Warning shots. Whats next?
Severe taunting?
Posted on 04/09/2008 8:58:55 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Relations between Britain and Iraq suffered “catastrophic failure” after Baghdad bypassed the British military and called in the American “cavalry” to help the recent offensive against Shia militia in Basra, The Times has learnt.
About 550 US troops, including some from the 82nd Airborne Division, were sent from Baghdad to Basra to join up with 150 American soldiers already serving with Iraqi forces in the southern city.
The Ministry of Defence made much of the fact that British troops, based at Basra airport outside the city, were not requested in the early stages of the operation. British officials claimed that the Basra offensive was proof that Iraqi troops could cope on their own.
The Times has learnt, however, that when Britain’s most senior officer in Basra, Brigadier Julian Free, commander of 4 Mechanised Brigade, flew into the city to find out what was going on, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who was orchestrating the attacks on militia strongholds, declined to see him.
Brigadier Free flew to Basra city with Lieutenant-General Lloyd Austin, the commander of American and coalition forces in Iraq, on March 27, two days after the operation began. The Iraqi Prime Minister spoke only to the US general.
A source familiar with the sequence of events said that Mr al-Maliki seemed to have it in for the British because of the alleged “deal” struck with the Shia militia last year under which they agreed not to attack Britain’s last battalion as it withdrew from Basra in return for the release of several of their leading members from prison.
According to The New York Times, Baghdad turned to the Americans for help when the Basra operation was launched. Two senior American military officers, Rear Admiral Edward Winters, a former member of the US Navy Seals special forces unit, and Major-General George Flynn, a Marine, were sent to Basra to help to coordinate the operation. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were drafted in as combat advisers and air controllers were positioned to call in airstrikes.
Ryan Crocker, US Ambassador to Baghdad, told The New York Times that the first he learnt of the Iraqi plan for Basra was on March 21. “The sense we had was that this would be a long-term effort, increased pressure gradually squeezing the special groups [the Iranian-backed Shia militia],” he said. “That is not what emerged. Nothing was in place from our side. It all had to be put together.”
A source told The Times that US forces were in Basra, eating and sleeping alongside their Iraqi counterparts, “basically doing the work that we were supposed to do. It was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.”
The source described the moment when the American general arrived at the British base from Baghdad: “Suddenly the cavalry appeared.”
The source said that the Americans provided “loads of technical equipment and combat power”. As soon as the Americans arrived and started hitting houses in Basra, the daily attacks of indirect fire on the British base stopped. The source said that during that time the mood among the British forces on the base was “miserable”.
There was even speculation that Mr al-Maliki had refused to talk to Gordon Brown since the operation began. But a Downing Street spokesman said: “Mr Maliki spoke with the Prime Minister on the phone during the Nato summit in Bucharest [last week].”
It was not clear who had initiated the phone call, but Downing Street said that the two leaders had been trying “for a few days” to speak to each other and that when they did the conversation had been “constructive”.
A defence source played down the snub, saying: “Mr al-Maliki only deals with people at a certain level.” The source added that Major-General Barney White-Spunner, the British General Officer Commanding Multinational Division Southeast, had been out of the country at the time.
British troops did become involved in the operation eventually, first with RAF Tornado GR4 aircraft firing warning shots over Shia militia areas of Basra and then supplying troops from two battle groups to help the Iraqis, although not in the city itself.
Artillery was also fired from the British base at Shia militia targets.
However, British troops are now back in Basra serving alongside Iraqi forces for the first time since withdrawing from the city in September. The Ministry of Defence confirmed that 150 British soldiers were now embedded with the Iraqis in Basra, serving as military transition teams.
The 150 British troops now in Basra city have been drawn predominantly from the 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland battle group. They have been formed into six military transition teams (Mitts), made up of advisers, force protection units equipped with Mastiff and Warrior armoured vehicles, and medical support.
The presence of British troops in Basra again was the main reason why Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons last week that the plan to reduce the force levels in Iraq from 4,000 to 2,500 from the spring had to be postponed.
Both the Americans and the British felt that Operation Charge of the Knights was a hastily conceived offensive without proper planning or consultation. The result is that the American and British military will have to be based in Basra for the foreseeable future, something which neither coalition partner had foreseen or planned for after security for the south was handed over to the Iraqis.
---------------------------------------------------------
There were reports that Mohammed Waili, the Basra governor, was effectively under house arrest. Sources in the Basra provincial council said that his Fadhil bodyguard had been replaced by Iraqi army soldiers.
