Iraq snubbed Britain and calls US into Basra battle

The Times ^ | 4/10/2008 | Deborah Haynes and Michael Evans

[spyone]

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).

[Billthedrill]

Good grief. What's the Times up to here? It seems to have amazing intelligence into who spoke to whom. Very amazing considering it was a combat operation in flux. I'll wait to hear from the British troops before I start casting aspersions. I wish the Times would do the same.

[donna]

I don’t believe any of this.

[Spktyr]

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.

[Hugin]

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.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"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”."

When was the mood "miserable"? When the British were receiving fire, or when the Americans arrived?

[When do we get liberated?]

When the British troops couldn’t return fire

[BBell]

"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. "

Warning shots. Whats next?

Severe taunting?

[Williams]

British media spinning wildly to cause trouble. The Brits weren't needed, they had abandoned their role and now the newspapers are trying to make people feel they were dissed by Iraq, but then they argue they will be needed so they can't leave, a major problem to the anti war kook Brit press.

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?

[jwparkerjr]

You've hit dead-center on the problem. Regardless of how good the troops are poor leadership is a killer. The ROE assured a failed mission with maximum casualties.

Like Reagan liked to say “You can get a lot done when it doesn't matter to you who get the credit.” Amen.

[bruinbirdman]

"It's a surprise we had the will and resources to help? "

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

[Paladin2]

That whole British appeasement thing (cough*** Chamberlain *** cough) never worked anyway.

[thewitz2]

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.

[agere_contra]

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.

[Twombley96]

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.

[batco-barry]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994187/posts

[batco-barry]

What a load of ol Shi*e.............

[batco-barry]

From one British soldier ‘What a load of ol’ bollocks!!!’

[batco-barry]

‘....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........