[pierrem15]

And British generals have apparently replaced their miltary understanding with hoary left-wing cliches.

The Britsih Army was given one primary objective in 2003: Basra. They failed to take the city, and the US had to peel-off units from the advance to Baghdad to guard our rear because the British Army could not (or would not) do he job.

Basra didn't capitulate until Baghdad fell.

I would say the Brits could use a little more 'John Wayne' and less 'Labourite Peacekeeping Babble'.

[Chgogal]

Yup. The Brits didn't take Basra until just before Baghdad fell. I thought it odd that the Brits took so long to take just one port city. I was also surprised that no one in the media, military analysts, etc. mentioned that. Hope they aren't going French on us? Especially after these nasty and unnecessary comments from this general. Wonder what he thinks about a British elitist known as Field Marshall Montgomery and his Operation Market Garden? I hear he spoke an excellent Queen's English and had wonderful British Tea manners. Unfortunately for the Dutch they could not afford another "British Victory" as the results of "Operation Market Garden" was described by Field Marshall Montgomery.

Curious how many hearts and minds this elitist is winning in the Balkans? They have been at it now for how many years?

[Cheburashka]

I would say the Brits could use a little more 'John Wayne' and less 'Labourite Peacekeeping Babble'.
---
Reminds me of Patton and Montgomery in Sicily and France in WWII.
In both cases it's a matter of the Americans fighting a war in a way that the Brits can't and don't want to.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The old Chamberlain syndrome lingers yet.

[the scotsman]

'The Britsih Army was given one primary objective in 2003: Basra. They failed to take the city, and the US had to peel-off units from the advance to Baghdad to guard our rear because the British Army could not (or would not) do he job.'

The British Army did NOT 'fail' to take Basra...

Let us remember that AMERICAN troops were the first in Basra,and that after resistance they left it to the British to handle.So US troops faced at least for the first few days the same problems the British would have done,so spare me the sole 'attack' on British troops.


And let us remember that both America and Britain had jointly decided NOT to storm Basra...

23 March 2003,General Tommy Franks:

'Our intent is not to move through and create military confrontations in that city', he said. 'Rather, we expect that we'll work with Basra and the citizens in Basra [who will welcome] the forces when they come in'

Todd Richissin, The Sun (Maryland), 23 March 2003

'US and British forces will not immediately storm Basra, a British military spokesman said today.

“Military commanders do not engage in urban areas unless they have to,” Lieutenant Colonel Chris Vernon said. “It was necessary in (Umm) Qasr because of the port.” '

http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2003/03/22/story92680.asp


Let us remember the timeline for Basra:

March 27: routes in the south cleared;
March 28: British ship Sir Galahad docks at Umm Qasr with humanitarian aid;
March 30: water pipeline laid from Kuwait to Umm Qasr
April 3: Basra 'screened off' preventing Iraqis interfering in US advance to Baghdad. Royal Marines of 42 Commando Battalion played football with a local Basra team and lost 9-3.
April 6: The attack on Basra commenced from south, west and north. Patchy resistance was reported.
April 7: UK forces secure strategic positions deep within Basra from which they continued to launch offensive operations. 3 Para patrolled through Basra old town.


Let us remember that when the British DID storm in,they took the city easily...

'British forces stormed the centre of Basra yesterday, wresting control of large swathes of Iraq's second city from forces loyal to Saddam Hussein. Three British soldiers were killed in the action, along with many Iraqis.

The Ministry of Defence named one of the dead as Fusilier Kelan John Turrington, aged 18, of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He was killed by a booby trap.


British Challenger 2 tanks push forward into Basra
Challenger 2 tanks and Warrior fighting vehicles from battle groups of 7 Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, mounted a three-pronged assault shortly after 5.30am local time. By dusk they had fought their way to the fringes of the Old City.

British officers in Qatar said 2,000 troops backed by 40 tanks had entered Basra in an operation which would continue today.

The operation was ordered after Maj Gen Robin Brimms, commander of 1st (UK) Armoured Division, decided the situation had reached "tip point" at which organised resistance was about to collapse.

Some Iraqis cheered and waved at the British while others turned on the Fedayeen paramilitaries defending the city. Several militiamen were killed by lynch mobs.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/07/war07.xml


Any idead that the British at Basra were slow when storming the city is nonsense....

[the scotsman]

'the US had to peel-off units from the advance to Baghdad to guard our rear because the British Army could not (or would not) do he job.'

Firstly,the British did NOT 'refuse' or 'could not' do the job.As my first post shows,you have ignored or forgotten the Allied strategy in 2003...

Secondly,what about the British troops who went north to guard your rear when you attacked Fallujah?.

Remember the Black Watch?.