Free Republic

“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

Just to say the figure of 2-3% comes not from the British government, but from the non-partisan census held in the UK every few years. The last was held in 2001. Since then, more immigrants have come from Eastern Europe than Muslim countries.

Manc: There are 2 million Muslims in the UK. As you say, they are concentrated in several northern towns and in the greater London area. However, this does not change the fact that the UK is 92.5% white and most immigrants to the UK are very hard working (especially the Poles who have flooded the area where I live). You seem to have me mistaken for someone else. I have never disclosed to anyone where I live/work. Needless to say, however, that I do not live in one of the many areas of the UK that are still nearly 100% white British. To put it in context, you’re new home (the US, which I love as a country) has the same Muslim % of population and is now being literally swamped by hispanics (great people, but just looking at this from a cultural point of view). I read a statistic that soon over 25% of all Americans will be of hispanic origin. I’ve been to reas of the US where I have not met a non-hispanic/cuban in two weeks. Customer service is offered there in laguages other than English ( not the case at all in the UK)

I am absolutely a conservative. I believe that the numbers of immigrants coming to the UK are too high. The government has introduced a new points-system to reduce these numbers. When the Tories likely win the next election, they have stated that they will put a annual limit on immigrant numbers. The issue I have with the Daily Mail is that it takes anecdotes bizarre and outrageous stories and then makes them out to be the norm. Either that, or it leads with inflammatory headlines like ‘Union Jack banned from Prisons’ (which would be outrageous if true) and then fails to retract its false stories when they are patently not true. This is hysterical journalism.

“They were routinely humiliated in Basra” Care to give any example? Or is this just another case of you slandering Britain without evidence, then refusing to reply to legitimate requests for information to support your views. Please, you claim to have ‘routine’ examples of British ‘humilitaions’. Name one.

“and on the waters of the gulf by the Iranians and their allies.” You’re not still blathering on about the one incident from last year are you? You do realise that US personnel have also been captured by Iran without a fight in the Gulf in recent years? What do you say about the entire US convoy unit that mutinied a couple of years ago-refusing to go out on the roads in Iraq.

“Germany had the Italians, and we have the British”. From a person living a country with a high Italian immigrant population that is a hilarious comment.

By the way, your frequent comments that British forces will leave Iraq and Afghanistan ‘in a few months’, keep getting proved wrong. That must frustrate you terribly.

Hello again.

Just to state: Mosul was comparatively peaceful under US watch (Petraeus cut his teeth there) for a time, but is now the main bastion of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Iraqi forces are leading the fight in retaking that city. Presumably US forces there had ‘refused’ to help? (Of course not) Sadr city etc (in the US sector) is currently witnessing higher levels of violence than Basra. Iraqis are leading the fight there too. Has the US ‘failed’ there? Of course not. To be quite frank, why shouldnt the Iraqis (30,000 of them) take it upon themselves to stabilise a city in their own country?

Just as a side note, on top of Special Forces, Britain has sent 150 advisors back into Basra to help the Iraqi forces there

“They took the most peaceful city in Iraq and allowed it to deteriorate into the most violent.” Not even the biggest cynic of UK policy in Iraq could argue that Basra was/is Iraq’s most violent city. Michael Yon was there in January and said it was peaceful. The place had a packed university and night life for goodness sake. Of course there were underlying militias tensions (and tragic assissinations), but this wasn’t Mogadishu. The main reason Maliki launched his rushed assault was because he did not like the authority wielded there by a rival shiite faction. The city had a murder rate 50% that of Washington DC when British forces relocated to the airport.

Just to add that this story has made the press precisely because it is unusual and controversial. Ive actually noticed more St.George’s flags this year in my local area than ever before. A ST.George’s flag is to be flown at Number 10. This is the case all over the country. This parade issue in Bradford (if you read the article, a parade could have gone ahead) is absolutely wrong I readily admit. But it does not represent the sitaution in the UK generally at all.

Just to add that over 150 conventional British mentors are inside Basra along with Special Forces.

Sorry for the delay in replying. I appreciate your sentiments. I love the US and its people.

On a side note, I’ve read that the UK is now halting all troop reductions in Iraq until the end of the year at least and that over 150 British military advisors have moved back into Basra (I suspect British special forces have been in there all along).

