Posted on 08/05/2008 12:49:26 PM PDT by the scotsman
'The defence secretary has said reports British soldiers delayed helping Iraqi troops in Basra because of a deal with militiamen were "simply not true".
The Times said a secret pact with the Mehdi Army kept British forces on the sidelines for days while an attack was launched on the Shia group in March.
While officials denied the pact, but admitted a previous deal, Des Browne said he never constrained the military.
The Conservatives said the public had not been given the "full picture".
Responding to questions from shadow defence secretary Liam Fox, Mr Browne said: "The allegations made in the Times article are simply not true - there was no deal, never mind a deal preventing the UK military from entering Basra.
He said this had been made clear in a letter to the Times by Air Vice Chief Marshall Chris Nickols.'
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
There is no convincing explanation as to why the Brits didn't go in. They say they wanted to maintain the appearance that Iraqis were leading the operation. OK, so then why was it OK for U.S. Marines to go in, but not the British???
As i understand it the US troops deployed with the IA units they had been training. I remember that only a few hundred Americans in total were involved.
It would be odd, would it not, for the IA troops to leave their advisors behind on their first major action ?
That’s my understanding, too, that few Americans were on the ground. IIRC, the biggest American contribution was air support.
British support included air support, artillery and logistics. I wonder if the people who are happy to call the British cowards etc in the other threads on this matter stop to wonder if the Iraqis even asked for British boots on the ground ?
I've never called the British cowards. I think their military men and women are first rate, but with some unfortunate political leadership.
A reliable source that is no friend of the current government. I wonder if they consider damage to the militaries standing acceptable colateral damage when they have an opportunity to damage Labour ?
Have they responded to the MoD statement?
I have exactly as much hard evidence as they cited in this article. They don’t seem to have the agreement, or the names of anyone who agreed to it. They assert it exists, but don’t seem to know exactly what it says.
I’m sure this will all be cleared up when the Times responds. They will respond, i’m sure. They are better than a simple drive by article......maybe....
From what I read of the article, the Iraqis launched a suprise attack on Basra without giving much in the way of advance warning to either the Americans or the British. The Iraqis basically tried to force the hands of the coalition allies, and the British, for various reasons were unable and unwilling to go in to aid them at the begining because of the lack of adequate consultation....
I would have hoped that the nay-sayers on the other threads condenming we Brits would have the *alls to come here and revise their point. But of course, that’s never going to happen.
Nice one for posting this.
...British support included air support, artillery and logistics...
Any other nation does this for the Americans in Iraq and its a different story. But we Brit are hated with a serious fervour on these threads.
Apparently the only need for the Brits is to get its personnel killed in in pointless attacks instead of letting the Iraqi’s fight for their own country, while we provide what they lack. As you said, air support, artillery, and logistics. Its not glam, but effective. All the Americans want to see are British bodies flown home. Perverse.
I've been to Basrah several times, working with our British counterparts, who are absolutely top notch.
The above is fact, what follows is opinion. I believe this case is pretty much what it looks like; politics. The British troops are more than capable of doing what we went down to do, but were leashed in by their senior leadership. I don't know if there's a back door truce in place with the local militias, not being privy to that process, but the average British trooper suspects there is.
For instance, the airfield (where the base is) takes indirect fire regularly, mostly heavy rockets. Months ago it was quite lethal, and pound for pound Basrah was probably the hardest hit place in theater. Now the rockets are mostly for show. Many infer that the Brits staying out of Basrah city and the IDF (indirect fire) becoming less accurate are related.
Either way, U.S. forces moved in to assist the Iraqis, and the Brits largely did not. I don't hold this against the average Brit troop, as I know they're good to go. This was a political calculation that took place way above their pay grades. The U.S. military don't have any better friends in the world then the British Army, and I hope that the keyboard commandos here understand that.
Thanks for your insight. This was my impression, but you seem to have first hand knowledge.
And I would be happy to have the British Army protect my back anytime, anywhere.
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.