British forces to remain in Basra
posted at 7:04 am on May 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
The British have indefinitely postponed their pullout from Basra, and will not contemplate any further troop reductions in the near future. The UK, somewhat embarrassed by the necessity of liberating a city for which they had supposedly provided security, will take a more active role than in the last few years in flushing out the rest of the Mahdi Army militia in the South:
Britain will maintain a garrison of 4,000 troops at Basra airport for the forseeable future, whatever the pressures on the armed forces, defence officials said last night. They described the British garrison as being there “for the long term” after talks in London yesterday between General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, Des Browne, the defence secretary, and Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of the defence staff.
It was said that the troops were needed to continue their task of training Iraqi forces and also to maintain what officials called “political credence” with the US.
After an hour’s meeting at Downing Street with Gordon Brown, Petraeus said British forces had been “invaluable” in providing intelligence, air and logistics support for Iraq troops engaged in the recent Charge of the Knights operation against Mahdi army militia elements supporting the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
“Political credence”; at one time, people wondered about our credence with the British. British commanders openly criticized the conduct of the war, especially after the start of the surge. Now, however, with both Basra and Helmand province in Afghanistan turning into debacles over the last couple of years, the British have seen their strategies fail in spectacularly embarrassing ways, and suddenly they need to regain political credence with us.
We shouldn’t be too hard on the Brits, however; at least they have the testicular fortitude to remain in the game, unlike some of our other allies. They had the wrong idea in Basra, or rather, the right idea implemented under the wrong conditions — as did we for a while, too. They needed to take a much more active role in securing Basra and the south until the Iraqi Army could replace them. Instead, they pulled back years too soon and created a vacuum that Sadr filled.
Interestingly, this change of direction came after the announcement that Petraeus would replace Admiral William Fallon as commander of CENTCOM. It seems that his command carries a lot of weight among our allies, one of the benefits of success. Fallon’s reported differences with Petraeus may have sent mixed signals before, but the nomination of Petraeus has made American policy of aggressive engagement crystal clear.
The extension and expansion of British engagement will help Nouri al-Maliki’s central government secure its sovereignty in the southern regions of Iraq. Their forces will continue to train the green 14th Division, which had its share of problems during the liberation of Basra, as well as provide logistical and even tactical support in any continuing operations. That will help with the short-term goal of eliminating Mahdi presence, and therefore Iranian influence, and the long-term improvement in infrastructure and general confidence in the elected government.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Maybe they need their own surge.
DAT60A3 on May 2, 2008 at 7:06 AM
reminds me of hillary
malan89 on May 2, 2008 at 7:32 AM
Things haven’t changed much since 1942. The US wins the battles and the Brits decide to stay around and provide polite support. Maybe some of the other EU countries might pop-in and help the cause now that Britain feels it’s safe?
Hening on May 2, 2008 at 7:49 AM
We didn’t learn what works from Abrams efforts in Vietnam until late in the game and the Brits had forgotten their efforts in Malaysia. Looks like their ROE became too PC. The two naval incidents with Iran, where they backed down, probably didn’t help when it came to Basra. Those incidents, I believe, made Sadr’s people believe that the Brits were too weak willed to counter their filling vacuum in Basra.
When will Western politicians learn that perception is everything.
amr on May 2, 2008 at 7:51 AM
wb brits :salute:
trailortrash on May 2, 2008 at 7:51 AM
Excuse me? I very slightly resent the implication that in 1942 Britain ‘stayed around and provided polite support’.
passingtramp on May 2, 2008 at 8:08 AM
With what? There is a distinct shortage of combat-troops, materiel, and public will to do anything at all.
One wonders why the Brits are still hanging out at the airport – they’re certainly not taken seriously by the militias or the Iraqi government.
Ares on May 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM
I’ve seen no actual signs that the British are embarrassed by their failures in Basra and Helmand. Yeah, the Times of London and the Telegraph have had that tone, but this Guardian piece doesn’t. And more importantly, the Brown government hasn’t admitted failure.
Nessuno on May 2, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Hening on May 2, 2008
Your ignorance of history is showing.
sdd on May 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Hening’s comment above about the Brits standing idly by in 1942 are cheap and ignorant.
I wasn’t able to fight in 1942 – I was one year old, evacuated to Devon away from Birmingham as the Germans had been continually bombing the city. Luckily only 30,000 British civilians died in the Blitz. I gather that the RAF lost lots of men too – in the Battle of Britain (when Britain stood totally alone against Hitler) and many more aircrew, tens of thousands of them, in raids over Germany through to 1945.
Wasn’t 1942 the year that Montgomery defeated Rommel at El Alamein ? – I don’t believe there were any US troops around. Didn’t the Brits fight their way back through the jungles of Burma after 1942 ? Didn’t the Brits take one of the 3 D-Day beaches in 1944 – and then lose thousands of men in the drive through France and up through Italy ? Didn’t thousands upon thousands of British merchant seaman lose their lives in the Atlantic convoys – 800 merchant ships were sunk, mostly all hands lost ? Was the Royal Navy always at home in port ?
