You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
Basra fight pointless, says British commander
2007-10-28
One of the most senior British commanders in Iraq has claimed that there is no point in fighting on in Basra, likening British troops in the city to "Robocop" and admitting that innocent people were hurt as a result of their actions.

The officer, who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity, said commanders had concluded that a military solution was no longer viable. "We are tired of firing at people," he said. "We would prefer to find a political accommodation."

The officer, who is responsible for thousands of troops, said the decision to pull soldiers out of the centre of Basra last month came after commanders concluded that using Iraqi forces would be more effective. "We would go down there [Basra], dressed as Robocop, shooting at people if they shot at us, and innocent people were getting hurt," he said. "We don't speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?"

British forces have struck a deal with Shia militias to withdraw to a single base at the international airport in return for assurances that they will no longer be attacked.

Yesterday, former military commanders and politicians expressed outrage at the officer's comments. Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "A lot of those who have served in Iraq will be disappointed and angry at being portrayed in this manner."

The former SAS deputy commander Clive Fairweather said he was appalled by the message coming out of Basra. "One wonders whether the Union Jack or the white flag should be flying over Basra airfield," he said.
Posted by:lotp

#14  ""We would go down there [Basra], dressed as Robocop, shooting at people if they shot at us, and innocent people were getting hurt," he said. "We don't speak Arabic to explain and our translators were too scared to work for us any more. What benefit were we bringing to these people?""

Robocop? Talking about movies? And the translators were too scared to work for you? Sounds like they knew you weren't in it to win it. Perhaps instead of patrolling around in action movie props (his words!) and being reactionary, maybe the offensive is the way to win? Continuous actions agains the enemy, and continuous gathering of intelligence and maintenance of relationships with the locals. Once the locals see your strength and committment, they will join your side, the intelligence will come of it's own accord, and before you know it, you will have won. Witness the improvement since Gen. Petraeus took over. But if you sit back and get pounded, everyone knows you are the looser, no matter how many you kill. Victory doesn't wait.

And since we are on the subject of war, I thought of Lincoln. From Powerline: "When some wanted to cashier Grant early in the war, Lincoln said: "I cannot spare this man. He fights.""
Posted by: Mark E.   2007-10-28 21:06  

#13  "We are tired of firing at people..."

And that too is a battle tactic.
Posted by: Mark E.   2007-10-28 20:42  

#12  Reminds me of the betrayal and reassignment of Regimental Sergeant Major Lauderdale in the "Guns of Batasi." If we had a few more Lauderdale's, Basra would be tame as a lamb.
Posted by: Besoeker   2007-10-28 14:38  

#11  #9 Der Juden, remoteman. Lets not forget Der Juden.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2007-10-28 14:33  

#10  #8: Lo, imperturbable he rules,
Unkempt, desreputable, vast --
And, in the teeth of all the schools,
I -- I shall KILL him as the last!

There, fixed it for you, NO quarter,NO surrender, NO ISLAM.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2007-10-28 13:38  

#9  Grom has it exactly right...there is a significant percentage of people in this country, as well as in the UK (perhaps higher there), that think this war is contrived to benefit the military industrial complex (TM) and Big Oil (another TM). I think with the progress we are seeing in Iraq that history will show them to be fools.
Posted by: remoteman   2007-10-28 13:37  

#8  Lo, imperturbable he rules,
Unkempt, desreputable, vast --
And, in the teeth of all the schools,
I -- I shall save him at the last!
Posted by: Thomas Woof   2007-10-28 13:27  

#7  Ultimately these rants are about the civilian leadership. Every one of the countries mentioned have produced warriors of the highest calibre, some not for centuries, but they have all demonstrated the ability to field excellent troops if there is the political will to do so and to support them.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-28 13:16  

#6  Let's not forget the British Special Forces wandering around in Iran, causing trouble. They and their commanders don't think the whole thing is pointless. On the other hand, if I understand what y'all have been saying about how the British handled Basra, the way they were required to fight, sadly, was pointless.
Posted by: trailing wife   2007-10-28 12:26  

#5  We would prefer to find a political accommodation.

Progressive

Money spent on an Army or Fleet
Is homicidal lunacy. . . .
My son has been killed in the Mons retreat,
Why is the Lord afflicting me?
Why are murder, pillage and arson
And rape allowed by the Deity?
I will write to the Times, deriding our parson
Because my God has afflicted me.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2007-10-28 12:16  

#4  Yes, and something like 50% of the American population does not believe there is a war going on at all. Or rather, they believe the war is contrived by "neocons" by which they mean the Jews.

The British are not alone in their shame. I will believe the free world is serious when we talk about rooting out the problem at its well heads in Mecca.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-10-28 08:48  

#3  We don't really have any allies that are deadly serious about the War on Terror.

Australia, Denmark, Poland, increasingly Canada, and possibly France. We are allied with democracies. They have elections and change policies.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2007-10-28 08:05  

#2  We don't really have any allies that are deadly serious about the War on Terror. The last couple of times we fought alongside the Brits they gave it their all. Methinks the Brits have gotten to the point where they need to be invaded by an actual army before they get serious. Appearently, they haven't figured out that historically, that isn't a strategy that works out well for them.
Posted by: Mike N.   2007-10-28 02:52  

#1  Its a consequence of the commander's failures there to hit the miltias, instead preferring to "negotiate" with them. Its now got them in deep shiite, and this bone head is whinging? Compare and contrast to Anbar, whre they RESPECT the US for fighting them like tigers.
Posted by: OldSpook   2007-10-28 02:26  

00:00