British accused of appeasing Shia militia in Basra

In Basra the signs of the feared militia are slowly receding. For the first time in years alcohol vendors are selling beer close to army checkpoints, and ringtones praising the rebel cleric Hojatoleslam Moqtada al-Sadr are vanishing from mobile phones. Music shops are once again selling pop tunes instead of the recorded lectures of Shia ayatollahs.

But, as the city cautiously comes back to life after an offensive by Iraqi troops backed by hundreds of US soldiers, there is a lingering resentment towards the British Army.

Many here blame the British for allowing the al-Mahdi Army and other militias to impose a long reign of terror on the once cosmopolitan city.

The battle for Basra is still not over. An American airstrike yesterday killed another six men who had been attacking Iraqi troops from the militia's hold-out areas, which the Army has so far been unable to penetrate.

Support is, though, slowly building for Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who led his troops into Basra having given his US allies barely more than a weekend's notice of the impending attack. The British were informed only a day before, prompting Lieutenant-General Peter Wall, the deputy chief of staff, to describe the whole operation as “hastily planned”.

“After the Iraqi Army set up checkpoints and the militia disappeared from the streets, I decided to start selling alcohol,” Luay Hanna, a 46-year-old liquor store owner, said. His shop was burnt down by fundamentalist militiamen three years ago, and many of his colleagues were butchered.

“Many of the alcohol sellers reopened their shops. We always sell near the Iraqi army checkpoints to be safe - not like before when the militia killed and kidnapped people right in front of the police's eyes.”

Qaldoon Nuri, who runs a CD shop, was forced to stop selling pop songs for fear of the zealous gunmen four years ago. One of his friends was murdered for refusing to heed the ban. He was forced to sell religious songs, many of them praising al-Sadr, as well as lectures on tenets of the Shia faith.

“The militia forced us to follow a fanatic Islamic code. They forced us to put up pictures of the imams,” he said. “Now after the militias have been defeated by government forces, we started to put some songs on CD and are looking for what's new in the arts - what people actually like.”

One of his neighbours, Saleh Muhammad, has been badgered in his phone shop by customers demanding new pop ringtones and pictures of female singers to download. “I think it's freedom from the fear,” he said.

The British have been unable to bask in even the partial success of the battle. Having abruptly decided to take on the militias after years of appeasing them, Mr al-Maliki's first venture on to the battlefield was plagued by desertions from his security forces and stronger than expected resistance. Outfought, he called on US forces for support rather than the 4,100 British troops who have barely left their base at Basra airfield.

When the British commanding officer visited the Prime Minister's field headquarters during the fight he was left waiting outside by the Iraqi leader. The humiliating snub was believed to be payback for an alleged deal with the militias by British forces, who released several of their jailed leaders and agreed not to attack them if the British base was not hit.

“I think the British troops were the main reason that militias became very powerful,” complained Inas Abed Ali, a teacher. “They didn't fight them properly and, when they found themselves losing in the city, they moved out to the airport and chose to negotiate with the militias and criminal groups as if they were legal.”

“The British Army had no role in Basra,” Rahman Hadi, a coffee shop owner, said. “We haven't seen any achievements by them in the streets of Basra. I don't know why their troops didn't respond to the acts of these militias for long years, after seeing all the suffering that Basra people went through.”

Even senior Iraqi officers admitted that the hands-off British approach to policing the city had given the militias free rein. Brigadier Alaa al-Ittabi, from the infantry command of the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, said that the British Army “was sometimes negatively lenient, like the way they dealt with the militias”. Mr Hadi was placing his hopes on the new Iraqi forces. “The presence of these foreign troops adds nothing to the situation, and even the Iraqi troops trained by the British Army proved to be infiltrated by the militias and to be corrupt.”

General David Petraeus, the US commander here, said that the Iraqi Army's initial performance in Basra had been disappointing and gave warning that the battle could last months. Brigadier al-Ittabi attributed the mass desertions at the outset to the deployment of local forces who were unwilling to fight their neighbours and whose families were vulnerable to militia threats.

Sources in Basra said that the Iraqi troops started to gain traction only after Mr al-Maliki drafted in two extra brigades, one from the Sunni city of Ramadi and the other from Karbala, where the al-Mahdi Army's rival militia, the Badr Brigades - loyal to the main Shia party in Mr al-Maliki's Government - holds sway.

Some observers have described the battle in Basra, which has also sparked fighting in the al-Mahdi Army's main stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad, as a power struggle between the anti-US Sadrists, with strong grassroots support among poor Shia, and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, which runs the Badr militia and has long co-operated with the US military.

That theory was lent weight yesterday when unidentified gunmen shot down Hojatoleslam al-Sadr's brother- in-law, who ran his office in the Shia holy city of Najaf, where the Badr forces are strong.

March 27 British troops destroy 14 Iraqi tanks in what was described as the biggest British tank battle since the Second World War. Army describes breaking Baath party rule in Basra as its “primary focus”

April 21 Suicide bombers mount their deadliest attacks to date in Basra with a series of car bombs, killing 74 at police stations and a police training centre

May 31 A month-long state of emergency is declared after sectarian clashes which result in the deaths of more than 100 people

September 3 The last British troops withdraw from Basra Palace to an airbase outside the city

March 25 Iraqi troops backed by US forces launch attacks against Shia militias

Have your say

Iraq is no longer the issue. Iran is. Within a few years it will have nuclear weapons. What then? Do you think they need ballistic missiles to deploy them in Cities? Think again.

Chris, London,

Basra is just another affirmation that concentrating on "pulling out of Iraq" which has been the British policy and now what is espoused by Obama and Hillary, is a misguided foolish endeavour. The British, the supposed experts in COIN operations (ha ha), have failed miserably because British public opinion used by politicians dictated military strategy and tactics. The concentration of effort should have been on ensuring security, rebuilding judicial systems, building relationships with power brokers and encouraging good governance, etc... before reducing forces. The British tried to do the later without the security. What was misunderstood was they are all connected. Lesson: the public isn't the expert in military strategy or tactics. Let the solders do their job.

Suzanne, Los Altos, California USA

Just another example of dithering Brown, the unelected leader. He should be either pulling the troops out or they should be doing what they were sent over to Iraq for and sort the insurgents out.

It should be noted that our troops are poorly equipped due to budgetary cut backs and penny pinching. Whereas there is no end to the benefit handouts to the workshy in this country (UK). Including many suspected terrorists are boasting of being able to claim benefits as they plot the downfall of Western Society. That is the shameful situation that we have put up with.

Unfortunately because of the cover up ans deceit with regard to Weapons of Mass Destruction. The attack on Hussein's Iraq was the wrong target. Meanwhile Iran are steadfastly developing nuclear warheads and have now got the infrastructure to launch missiles with nuclear warheads.

In a few years time they will have a missile delivery system that will be capable of sending nuclear bombs into Western Europe. Act now!

H Henderson, Harrow, UK

Ian Austin of Texas.

The reason we 'were allowed to go' from Iraq was because our government has to listen to its people eventually, it would never ignore us for too long.

The reason we feel able to critise ourselves is because we are comfortable in what we are doing, confident in our actions and, more importanttly, we are a democracy - are you?

You may think our reputation is suffering but we have a different take on what a good reputation is. And it has nothing to do with killing innocent people.

Why exactly did we declare war on Iraq?

Was it for WMD. Eh, no there wasn't any there!

Was it for the dictatorship that Saddam was instilling? Eh, no otherwise we would have delared war on Dafur, China, Zimbabwe, etc.

Was it because of the 'war on terror'? Eh, no because there never has been a 'war on terror', other than in the minds of the american people, which was put there by the american president.

This war is disgusting and shameful.

Kim, London,

Unfortunately, you received some pretty tough words from the US representatives in this discussion. I think it's due to them not quite understanding this publication's audience.

In the US, our media has VERY little negative coverage of European states. The vast majority of our news outfits are well left-of-center of the American public and believe more socialist European countries can do no harm. (So you don't need to worry about our papers giving you a bum rap.)

On the contrary, European papers pour anti-American rants out of their presses on a regular basis. And in many ways, the British press are amongst the worst perpetrators. I know this because I ran a publication translating editorial articles from elite European papers for US consumption.

So if an American seems harsh to you, they probably have seen the score, feel their backs against the wall, but don't realize who their friends are and which papers they read. Britain is almost universally loved by Americans

Keith, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

In some ways, this makes me smile. The British and the British military to a lesser extent are EXTREMELY fond of ripping on Americans and our failures. For the most part this is one sided, with the Americans wondering why "our closest friend" has so much frothing at the mouth hatred for us.

Well now they have their cumuppence, and now they see why the American military has to do what it does to get results. Northern Ireland is nothing on the level of Iraq, that's not something to wave over our heads. Soft power and the liberal approach has failed in this particular case.

With all that said, I can take no pleasure in the UK looking the effete fool. Because plenty of good British Soldiers are dead or maimed because their government didn't have the committment to really take that city. I had some success in Fallujah and Anbar with the Marines, and hopefully we'll soon be sent out of here to help the Iraqi forces tame it.

Semper Fidelis

Marsoc Meerkat, Washington D.C., United States

Iraqis didn't sign on to the British effort in Basra because there was never an overt commitment to take charge and stand up to the militias.

What's that adage about "grasp the nettle"?

Brian H, Vancouver, BC Canada

I was in a US brigade headquarters during and after the battle of Najif. We literally could not believe that the British were allowing Sadr to rebuild his private army in Basra after we wiped it out in Najif.

We were all predicting that Basra would remain a mess until the British left and somebody went in to clean up the mess they made.

Colin, Los Angeles, California

I'm sure the British Army would have done a better job if it had not been "kneecapped" by the lack of support in the UK and the poor leadership/ financing of the govt. The British army is woefully over-deployed, over-administered and underfunded. This also applies to Afghanistan.

The soldiers do a great job when they are allowed to run the show though. As it is they were given orders for a rapid withdrawal and a "softly softly" approach making the situation unmanageable. I'm just glad the US /Iraq army is making some progress.

John Lowen, Halifax, Canada

I served for 18 months in Basra - the people of Basra didn't want us there and made no attempt to help us defeat the Militias - no intelligence, no declaration of IEDs, no support, the police and Army refused to patrol with us. We spent 6 billion pounds, lost 176 soldiers and had 500 maimed for life, so US commentators taunting our "Appeasement" are slightly boring. The level of violence was massively high - air strikes, tank rounds, artillery rounds and a lot of brave local actions by the British infantry - obviously in numbers insufficient to control security in Basra without Iraqi help - of which there was none. What the withdrawal to Basra air station has achieved is that the Iraqis have realised they are responsible for their own security and do not want the militias to run Basra - good luck to them - we'll help them restore security - they have logically turned to the strongest partner - the US, whose resources far outweigh those of the UK. Progress has finally been made.

Bob, London,

Cultural Marxism requires that all the machinery of a patriotic nation is dismantled so that the people have no rallying points.
The UK's Marxists have almost completed their programme now that the once elite British Army is emasculated and relegated to a bunch of appeasing social workers.
The only comment that I wish to make about the US leadership is that it was a shame that they didn't back us in the fight against Irish terrorism from the sixties onwards. This negotiating from a fortified position was adopted in Northern Ireland after the rest of the world failed to back us.

david webb, bournemouth, uk

The British withdraw to a strategic point. The Iraqi National Army is seen to gain a victory. Seems sensible to me! The British take the blame but the real winner will be the New Iraqi State.

Chris, London,

Wow Brits, aren't you a bit self defensive here. What's wrong, the truth stings a bit ? I don't agree at all with the assessments about your troops capacity to fight, I believe they are amongst the best in the world. It's clear that the leadership is calling the shots. In as much as you were "arm twisted" to go to Iraq to begin with, the leadership made a decision to go, in so doing they should have made the equal commitment to allow your troops to fight.