Shameful for Britain. The Iraqi army thinks its better than the Brits. Maybe they’re right. Dontcha know Argentina is taking this into account(ie. Falklands).
I don’t believe any of this.
Judging by the results on the ground after the Brits left Basra and the recent disaster at sea for the RN, I’d say the Iraqis are at least as good and probably better than the Brits were - under the rules of engagement the Brits had.
Of course, it helps if you have rifles that work (AK and to a lesser degree the AR series) as opposed to “The Rifle H&K Couldn’t Fix” - the SA80/L85 A2.
British soldiers are first rate, but the leadership has been dismal, more concerned with avoiding confrontaion than winning. They allowed Basra to fester for years, and allowed the Iranians to capture their sailors and marines rather than risk a confrontation. I can only assume the attitude comes down from the political leadership. Their troops deserve better.
When was the mood "miserable"? When the British were receiving fire, or when the Americans arrived?
When the British troops couldn’t return fire
Warning shots. Whats next?
Severe taunting?
Britain is on its way out and we surged 170,000 troops into Iraq. It's a surprise we had the will and resources to help?
Like Reagan liked to say “You can get a lot done when it doesn't matter to you who get the credit.” Amen.
Nope.
I like your take. Brits on the way out. Iran reinforces Bassra/Sadr militants. Iraq takes the lead to clean the place out and should get the credit. U.S. plays supporting role. The whole thing was probably coordinated with all parties.
Western appeasing press has said the whole deal was a defeat for the coalition all along.
It was actually quite a success. Iran and Sadr are defeated in Bassra. Sadr sues for peace in Baghdad.
yitbos
That whole British appeasement thing (cough*** Chamberlain *** cough) never worked anyway.
I agree, my unit was right along side of the Royal Army on Kuwait-Iraq border before the invasion. Real great bunch of guys, we used to trade MRE’s and barter mosquito nets for UA booze and the such. I also learned that Soldiers from Northern Ireland don’t appreciate being called English. Anyway, I have complete confidence in the average British Soldier.... Their leadship on the other hand... But I guess the same could be said of ours.
The British enabled the Iraqi forces to fight autonomously and left them to it.
It seems to have worked out well: the Iraqis have done a good job in Basra. This little spat is nothing.
Yeah, i cant blame the Iraqis. They bailed on Basra because they couldnt stand the heat. They are only helping with indirect fire in the form of artillery and cargo delivery, even their combat aircraft are doing what, firing warning shots???? what good ARE the brittish in this fight, really???
Maybe if the Brits serve ol’ muqtada al sadr some nice tea and crumpets, he’ll put up his AK 47 and we can all have a nice tea break. right.
Get real. If the brits are T’d off about being snubbed, they only have their own arrogant selves to thank. They refuse to fight, make deals with the enemy to garuntee their own saftey, and then complain in the Iraqi leaderships lack of confidence in them?
I got a hard fact of life i’d like to pass on to the Brits: if you refuse to fight, and you go to those extremes to avoid the fight, DONT BE SURPRISED WHEN WE CALL SOMEONE ELSE TO DO YOUR JOB FOR YOU. if YOU cant do the job, we will find someone ELSE who CAN do the job.
Stop being crybabies. Let it serve as a lesson. when the brittish army general staff gets its priorities straight, and starts doing its job, then maybe just maybe the loss of faith in the brittish army can be adequately addressed without the pouting, and the temper tantrums of senior brittish officers more concerned with their image and their careers than with their mission.
What a load of ol Shi*e.............
From one British soldier ‘What a load of ol’ bollocks!!!’
‘....Dontcha know Argentina is taking this into account(ie. Falklands).’
And we’ll kick their arses the same we did in the 80s.....
We’re fighting heavily a proper war in Afghanistan, doing what we were trained to do........
Unfortunately, our military leadership generally does what the US area command wants it to do.
As a Brit soldier, I found the capture, and the subsequent behaviour of the sailor contingent of the RN party, extremely embarrassing. However, as ever in the military, nothing is as it appears. The incident was never fully investigated, purely cause of arse saving, but the brief was that the RN weren’t happy with operating in those waters with the RoE placed on them. They were more than happy to fight their way out, but the realism is that with our ‘lack’ of numbers, we’re only ever going to be an assisting force, the Naval RoE is American and the orders to holdfire came from a USN admiral, not an RN one, and that is something that really pisses me off!!!