Total bilge, Mr Hening.
Of course the US involvement from 1942 onwards – triggered by Pearl Harbour – swung the Second World War crucially. Just as their eventual joining of WW1 in late 1917 helped swing the tide finally (after millions of British and French and Canadian and Australian/New Zealand troops had died).
The problems of the British forces in southern Iraq stem largely from the cutbacks in defence expenditure by the Brown government. But until the surge began, US troops were no more in charge of Baghdad than the Brits were in Basra. All hail to David Petraeus – but I believe his methods are at least partly based on the work of General Templar and the British Army in the Malayan insurgency from 1945 to 1950.
JohninLondon on May 2, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Thank you Brits.
Maxx on May 2, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Sir Jock Stirrup? Monty Python couldn’t have invented a name that funny.
piraticalbob on May 2, 2008 at 9:39 AM
You should hear Sir Jock’s accent. Pure Python !
JohninLondon on May 2, 2008 at 9:49 AM
So much for the ‘light foot-print’ method. What Basra needs is another Scottish bayonet charge!
Tony737 on May 2, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Typical American balderdash. Long time readers know I am an Anglophile so you can use that as a weight against me.
I suspect you have never actually looked at the casualty lists of the invasion of Europe, or the airwar over Germany.
Caen, Market-Garden, Egypt, Tunisia, Italy, Sicily, the Ruhr valley. Britian bled herself out and all you can say to her is ‘so-what’.
I don’t defend her actions in Southern Iraq, but get damn sick and tired of America telling her allies to sit-down-and-shut-up.
Limerick on May 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Now let’s get down to business. Let’s defeat the bastards.
Travis1 on May 2, 2008 at 10:33 AM
A real bonus to manning up in Iraq is that it makes those who do so better and tougher for the experience. We’ve got, what, tens of thousands of battle-hardened troops now. Our military hasn’t just been marching on parade for the past decade. Don’t think China doesn’t realize this. I also think that those who serve are better for the experience. We’re gonna reap dividends from this as troops come home and settle into civilian life and influence those around them. We’ll be a better country. Same with the Brits. And with their problems on the home front vis a vis mohammedans, they sure could use some more tough, competent citizens back on Ol’ Blighty.
boko fittleworth on May 2, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Thank you.
passingtramp on May 2, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Hening’s comments aside, Americans want Britain to show some backbone in this new fight. Where is the Britain that ruled the world in a swath stretching from India to China, the long way? The UK once brought civilization to the far corners of the Earth as evidenced by the percentage of people who speak their language. Now, it doesn’t appear they can bring it to one city in a backwater shithole like Iraq. Americans love Britain. Despite the fact that we’re from everywhere, we call England the mother country and we want our mother to be strong and respected in the world.
Kafir on May 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Jock Stirrup. Hilarious.
kcluva on May 2, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Great choice of words Kafir. I am half English and would love to see the British put more effort into helping with the fight . They sure knew how to do it in the past
zappa24 on May 2, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Kafir
Lots of us here wish the Blair/Brown government had not starved the UK armed forces of resources. Those that remain are too thinly spread between Iraq and Afghanistan. But the Brits did pull their weight in Iraq 1 in 1991, in the air and in the tank battles – plus their special forces, still active around Baghdad with the US troops as well as elsewhere. The Royal Navy (what little Blair/Brown have left of it) are active in patrolling the Gulf.
It has been a long historic decline – bled white of blood and treasure in WW1, and then effectively bankrupted by Herculanean efforts in WW2. Then 45 years of socialism under Labour or quasi-socialism under most Tory governments until Thatcher arrived and started to turn the tide. (Witness the falklands campaign)
But Blair/Brown have grossly expanded public spending EXCEPT on the armed forces. Petraeus has the right view – controlling at the neighbourhood level means lots of boots on the ground. The British Army is down to under 100,000, with only a fraction of that available for fighting duties. Not nearly enough to properly control Iraq’s second, Basra. Urban warfare with a small number of troops is stupid.
The deciding factor this time has been the Iraqi forces – with US and Brit support and training.
JohninLondon on May 2, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Hey?! I’m here too! Heh heh.
Not all the 14th is green – you would be speaking of the 52nd BDE, I believe.
Not to worry – the Brits have seen how our MiTTs work at the BN level, and they like it. Together, the Brits and the 14th will make it work. And a little tiny bit of help from…me!
major john on May 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Good luck and God Bless, major hohn – to you and your unit
JohninLondon on May 2, 2008 at 4:49 PM
wellington and monty must be spinning in their graves
elduende on May 2, 2008 at 8:42 PM