Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MadIvan; WaterDragon; may18; AndrewC; Thumper1960
I did not lie about what the British did around Basra. You lie when you claim I lied.

Whether one characterizes what the British did while outside of Basra as pussyfooting, diddling about, prudent raiding, or sitting on their ass, is a mere matter of semantics and opinion, not a lie.

The fact is that for two weeks while outside of Basra, the British did very little fighting. Even your posts, purportedly meant to prove that the British were not merely screwing around on the outskirts of Basra only mentioned things like raids on the suburbs.

I never said that British troops were incapable of a more vigorous and aggressive attack on Basra, only that what they actually did was very tentative and timid.

I think that the reason the British action was so timid and slow around Basra was because both American and British commanders did not want British troops to do much fighting.

The reason both American and British commanders did not want the British troops to do much fighting around Basra was because the vast majority of the British public was against British participation in the war.

Had the British troops done more fighting, they would have had higher casualties. While may18 has posted a link showing that over time, public opinion swung more in favor of the war, had the British troops taken higher casualties, that public opinion may very well have swung even further against the war and had the effect of causing Tony Blair to lose his job. That would have been a disaster for Bush and America and our war effort.

Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why Coalition Commanders decided to have the British pussyfoot around outside of Basra for two weeks while the Americans did the heavy lifting. Afterall, the American public was solidly behind Bush and Bush would rise or fall based on how the war ended up, so his die was cast.

The fact that everyone with any sense of honestly and understanding of what happened in the war, that the British were very slow to engage and that American troops did the vast bulk of the heavy fighting, is no slur on the quality or fighting spirit of the British troops nor is it a slam against the British commanders. I think that both the British troops and the British Commanders did every thing that they were asked to do and they did it very well.

Now you can bluster and call me names and pretend that what I am saying is some great insult to the British, but you would be a liar if you were to persist in such nonsense.
395 posted on 05/05/2003 10:56:00 AM PDT by Pukka Puck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies ]


To: Pukka Puck
I'm not sure if you're referring to me in saying the British troops didn't pull their weight. I believe they did everything they were asked to do. I believe they followed orders. I believe they were, and are, part of the larger plan. No matter if they "could" have done more, that was/is up to the commanders on the ground in the theater of operations. Not being privey to the grand plan, I see no concrete reasons to doubt or second guess the performance of British troops in Iraq. The objective has been achieved. Future analysis will reveal any shortcomings.
477 posted on 05/05/2003 9:39:50 PM PDT by Thumper1960
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson