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
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
Brits in Basra made a deal with the devil?
2008-08-05
'Secret deal with local militia kept British Forces out of battle for Basra'


Iraqi and US military officials have claimed the British Army refused to participate in a Basra offensive to restore law and order because it was hamstrung by a secret deal with local militia members.

British commanders were accused of turning a blind eye to lawlessness in the city as they forged an IRA-style reconciliation pact with the Madhi army, which controlled swathes of Basra with gangster-like ruthlessness.

"Without the support of the Americans we would not have accomplished the mission because the British Forces had done nothing there," said Colonel Imad of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division. "I do not trust the British Forces. They did not want to lose any soldiers for the mission."

The Iraqi officer's views were backed up by a senior US advisor to the division, which participated in the March operation.

"I was not happy," Lieutenant-Colonel Chuck Western. "Everybody just assumed that because this deal was cut nobody was going in. Cutting a deal with the bad guys is generally not a good idea."

A British colonel in Baghad said at the weekend that Britain had picked a Mahdi army commander in prison as a figure who could stop attacks against UK forces, then based inside the city limits. "We have made some terrible mistakes in Iraq and it is only by talking about them that we will learn from them," said Col Richard Iron. "Last autumn we made a mistake which was understandable but not excusable.

"A Shia prisoner, Ahmed al-Fartusi, said he could put a stop to the killings. We released 120 of their prisoners and withdrew out of town, but when we moved out, lawlessness took over.

"As 90 per cent of the attacks were against us, we thought if we moved out we would remove the source of the problem. But actually the (Mahdi army) had been fighting us because we were the only obstacle to their total control."

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki snubbed UK officers during the planning of Operation Knights Charge in March, which dramatically reduced violence in the city. UK support was initially limited to aerial and logistic assistance. It was only later that British forces were redeployed back in Basra.

A British officer serving in Basra dismissed the allegations: "This is not a version of events I recognise."
Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#17  That's why we shan't pull out, Carmel dear. Your army likely will need to, because sadly they are issued neither enough bullets nor enough good brown bread and butter to remain effective. Perhaps if the government kept fewer of those capable of honest work on the dole, there would be more money for such things.
Posted by: trailing wife   2008-08-05 23:30  

#16  You mean like the Germans and Japanese?

No point in comparing Germany and Japan to any Muslim country; it's not even a case of apples and oranges, more like apples and toasters. Somehow I can't see the next BMW or Sony emerging from countries where women are forced to wear bags on their heads.

In Iraq and Afghanistan every pound spent on the military effort is a good investment.

A good investment for Iran and Pakistan, who will own those countries once we pull out.



Posted by: Carmel   2008-08-05 17:43  

#15  As the NHS and the dole drain every pence form the treasury the once great British military withers. But medical care is "free".

The Army is forced to rent helicopters and the Navy no longer rules the waves. They'd have trouble ruling Scapa Flow.

If things keep going the way they are the RAF's "Battle of Britain Memorial Flight" will be the largest formation they can put in the air at one time.

An exaggeration, probably, but what is not an exaggeration is all my British in-laws that have been sent to an early grave depending on National Health to help cure them. The survivors have by and large gone private.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-08-05 15:10  

#14  Nation building doesn't work with Muslims. They are not worthy.

Why separate Taleban from al-Qaeda? Taleban affirmed bin Laden's 1998 fatwah against "Jews and Crusaders" after a vote in their Shura parliament. Support for Taleban lite is support for al-Qaeda.
Posted by: Chunky Phese7222   2008-08-05 15:01  

#13  Carmel, The Government has thrown billions at the NHS, and schools, with no notable effects. In Iraq and Afghanistan every pound spent on the military effort is a good investment. Fact is, NuLabour have embarrassed us by commiting us to heavy involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan (rightly) but without anything like the investment in resources and personnel the miliraty needed to succeed there. 4,000 men to keep Iraq's second largest city in check, a stone's throw from Iran, with typical under-provisioning? It was always a recipe for failure. Add to that the casualty-phobic ROEs which led to minimal confrontation, betrayal of those who would help us, and an entirely defensive strategy. The humiliation of Basra should be laid squarely at the feet of Blair and Brown.
Posted by: Bulldog   2008-08-05 14:33  

