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.

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!

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.

sdd on May 2, 2008 at 9:17 AM

JohninLondon on May 2, 2008 at 9:22 AM

Limerick on May 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM

Thank you.

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

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.

The British have indefinitely postponed their pullout from Basra, and will not contemplate any further troop reductions in the near future.

Thank you Brits.

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.

Your ignorance of history is showing.

After nearly 7 years of war since 9-11 it is worth sitting back and seeing whose credibility is shot after all the give and take over the years. I want to start by pointing to an article that Ed Morrissey discussed today to highlight this topic. Ed…

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.

Hening on May 2, 2008 at 7:49 AM

Excuse me? I very slightly resent the implication that in 1942 Britain ’stayed around and provided polite support’.

When will Western politicians learn that perception is everything.

at least they have the testicular fortitude to remain in the game

reminds me of hillary