I would point out to you that while you complain about we Americans gloating and arrogance, the article written using the title of 'appeasement' is here on a British web sight. I didn't find any major American news organization criticizing you in this way. In fact our leadership has gone out of it's way to defend your actions.

The point is that whether or not you should have gone into Iraq the reality is your troops are there, the world is watching your actions (or inaction) and your reputation is suffering. It's troubling to see..

Ian, Austin, TX, USA

It'll be interesting when the US starts to realise that it cannot rely on it's surge strategy long term what it will leave behind, critisising British Arm leadership overlooks the fact that the US monumentally screwed up in disbanding the Iraqi Army and not planning for the occupation.all the self assured gloating on here from Americans belies the fact that Iraq is still an uncertain quantity Are our troops underfunded, though they are actually well eqipped compared to the majority of Armies, they are considered to be underfunded and undermanned by around 5000 at the latest estimates. As for undertrained, that's a joke, our soldiers are better trained than US forces, size/$$ does not = better training. I think that the govt should now give the Army command what they ask for to deal with the situation, none of this hypocritical cowardice taking us into a war by deception then once we're in not giving the Army what they need/telling them they have to pull out. The rot is in govt not army

Jon Underwood, Edinburgh, Uk

The Labour government has lost any will to fight since it was plainly shown that Blair & Co had lied to parliament over weapons of mass destruction in order to get into the war. The necessary expenditure has been blocked because of Labour's prioritising of social programs and pork-barrelling its client estate.

The British soldier is well capable of fighting, but has been held back by the Government. They have been confined to the airbase - a Dien Bien Phu strategy - in order to minimise casualties. This is a very short-term policy which will inevitably lead to a pull-out and a shameful retreat.

The officers are afraid to lead their men decisively because they know they do not have the support of a congenitally anti-militarist government; they know that positive leadership and aggressive action will spell the end of their careers. The judiciary, from their comfortable offices, will gleefully dismember any decisions that an officer may have to take in the face of the enemy.

Richard Cooper, Dunstable,

Do nothing and leave, that's what the British press and the war-antis wanted - they should be pleased.

William D H Carey, Schoten 2900, Belgium

What a lot of hot air and half cocked opinion. (views on current British government excepted).
Maybe now we (British) should withdraw our troops completely and let Nouri al-Maliki mastermind the liberation of the Iraqi people(s) with the help of a now defunct super power.
This would undoubtedly be completed before GWB leaves the White House!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

David French, AlqueidÃ£o, Portugal

"Perhaps you would like us to pull out of Afganistan & close our base in Diago Garcia?"

I wouldn't put it past your present government to do it. The British military is underfunded, undermanned, and undertrained (Defense Secretary Gates said that and caught hell for it, but it's true). You won't spend money on the equipment your warriors need and deserve, and your officer corp is disintegrating from within. Prince Harry has proven himself a fine soldier. We think he should join our army or Marine Corp. At least that way he'd still be able to fight.

Paul Woodside, San Jose, California

from America the view of the Brits is that they are not led well and never have been. Of course this is not true, but that is the lilt we get from over the years. As for the Brit public; not much different than the American public; just get on with your day and the radicals have their say. The nay sayers always seem larger than they really are and new media tries to make a mountain out of a molehill. Stiff upper lip guys, and let the dog wag on.

Greg, Des Moines, IA US

While the core of this story may be true, it has been written in an extremely biased, anti-british (or - dare I say it - anti-"New-Labour-British") manner.

It would have all been so different if the Conservatives had been in charge!!!

Maybe not.

Douglas Newell, Saltcoats. Ayrshire, UK

The tone of this report is missing the point. British troops for whatever reason, political or military, did not join in the fight and lead. As the military has always said that they will train the Iraqi army to take the fight to the insurgents/militia by themselves.
The Politicians' main focus has evolved, to stop British troops being put in harms way fighting an unpopular war. The Politicians will not deploy the manpower needed to stop the mahdi army. Due to the risks of more British soldiers dying for an unpopular cause.
It is the Iraqis who have to sort this mess out, we do not have the political will. It is good to see that they are doing this now by using their own troops (trained by the Coalition) to sort out the mess.
What does the reporter expect? That we send in a surge of 30,000 troops to sort out al-sadr and his mob trained and financed by corruption and Iran? How will we ever pull the troops home if they are always fighting instead of the Iraqi army? Think!