“Not enough men and good material.” Precisely. Compare the force levels needed to control Northern Ireland (a far smaller/less populated area than Southern Iraq). 4000-9000 troops to control an area of 4 million people was never going to be realistic. The US has had to pump huge resources and Iraqi forces into Cenrral Iraq to reduce violence there. In Anbar (an areas with abour 2 million inhabitants) 36000 US troops were deployed). Even so, the last few days have shown that Shiite areas under US control have exactly the same problems as those under British supervision.

I think that if Iraqi forces can tame the criminals in Basra (be it by tomorrow or in 2 weeks time) then a key corner will have been turned by Iraq. Uk forces haven’t cut and run. They are still in Iraq (and if the media is to be believed will remain their in similar numbers for a long time to come), capable of reintervention. Lets hope the Iraqis can do this on their own now (as they are similarly being tested in Mosul).

Thanks for all the links. Very interesting info.

Very true. I remember the downing of a single US Stealth Fighter over Serbia in 1999 was taken by the media to signal that the mission there was in grave peril.

Thanks for all the info. I hope the situation stabilises soon. Stay safe mate.

Thanks for the link. I have read reports that US and British fast air have conducted low-level strafing runs in Basra. The situation sounds bad across Iraq. Lets hope than it soon stabilises.

I hope your friend stays safe. Just to note that the ex-US Green Beret Michael Yon reported from Basra last year and had a very different experience to that of your friend:http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=297:british-forces-at-war-as-witnessed-by-an-american&catid=63:archive-2007&Itemid=108

I have heard widely differing opinions on various allies in Iraq from literature and discussions with friends who have been to Iraq. I think the one constant is that these nations should be thanked for sending troops and facing dangers where so many others have not.

“When the going gets tough, the limeys get going.”

Funny: I can think of lots of examples of the US government doing this: (Vietnam, Somalia, Beirut, Iran), but not the UK.

Please enlighten me as to where the UK ‘got going’ in recent decades? The UK will likely have a presence in Iraq until the US leaves and is increasing its Afghanistan committment: “UK ‘in Afghanistan for decades’” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6220856.stm

Thanks for the link. This is based on the opinion piece in the Times of London. I fully appreciate the opinion/argument made, but disagree with it. In a similar way, I have disagreed with UK and US editorial pieces calling for complete withdrawl from Iraq.

Axlrose: Yawn.

“I’ve been saying for years how they are bad allies, and only now are people beginning to see it.”

You’ve been saying it for years because you are an anti-British bigot. You are obsessed with the UK. The Brits aren’t running anywhere. They are increasing troop numbers in Afghanistan (part of the reason for the draw-down in Iraq) and are keeping around 4000 troops in Iraq until at least the end of the year. You mention a ‘more reliable ally’. Who exactly would that be? Everyone else in the Coalition of the Willing is leaving or has left. The UK are the only ally of the US still serving on the frontlines of both threatres in the War on Terror, despite having suffered far higher levels of casualties there than any other US ally. The hundreds of killed and wounded UK troops in Iraq alone have spared the sacrifice of American blood in that Southern Region since 2003.

“Instead the sniveling brits have left us with another mess to fix.” Quite frankly, that is a digusting comment to make. If it were made about US forces in Iraq I believe the poster would be banned from this site very quickly (quite rightly so). You should feel ashamed of slandering British soldiers (many of whom have been wounded and killed) from behind your computer screen.

Agreed. Please don’t think that I’m criticizing US forces etc in Iraq. I’m not and have nothing but respect for them. My sole point is that Shiite militias have shown ALL OVER Iraq in recent days that they have not been disarmed or tied to the same vision of a new Iraq as Maliki/the Central Government.

I nderstand that you are in Iraq at the moment? My point was that Shiite militiamen have come out in force in these locations in recent days, temporarily overwhelming local security forces (not that these areas have become Shiite militia stronghold). 44 people have been reported killed in Kut alone. If this info is wrong, please correct me.

Sorry, the source link is:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/28/wirq128.xml

Sorry, I should have given a source. Here’s one I’ve found:

“Iraq’s government imposed a three-day, 24-hour curfew in Baghdad last night as it struggled to prevent a slide towards civil war with supporters of the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr....In the town of Kut, American forces were drawn into the fighting as they joined the Iraqi army in operations to take back territory seized by Sadr’s supporters. The fighting also spread to Hilla, south of Baghdad.”

Please don’t get me wrong. I think US forces have done a superb job in Iraq. My point is just that Shiite in-fighting and militia violence appears to be deeply rooted wherever the Shiite people are in Iraq (not just in Basra).