Our politicians have lost the will in Iraq, however, we’ve increased numbers of personnel on the ground in Afghanistan, and our troops are experiencing an average of more than 2 contacts a day in the Helmand province, and the politicians appear more staunch in their stand against the Taliban and Al Qaeda there. I personally have served more than once in Iraq, and Afghanistan and I did not sign up to be a glorified armed copper, so give me afghanistan anyday.....
‘.......When was the mood “miserable”? When the British were receiving fire, or when the Americans arrived?’
No, miserable because they weren’t joining in......
Assuming this s true what is to be learned?
1. Iraq doesn’t trust the Brits to fight. And it is not the Brit Army it is their government that won’t let them fight. Warning shots...good grief.
2. Iraq doesn’t trust the state department to keep secrets and perhaps our government.
3. You want the USA with you in a fight provided our government allows us to fight.
Analysis:
Point 1 Too bad. Fight with them and they will trust you. The present British government has their troops in Iraq for show only. They would be of better use at home trying to keep their country free. And you guys better get to work. Your country is going to h@ll.
Point 2 Well done, Iraq! I don’t trust State either. I don’t trust my government as far as I can throw it.
Point 3 Very Well Done! I wish I was young again so I could be there with you.
We oped with the Brits when I was but a lad in the Navy. The Brits are well trained and capable. Believe me, their forces want to fight. It is their leadership that is the problem and their government that risks their country.
Did you not note the line that said “under the rules of engagement the British had?”
Many of the Brit troops are great soldiers, very brave. But many are not and the rules of engagement the British government dictated tie the hands of even the best troops they have. Add to that high officers that prefer “conflict management” to outright conflict... and you have a disaster in the making.
Nelson ..... Copenhagen ..... Telescope ..... Blind eye.
is to try to divide the Anglo-American team.
I have no idea why Iraq would want to do that, but I do know why the press might want to do that.
We are an overstretched army, being more stretched by the day. We’re increasing amount of troops in Afghanistan.
I’m going to be blunt when I say Iraq can go f*ck itself. It’s not a war there. From where I saw it when I was there, was that we were doing a job that could be handed over to the Iraq govt forces at a later date. Whether or not those Iraqi forces were ready to take over when they did, is now a bone of contention. In the early days we busted down doors and heads, we agressively patrolled. All we were ever told was that we were doing a job for the Iraqis till the Iraqis could do it themselves, nowt about poxy RoEs. It’s now obvious that the Iraqis couldn’t do that job for themselves and there isn’t enough Brit forces left there geared up to continue from where they left off.
Now, Afghanistan is a totally different ball game. We have RoEs relevant to the situation.
We can sit down and argue all day about the shortcomings of both the US & UK RoEs in Iraq, but it all depends on whose agenda you go by. Unfortunately, because of our military numbers we’re in a catch 22, if we increase manpower in Iraq they have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is Afghanistan and vice versa, which is now where we find ourselves. My government sees Afghanistan as the bigger threat so thats where the bulk of our soldiers go, and I don’t have one single problem with that, it means the barrel of my rifle gets a lot hotter than it would in Iraq!!!
Yes, some people are born to disobey orders but the majority aren’t, don’t matter which army you’re in....
Once upon a time, when the population of Great Britain was 27 million less than it is today, the British Army suffered casualties that amounted to 19,240 dead, 35,493 wounded, 2,152 missing and 585 prisoners for a total loss of 57,470 ....... on a single day.
That single day was 1 July 1916, the first day of the Battle of the Somme. The final tally for British casualties including killed, wounded and captured was 419,000 for the Battle of the Somme alone.
Today, Great Britain claims that what essentially amounts to a minor mopping up operation from the World War One historical perspective has the entire British Army "overstretched".
Keeping a historical perspective, what number has "overstretched" the entire nation of Great Britain in Afghanistan in the year 2008 A.D.? According to the British Ministry of Defense, "Our forces in Afghanistan are currently around 7,800 strong."
In short, the casualties suffered by the British Army on the first day of the Battle of the Somme are over seven times greater than the entirety of the British forces in Afghanistan today.
Yet, the Great Britain of the year 2008 A.D. writes down on the pages of the same book of British Military History that is one of the proudest that Western Civilization has produced, that merely fielding a force of 7,800 (800 more than the 7,000 casualties that von Blücher's Prussians suffered in their late arrival at Waterloo) has the entire British Army "overstretched".
