[Pukka Puck]

"I see, this explains why the US troops swept through all of Iraq to Baghdad while the Brits surrounded Basra waiting until the internal competing factions had killed each other off??"

Actually, the Brits surrounded Basra and then hung out on the outskirts of the city, waiting for the Americans to take Baghdad, thus making the defense of Basra moot, so that the Brits could then waltz in to Basra without a fight.

[MadIvan]

Actually, the Brits surrounded Basra and then hung out on the outskirts of the city, waiting for the Americans to take Baghdad, thus making the defense of Basra moot, so that the Brits could then waltz in to Basra without a fight.

Liar.

Ivan

[may18]

This is silly, all the reports from the military forums are of mutual respect, yet one silly article and everyone goes haywire

Basra was a different prospect to bagdhad, one thing people seem to forget is the uk commander on the ground recieved his orders from CENTCOM, ie orders of when to go in or not to go in was franks decision.

So, if the US command decided the best way was to provide water and food outside of basra and take it gradually, im prepared to agree with them, civilian casualties due to uk attacks were 91, obviously this tactic was not applicable to the much larger bagdhad, or it would have been used to minimise civilian death

[xJones]

Do you bother to read? The U.S. bypassed southern Iraqi towns and were also prepared to wait outside Baghdad. The commanders in the field sensed the opportunity was there and moved in. The Brits did an excellent job of handling Basra, their assigned target and the second largest city in Iraq.

Ivan, ignore any Brit bashing on this thread. Considering the major contributions by our stauch British allies ever since 9/ll, it's embarrassing.