Article

2009-01-04 Britain

Britain: Our Army failed its test in Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mrp 2009-01-04 00:38|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 Bad, bad Tommy---can't win with both hands tied behind his back and a 60 pound weight chained to his leg.

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2009-01-04 08:37|| 2009-01-04 08:37|| Front Page Top

#2 The individual soldiers of the British army are still some of the best. Once again though, their leadership lead them to defeat. The British military and political leaders have always been the British Army's Achilles' heel.

Posted by DarthVader 2009-01-04 08:42|| 2009-01-04 08:42|| Front Page Top

#3 Yes, but it didn't stop 'senior' Army officials to issue criticism, eaten up and expounded upon by the usual MSM Quislings, on the Yanks handling of the whole affair did it?

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-01-04 08:50|| 2009-01-04 08:50|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't care who you blame as long as it's not the ranker!

Posted by Besoeker 2009-01-04 08:51|| 2009-01-04 08:51|| Front Page Top

#5 *Ahem* Tony Blair "and his Labour government, along with the weaselly complicity of the Europhile Conservatives, as well."

Posted by Anonymoose 2009-01-04 08:53|| 2009-01-04 08:53|| Front Page Top

#6 Tommy didn't fail Britain. Britain failed Tommy. "Softly, Softly" send the British Army softly into that goodnight. The sun set long ago on the British Empire. Tommy, we hardly knew ye.

Posted by William Marcy Tweed 2009-01-04 09:29|| 2009-01-04 09:29|| Front Page Top

#7 This article said it all.

Posted by tipper 2009-01-04 11:16|| 2009-01-04 11:16|| Front Page Top

#8 The intention, as part of the attempt to 'win hearts and minds', was to avoid using armoured Warriors in favour of vehicles looking less aggressive.

The above is the prime idiocy of the "leader class" in England. And army;s job is NOT to look less agressive nor to be less armored nro to be passive, espedcially in an area where hostiities are ongoing.

Its the upperclass twits that believe the Arabs think like upperclass leftards that came up with this idiocy (similar to our state department). Strong Horse, that's how the Arabs go, and its very practical from a peasant standpoint. If you have one set if people telling you "Here have a bag of food and we are nice guys", and the other ones telling you "we will slice your throat like we did your neighbor's if you don't do as we say and don't bet on the nice guys to save you - they don't stay and they don't fight.", well its pretty clear which side will win support of the popukace.

The libtards in Europe have starte to believe their own bullshit completely, and have the military and some conservatives doign so as well. They are about as adept at dealing with reality as was Hitler in the bunker moving imaginary divisions around while the Soviet artillery was hammering his roof.

Posted by OldSpook 2009-01-04 11:39|| 2009-01-04 11:39|| Front Page Top

#9 Speak any English?

Posted by .5MT 2009-01-04 11:41|| www.cybernations.net]">[www.cybernations.net] 2009-01-04 11:41|| Front Page Top

#10 In August we retreated, supposedly handing over to the Iraqi army, only for the base to be triumphantly looted by the Mahdi Army, which by the end of October had turned Al-Amarah into a vast bomb-making factory, supplying insurgents all over Iraq.

I must have missed that bit somehow. Still, a pointed lesson in how hearts and minds can only be won after security has been established by force.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-01-04 12:35|| 2009-01-04 12:35|| Front Page Top

#11 "The British Army had entered Iraq in 2003 with a reputation as the most professional in the world".

IMO, most of the poor decisions resulted from the admirable quality known as British Pride. Unfortunately, that pride soon grew into arrogance. (In both civilian and military leadership) Almost immediately, the commanders of the elite fighting force with the most respected counter-insurgency pedigree were squawking about playing second fiddle to less experienced Yanks. Blair, to his credit, put on a good face but clearly his poodle moniker left him pining for his days in short-pants. The premature and very public denials of Iranian involvement in supplying weaponry was the clearest sign that disruption of the Shia rat-lines was no longer their main objective. At that point, even a stooge like Sadr could figure out that a sustained assault would send shivers up the skirts of the British Parliament.

Posted by DepotGuy 2009-01-04 13:14|| 2009-01-04 13:14|| Front Page Top

#12 The intention, as part of the attempt to 'win hearts and minds', was to avoid using armoured Warriors in favour of vehicles looking less aggressive.

Kinda like equipping Alexander's Companions with Show Jump horses.

Posted by swksvolFF 2009-01-04 15:17|| 2009-01-04 15:17|| Front Page Top

#13 Ideally, the Marines that marched in with the British should have stayed with them. Dealing with restive populations in both Iraq and Afghanistan supplemented by every nutcase available from Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabian with funding from Iran was a tall order for the small post-Cold War military forces available in the USA and UK. It would have been nice to have help from other interested parties, but I think the will of Europe has been broken.

I expect that the end result will be a nuclear Iran that will blackmail Europe into ponying up the Danegold in perpetuity.

The United States will retain its membership in the club of countries willing to engage in significant international action. The club membership has shrunk to the US, Israel, Russia, China and India. The UK will probably adopt the same type of risk adverse policy that the US adopted post VN until Reagan and post Somalia.

Posted by Super Hose 2009-01-04 15:36|| 2009-01-04 15:36|| Front Page Top

#14 I call Horse shit. The British Army from Capt. doen is a damned good force. It's the Politicians and the Upper Eschelon that are Dickekweeds. Go Tommys!!

Posted by Deacon Blues 2009-01-04 15:54|| 2009-01-04 15:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Agreed DB - after reading the story about the 3 Brit ex-soldiers attempting to repel pirates armed with McGyver era weapons quite sharply the quality of the soldiers vs. policy.

Posted by swksvolFF 2009-01-04 18:47|| 2009-01-04 18:47|| Front Page Top

#16 The Brits have suffered a humiliating defeat. They need to get their hands around it before they find themselves part of the EUropean Defence Force. I doubt they have the time to do so as did we after Vietnam because their domestic enemies have such powerful foreign allies.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2009-01-04 19:13|| 2009-01-04 19:13|| Front Page Top

#17 Chalk up another one for The Left. They keep inflicting failure on the world, but they keep getting elected.

Posted by Cynicism Inc 2009-01-04 19:13|| 2009-01-04 19:13|| Front Page Top

#18 Deac, nothing wrong with the British military at the mid-level (battalion, ship commander) officer level nor the enlisted. Its the leadership and upper-level officers who have contributed to the mess by allowing the rot to continue in less functional equipment, less supplies, and a lack of political courage.

Posted by OldSpook 2009-01-04 19:23|| 2009-01-04 19:23|| Front Page Top

#19 NS, the Brits have not suffered a humiliating defeat. Those good, brave soldiers did; but the Brits that run things got just what they wanted. They're selling PC soft power to the rest of the EU cause that's what the EU wants. It's cheap and allows them to look down their noses at the US.

They can't DO crap, but they can blather on for ever.

Posted by AlanC 2009-01-04 21:22|| 2009-01-04 21:22|| Front Page Top