Raoul, Lincolnshire,

The British Army is able to fight well when the political will is present. Presumably it was the lack of will that led to the appeasement policy in Basra. Appeasement as a policy is besmirched by Munich, but it might have worked in Basra, given a vastly different political, intellectual, religious and social structure. But appeasement clearly did not work in Basra. British diplomacy could not find a role when the militias knew British armour would not be effectively used against them. Despite the tradition of empire and the abundance of Middle Eastern experience in London, efforts of the British Army to do something effective and positive in Basra failed. But it was better to have shown up with the flag, than not shown up at all.

greg, oslo, Norway

Sadly it would appear from other sources than this paper that the report of appeasement is quite valid. The only question remaining is whether this was an order from the politicians in the UK, or a command decision from the military. At least now we know why the british military personnel at Basra were so glum and despondent for the last six months.

Jonathan Mills, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Bropous, what arrogance and self-involvement, as if freedom equals access to beer and American CDs/ringtones. It's this "as if" character of the so-called liberation which messes it up in the first place, the naive inability to question yourself and your own motives. It's like Bush: He too has an uncanny talent to bring about exactly what he says he wants to prevent (self-fulfilling prophecy) - a suppressed, always half-conscious wish to fail spectacularly and then blame it on others. Iran would be the same, only worse, as Iraq and Afghanistan: Manic self-deception and self-glorification on the part of the US, disillusionment and ruin for the "Greater Middle East". Like the shadowy images shown to the pilots in the US aircraft while they shoot at people on the ground - they barely even look like people from that perspective, just like targets in a video game - you prefer self-serving illusion to sober fact, and are even proud of that. Shades of Vietnam.

Julia Iskandar, London, England

"Leave it to the United States of America and Iraq to liberate Iraq, Britain."

To the gentleman from Denver...thats what we tried to do..but unlike the rest of the world ..we had our arms twisted.

PS - Perhaps you would like us to pull out of Afganistan & close our base in Diago Garcia?

Oh wait a minute...we are your only "friend" fighting with you their as well...Go figure!

adrian, aldershot, England

A terrible nightmare unfolded in Basra when the British army made a deal with Sadr militia thugs, this was reported in Panorama program. It was a deal at the expense of Basra people. The withdrawal was a cover for retreat. Iranian backed Mahdi army is becoming a terrible cancer for Iraq. Iraq may become another Lebanon with a powerless government, just like a wheel within a wheel.

H.Marph , London,

Yes, appeasement! We British should be ashamed of this pathetic Gordon Brown government for its failure to commit sufficient troops, and we should be ashamed of our cowardly politicians for allowing the Americans to fill the breach on their own. It is a terrible and sad thing to have say, but while the Americans have put on the mantle of responsibility, necessity and courage, the British government has been playing the Vichy role. And so it has come to this: brave and decent Iraqis view us with contempt.

Eve Ventura, Nottingham, UK

Deafening silent here....wonder why.

James E Drake, Williamsburg, Virginia

Well, the British are out of the way in Basra, and the mollycoddling is over for the Sadrists and the Iranian stooges.

Iraqi Army and US troops are entering the city and bringing true security to the poor long suffering people of Basra, and I am glad to see it.

Even though the initial stages of this operation were not all that successful, progess is being made. It is also interesting to note that when the Iraqi people are allowed freedom of choice by their own countrymen, sales of beer and downloads of female popstars for cell phone (which I imagine also include Megan Fox, heart goes thumppy thump!) go through the roof.

The Iraqi people are being liberated, day by day. It is sad that British commanders were not allowed by their government to press for security in Basra, as I know for a fact that British soldiers are more than capable of conducting combat operations against the Sadrist terrorists.

Leave it to the United States of America and Iraq to liberate Iraq, Britain.

BROPOUS, Denver, CO USA

Read all 29 comments

Have your say

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.