This is not a failure of the individual British fighting man but it is a failure of the national will of modern day Great Britain as a whole.
I’m going to be blunt when I say Iraq can go f*ck itself. ..... My government sees Afghanistan as the bigger threat so thats where the bulk of our soldiers go, ...
In strategic terms, Afghanistan is a minor theater whose "threat" to Britain, the European Union and the U.S. could be negated merely by having the political will to commit the Politically Incorrect sin of treating Muslim men wishing to immigrate into our countries as a much greater potential threat than 78 year old native-born great-grandmothers at airports.
Strategically, the only thing that operations in the Afghanistan theater have accomplished is to transfer al Qaeda training camps from Afghanistan to the mountainous tribal regions of Pakistan.
By contrast, the strategic stakes involved in Iraq, (an inherently unstable political mix of peoples created as a single nation by Great Britain itself out of the British Mandate of Mesopotamia) and in the Persian Gulf are vital strategic interests that will effect the very survival of London and the rest of Great Britain and the European Union in the 21st Century.
I discussed those vital strategic interests on this particular post and later posts on this thread.
The sad fact at the dawn of the 21st Century is that the entire European Union, a political entity that exceeds the United States of America itself in both population and economic output, no longer worries itself, as Lord Palmerston once did, about the "permanent interests" needed to merely survive in this hostile World. Worrying about such vital strategic interests and doing something about it was long ago delegated to the "cowboy" Americans.
America has become the Tommy of the entire European Union.
Yes, I’m aware of the British death and casualty rates of both world wars, i’m a british soldier after all!!!
You’re talking about an era where Britain was under constant threat of invasion, where high government, senior officers and the general public weren’t as squeamish about war casualties and saw it as a necessary sacrifice and where the British army was more than 10 times the size it is today. We don’t live in such an era now. Post WW2, Britain fought in many small wars and lost many soldiers in far away lands from the jungles of Malaya to the deserts Oman, before and after the US was fighting in Viet Nam. Many soldiers were killed but the British public accepted it as a result of war. When I joined the army, it was a standing joke about how the US would pull out of any conflict at the 1st whiff of a US casualty. It was a common belief amongst both the Brit public and army that the Viet Nam war was lost by the US publics lack of a will for the fight. Trouble is, our own public has slowly lost the will to fight as well. Ironically, our own public started to lose the will for a fight when we entered in to conflicts with the US, probably just a complete coincidence though....
‘Minor mopping operation’
Feel free to pull stag with me anytime your in Afghanistan. Maybe minor, but it will be as perpetual as it always is in Afghanistan.
A little while ago, I spent 3 weeks in an Army careers office whilst recovering from an injury. In that time I could count those that came in interested on 2 hands, and those I processed on one hand. People aren’t interested in joining the army anymore, and I think that suits the government.
I joined the British army 18yrs ago, the army was 130,000 strong then and the whole armed forces was about 300,000 strong. Now its less than 100,000 in the army, and probably closer to 80,000. Now, I can see that you’ve taken the figure 7,800 and used that as a benchmark for stating that we’re not overstretched, I couldn’t care less what the figures and statistics say, we’re overstretched, besides, 7800 is approx 10% of our army.
Personally, I have been out of the country on operations in the past 8 yrs more than i’ve been in it, If I was a statistics man i’d say that i’ve probably been away for about 85% of that time, much to the annoyance of my ever suffering wife and children. I have been to both Afghanistan and Iraq more than once, I have been to Sierra Leonne along with 2 other African countries, I’ve been to Kosovo, and in all this time I spent was intermittently in the US over an 18 month period from late 2000, as a liaison. I have spent more time in Iraq and Afghanistan than 99.9% of US soldiers, as have the bulk of my men.
I suppose what I was trying to get at is that by todays army standards, we’re overstretched, by 1916 and Napoleonic standards, we’re positively comfortable, so I do take your point. A lot of people on here only look at our involvement in Iraq, with no consideration for the many other places our soldiers serve like Afghanistan, Kenya, Sierra Leonne and Eastern Europe. The last forces review I saw, we had more than 50% of personnel overseas.
My grasp on the finer points of the politics of the EU is limited. I guess I have a few stand points on it, and that’s that they can go fu*k themselves, I don’t want to be a part of Europe, I don’t consider myself European. I think the EC is corrupt and that there’s too much ‘water under the bridge’ and personal nationalistic interests for it to ever work. Britain is no longer Britain.....
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.