the Iranian-backed Shia militia],” he said. “That is not what emerged. Nothing was in place from our side. It all had to be put together.”
A source told The Times that US forces were in Basra, eating and sleeping alongside their Iraqi counterparts, “basically doing the work that we were supposed to do. It was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.”
The source described the moment when the American general arrived at the British base from Baghdad: “Suddenly the cavalry appeared.”
The source said that the Americans provided “loads of technical equipment and combat power”. As soon as the Americans arrived and started hitting houses in Basra, the daily attacks of indirect fire on the British base stopped. The source said that during that time the mood among the British forces on the base was “miserable”.
There was even speculation that Mr al-Maliki had refused to talk to Gordon Brown since the operation began. But a Downing Street spokesman said: “Mr Maliki spoke with the Prime Minister on the phone during the Nato summit in Bucharest [last week].”
It was not clear who had initiated the phone call, but Downing Street said that the two leaders had been trying “for a few days” to speak to each other and that when they did the conversation had been “constructive”.
A defence source played down the snub, saying: “Mr al-Maliki only deals with people at a certain level.” The source added that Major-General Barney White-Spunner, the British General Officer Commanding Multinational Division Southeast, had been out of the country at the time.
British troops did become involved in the operation eventually, first with RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft firing warning shots over Shia militia areas of Basra and then supplying troops from two battle groups to help the Iraqis, although not in the city itself.
Artillery was also fired from the British base at Shia militia targets.
However, British troops are now back in Basra serving alongside Iraqi forces for the first time since withdrawing from the city in September. The Ministry of Defence confirmed that 150 British soldiers were now embedded with the Iraqis in Basra, serving as military transition teams.
The 150 British troops now in Basra city have been drawn predominantly from the 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland battle group. They have been formed into six military transition teams (Mitts), made up of advisers, force protection units equipped with Mastiff and Warrior armoured vehicles, and medical support.
The presence of British troops in Basra again was the main reason why Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons last week that the plan to reduce the force levels in Iraq from 4,000 to 2,500 from the spring had to be postponed.
Both the Americans and the British felt that Operation Charge of the Knights was a hastily conceived offensive without proper planning or consultation. The result is that the American and British military will have to be based in Basra for the foreseeable future, something which neither coalition partner had foreseen or planned for after security for the south was handed over to the Iraqis.
---------------------------------------------------------
There were reports that Mohammed Waili, the Basra governor, was effectively under house arrest. Sources in the Basra provincial council said that his Fadhil bodyguard had been replaced by Iraqi army soldiers.
Shameful for Britain. The Iraqi army thinks its better than the Brits. Maybe they’re right. Dontcha know Argentina is taking this into account(ie. Falklands).
I don’t believe any of this.
Judging by the results on the ground after the Brits left Basra and the recent disaster at sea for the RN, I’d say the Iraqis are at least as good and probably better than the Brits were - under the rules of engagement the Brits had.
Of course, it helps if you have rifles that work (AK and to a lesser degree the AR series) as opposed to “The Rifle H&K Couldn’t Fix” - the SA80/L85 A2.
British soldiers are first rate, but the leadership has been dismal, more concerned with avoiding confrontaion than winning. They allowed Basra to fester for years, and allowed the Iranians to capture their sailors and marines rather than risk a confrontation. I can only assume the attitude comes down from the political leadership. Their troops deserve better.
When was the mood "miserable"? When the British were receiving fire, or when the Americans arrived?
When the British troops couldn’t return fire
Warning shots. Whats next?
Severe taunting?
Britain is on its way out and we surged 170,000 troops into Iraq. It's a surprise we had the will and resources to help?
Like Reagan liked to say “You can get a lot done when it doesn't matter to you who get the credit.” Amen.
Nope.
I like your take. Brits on the way out. Iran reinforces Bassra/Sadr militants. Iraq takes the lead to clean the place out and should get the credit. U.S. plays supporting role. The whole thing was probably coordinated with all parties.
Western appeasing press has said the whole deal was a defeat for the coalition all along.
It was actually quite a success. Iran and Sadr are defeated in Bassra. Sadr sues for peace in Baghdad.
yitbos
That whole British appeasement thing (cough*** Chamberlain *** cough) never worked anyway.
I agree, my unit was right along side of the Royal Army on Kuwait-Iraq border before the invasion. Real great bunch of guys, we used to trade MRE’s and barter mosquito nets for UA booze and the such. I also learned that Soldiers from Northern Ireland don’t appreciate being called English. Anyway, I have complete confidence in the average British Soldier.... Their leadship on the other hand... But I guess the same could be said of ours.
The British enabled the Iraqi forces to fight autonomously and left them to it.
It seems to have worked out well: the Iraqis have done a good job in Basra. This little spat is nothing.
Yeah, i cant blame the Iraqis. They bailed on Basra because they couldnt stand the heat. They are only helping with indirect fire in the form of artillery and cargo delivery, even their combat aircraft are doing what, firing warning shots???? what good ARE the brittish in this fight, really???
Maybe if the Brits serve ol’ muqtada al sadr some nice tea and crumpets, he’ll put up his AK 47 and we can all have a nice tea break. right.
Get real. If the brits are T’d off about being snubbed, they only have their own arrogant selves to thank. They refuse to fight, make deals with the enemy to garuntee their own saftey, and then complain in the Iraqi leaderships lack of confidence in them?
I got a hard fact of life i’d like to pass on to the Brits: if you refuse to fight, and you go to those extremes to avoid the fight, DONT BE SURPRISED WHEN WE CALL SOMEONE ELSE TO DO YOUR JOB FOR YOU. if YOU cant do the job, we will find someone ELSE who CAN do the job.
Stop being crybabies. Let it serve as a lesson. when the brittish army general staff gets its priorities straight, and starts doing its job, then maybe just maybe the loss of faith in the brittish army can be adequately addressed without the pouting, and the temper tantrums of senior brittish officers more concerned with their image and their careers than with their mission.
What a load of ol Shi*e.............
From one British soldier ‘What a load of ol’ bollocks!!!’
‘....Dontcha know Argentina is taking this into account(ie. Falklands).’
And we’ll kick their arses the same we did in the 80s.....
We’re fighting heavily a proper war in Afghanistan, doing what we were trained to do........
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.