#12  People here are wondering why the government is wasting money on no-hope places like Iraq and Afghanistan (and "Palestine", who we've just given another �30m) when our local hospitals are being downgraded, and services cut

Happens frequently when the federal government mandates 'care' but doesn't fund the cost and then fails to control the border so that facilities get run down or closed because of the load of illegals. Throw in tort lawyering piling on uncontrolled 'pain and suffering' lottos and you get what you get. It's called - self inflicted wound.

why would we want to build nations for people who, to put it mildly, hate us?

You mean like the Germans and Japanese? Those people haven't created much problem since 1945 for the rest of the world. It's called cost avoidance.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-08-05 14:02  

#11  People here are wondering why the government is wasting money on no-hope places like Iraq and Afghanistan (and "Palestine", who we've just given another £30m) when our local hospitals are being downgraded, and services cut. We don't have the manpower or equipment for nation-building, and even if we did, why would we want to build nations for people who, to put it mildly, hate us?
Posted by: Carmel   2008-08-05 12:59  

#10  The British problems with Basra preceded that deal.

Ex-military writers in Britain were commenting as early as 2004 that the UK forces in Basra did not have the armor to slug it out with the militias.

Instead they patroled with their land rovers and berets and studiously stayed out of militia held areas.

The militias began chopping off the heads and hands of anyone cooperating with the British and sticking them on poles surrounding British positions. The Brits did nothing.

Truth is the Iraqi divisions did not want British help. They felt they could do a better job by themselves, and they were right!

Posted by: Frozen Al   2008-08-05 11:49  

#9  "As 90 per cent of the attacks were against us, we thought if we moved out we would remove the source of the problem. But actually the (Mahdi army) had been fighting us because we were the only obstacle to their total control."


Anyone want to point this out to the loony left (aka Obama) that this is the expected results of appeasement?


PS I entered this comment 2 hours ago and it seems to have disappeared, any ideas why?
Posted by: AlanC   2008-08-05 11:39  

#8  Not to mention that British commanders with NATO were pulling the same crap in southern Afghanistan about the same time - picking local commanders & cutting one-sided 'deals' and then assuming success.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2008-08-05 09:33  

#7  I'm sure we can't blame the commanders for this one. The orders had to come from the top - don't get involved, do whatever you have to to stay out of it.

Except the British commanders should have informed the MNF commander of said directions so that he could arrange his other forces accordingly to meet the threat. Apparently, no such communication happened.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-08-05 09:29  

#6  "As 90 per cent of the attacks were against us, we thought if we moved out we would remove the source of the problem. But actually the (Mahdi army) had been fighting us because we were the only obstacle to their total control."


What do you think the odds are that the loony left and their St. BO understand the meaning of this vis a vis the overall Iraq mission / larger ME?

This is a case book example of appeasement in action.
Posted by: AlanC   2008-08-05 09:14  

#5  I'm sure we can't blame the commanders for this one. The orders had to come from the top - don't get involved, do whatever you have to to stay out of it.
Posted by: gromky   2008-08-04 23:35  

#4  Juxtapose this with the performance of the British naval personnel who the Iranians captured, and you have a sad commentary on a once proud nation.
Posted by: Keystone   2008-08-04 22:04  

#3  I'll take the bait and agree with Colonel Imad of the 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division and American Lieutenant-Colonel Chuck Western that the Brits went into the TANK with the Mahdi army.
Posted by: Red Dawg   2008-08-04 21:56  

#2  Troubling indeed. Just over a hundred years ago, the British had no problem whatsoever in sending a half a million men (the largest army Britain had ever sent overseas) to South Africa to defeat Boer farmers. They even set up the world's first concentration camps where over 28,000 non-combatants died.
Posted by: Besoeker   2008-08-04 21:51  

#1  Moderator: You might want to carry this one over into tomorrow. Just a suggestion.

Thanks for all your hard work.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC   2008-08-04 21:40  

00:00