“Most definitely not the finest hour of our British allies...”
How so? British and American (who moved down with the Iraqi units they were embedded with) forces mentored the Iraqi forces who took control of the city with minimal loss of life (only 10 Iraqi soldiers thankfully). The operation was so cost-less in terms of Iraqi casualties precisely because the operation had an Iraqi face. When British forces moved to Basra airbase because they said that 90% of the violence is aimed at us, we’re making things worse and this requires an Iraqi face to solve, people here said the British were running away. The British line has proved absolutely correct. Rather than having a situation where, like last Spring, 24 British soldiers at a police station were attacked by over 200 militiamen, now, Iraqi troops can control the city (after initial resistance) quite happily. Rather than militiamen being ‘allowed to flourish’ under the small British contigent’s watch, the presence of foreign troops in a region famous for stident autonomy was a catalyst for militia violence. This required one of two responses: a massive British surge to literally dominate the ground (like that elsewhere in Iraq) or a shift to Iraqi-led operations. The first opinion was simply not a logistical option for the British military (and the UK’s dithering lame-duck Prime Minsiter doesn’t have the decision making skills required! He’s 18 points behind in the polls!)
The UK has announced in the last few days that its 4000 troops will be staying in Iraq for the forseeable future. The UK not only has troops in Basra, but also embedded units with Iraqi troops in Baghdad and Special Forces all over the country. This is a big commitment for an overstretched army like the UKs (whose main foreign focus is on Afghanistan)
Steel Resolve: The above is my opinion and I absolutely respect your right to disagree. I fully respect your opinion and appreciate that, unlike certain other posters, it is generated not through anti-British bias but a genuine informed perspective.
Cheers
UK
Sorry, I posted my comment before reading yours, so I didn’t respond to it. Someone phoned me while I was composing it.
I have English connections, and love the country, but have not been happy with the current government or with Tony Blair, for that matter. He did go into Iraq, and we owe him a lot for that, but he was dreadful in his internal policies, and he grew less & less supportive in Iraq, frankly, but without provoking an open break in the alliance.
From the little I’ve read about the ground situation in Basra, it looks as if the Brits put on their velvet gloves too soon (of course, you could say that about the entire operation in Iraq). But I’ll defer to more knowledgeable heads on that; I was responding specifically to the quoted remark from the article...
I have to agree - but then of course I’m British :0)
Victory in Iraq has come/is coming from training the Iraqis to win the peace. The UK and US embeds are a crucial part of that. Removing Coalition troops from the front line is also a crucial part of that: the Iraqi army can’t hold the Coalition’s hand for ever.
A lot of FReepers don’t get this model, even though US forces are following it as well. Ah well, no harm done. Sadr is getting his butt kicked anyway.
I have nothing but respect for the Tommys in the trenches...It’s their socialist “leadership” back “home” that have placed those Tommys in some very untenable positions that raise less than flattering opinions.
“The British line has proved absolutely correct.”
Agreed, but only in terms of British casualties. The British retreat to the Airport resulted in MORE problems and violence in the city, not less as you assert. But yes, the British retreat certainly managed to lower the british casualty rate.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401.html
Sorry brother, but you are citing facts that are limited in value. There was plenty of killing going on in Basra. The killing was being done to the Iraqi people who were kidnapped, murdered and taken hostage by a group of ignorant thug militia.
Said thugs were not brought in line by the UK forces at all. Instead the UK forces created artificial lines where they would not go, in effect turning over much than all of Basra over to the ignorant thugs.
Stephen Vincent, a fellow New Yorker and a man who dared to write the truth of this Taliban like takeover of life in Basra, paid with his life for this. And many other Iraqis did as well.
The UK and its soft soft approach proved fatal to many Iraqis and the death knell of freedom long after the liberation of Iraq.
That the Iraqis sent in green forces along with other units to liberate the area from these thug militias shows how poorly a situation was allowed to fester and grow.
And where were the remaining UK forces? Under order to stay and hold the airport last I heard.
When the UK forces have been allowed to engage, they have been splendid. But too much of the time, they are handcuffed by the pansies in the UK.