Commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay

Vortex · 08-19-2007, 01:41 AM

Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay
By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox
Published: 19 August 2007

Senior military commanders have told the Government that Britain can achieve "nothing more" in south-east Iraq, and that the 5,500 British troops still deployed there should move towards withdrawal without further delay.
Last month Gordon Brown said after meeting George Bush at Camp David that the decision to hand over security in Basra province � the last of the four held by the British � "will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground". He added: "Whatever happens, we will make a full statement to Parliament when it returns [in October]."

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace � where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" � by the end of August. The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

Before the invasion in 2003, officers were told that the Army's war aims were to bring stability and democracy to Iraq and to the Middle East as a whole. Those ambitions have been drastically revised, the IoS understands. The priorities now are an orderly withdrawal, with the reputation and capability of the Army "reasonably intact", and for Britain to remain a "credible ally". The final phrase appears to refer to tensions with the US, which has more troops in Iraq than at any other time, including the invasion, as it seeks to impose order in Baghdad and neighbouring provinces.

American criticism of Britain's desire to pull back in southern Iraq has recently become public, with a US intelligence official telling The Washington Post this month that "the British have basically been defeated in the south". A senior British commander countered, "That's to miss the point. It was never that kind of battle, in which we set out to defeat an enemy." Other officers said the British force was never configured to "clear and hold" Basra in the way the Americans are seeking to do in Baghdad.

Immediate American discontent is said to centre on the CIA's reluctance to leave Basra Palace, an important base for watching Iran, which may explain why Britain has held on to the complex until now. But last week it was reported that US intelligence operatives were in the process of pulling out. Further ahead, the US is concerned over the security of its vital supply line from Kuwait, with some American commanders saying that if the British withdraw, American troops will have to be sent south to replace them. As the hub of Iraq's oil industry, Basra is also a tempting prize for the Shia militias battling each other for control.

There are fears that the bloody power struggle in Basra will escalate sharply if and when British troops depart, but commanders point out that up to 90 per cent of the violence is directed against their forces. They are understood to believe it was never the role of occupation troops to intervene in a "turf war" among factions from the same community, all of which have links to the government coalition in Baghdad.

Mr Brown will have to take these wider concerns into account, in reaching a decision that has political as well as military implications. At Camp David he stressed that "we have duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep" in support of the Iraqi government and "the explicit will" of the international community. The 15 September report on the progress of the security "surge" by the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and the American ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, will be crucial to British as well as US military plans.

General Petraeus is expected to report mixed results, and to plead for more time for the surge to work. But the White House, under pressure from Republicans facing disaster in the 2008 elections, is likely to announce at least some troop reductions. British commanders, and some US commentators, believe that will enable the Prime Minister to spell out plans for a British withdrawal when MPs return in October, although the process may last well into next year.

Military commanders tell Brown to withdraw from Iraq without delay - Independent Online Edition > Middle East

-------------

justoneman · 08-19-2007, 01:54 AM

So why is it that I see nothing about this in other news sites? Could it be that this is only garbage reporting? Where opinion of the writer is substituted for fact.

Vortex · 08-19-2007, 02:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justoneman

So why is it that I see nothing about this in other news sites? Could it be that this is only garbage reporting? Where opinion of the writer is substituted for fact.

And another article in the British newspaper

Quote:

Retreat & redeploy: The case for withdrawing from Iraq and taking the fight to the TalibanAs the 500 British troops holed up at Basra Palace endure hourly bombardments, calls for them to hand over power to the Iraqis grow ever louder. Raymond Whitaker and Robert Fox report
Published: 19 August 2007

Those seeking to describe what conditions are like for the 500 British troops at Basra Palace, the last coalition foothold in Iraq's second-largest city, liken them to the US Cavalry encircled in a wooden stockade. "It's the wild, wild west," said Kenneth Pollack, a foreign affairs expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, who recently visited Iraq. A Labour MP, Kevan Jones, said the Basra Palace base was "surrounded like cowboys and indians".

This is scarcely an exaggeration. Troops inside the complex, built for Saddam Hussein on the banks of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, have told relatives and friends that they are being hit by indirect fire � rockets and mortar bombs � up to 60 times a day. It is no longer safe to sleep in tents, and all have been forced into "hard" accommodation. Every time a resupply convoy is sent from the Contingency Operating Base (COB) at Basra airport, the only other British outpost in southern Iraq, it comes under fire. As one military source put it: "People are getting killed just bringing in toilet rolls."
Although the constant bombardment is taking its toll of facilities and equipment at Basra Palace, the forces based there can still hit back hard: one recent firefight, in which a British soldier died and three others were seriously wounded, was unofficially estimated to have killed 30 to 40 militants. But senior commanders are telling the Government that this is not what British forces were sent into southern Iraq to do. They want to hand over the base to Iraqi forces without further delay and "reposture" the 5,000 troops remaining at the COB. That piece of military jargon obscures their real desire, which is to withdraw most of them from Iraq as soon as possible.

Last week Major General Graham Binns took over as commander of the multinational force in south-east Iraq for another torrid six months. But this was not how the script was intended to run. His predecessor, Major General Jonathan Shaw, was supposed to be the last general to hold the post, because it was expected that during his tour he would hand over security in Basra city and province to the 10th Division of the Iraqi Army, and pave the way for full political control by the Iraqi provincial council.

Instead, the fighting in Basra this summer has been more intense than at any time since the allied invasion in 2003. Already 41 British servicemen and women have been killed this year, more than in any other year since 2003. If losses were to continue at the present rate, they might exceed the 53 suffered four years ago, when some 45,000 British troops took part in a full-scale war. The question now is: are British soldiers dying needlessly in southern Iraq?

More @ Retreat & redeploy: The case for withdrawing from Iraq and taking the fight to the Taliban - Independent Online Edition > Middle East

justoneman · 08-19-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vortex

And another article in the British newspaper

How is giving another article from this lone "paper" an answer to my question?

Vortex · 08-19-2007, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justoneman

How is giving another article from this lone "paper" an answer to my question?

Who said I give a rat's ass about your question? If you have something that establishes that The Independent is not a trustworthy source, then feel free to post it, you know, like we lefties did to refute the value of the op/ed piece that said the surge was going well.

Oh and while you are searching for something, go read this one. I may post it tomorrow, it is late and I don't feel like posting it tonight.

The War as We Saw It - New York Times

Zaragrunudgeyon · 08-19-2007, 03:05 AM

Well, the brits have achieved exactly jack shit fuck all in iraq so we won't miss them at all. They let the damned iranians take over the south part. Good riddance.

Vortex · 08-19-2007, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justoneman

How is giving another article from this lone "paper" an answer to my question?

Here's another article for you to read:

Quote:

From The Sunday Times August 19, 2007
Army chiefs fear Iraq exit will be Britain�s Saigon moment
British troops will start to pull back from Basra next month, and the withdrawal is predicted to be 'ugly and embarrassing'

WHEN the British went into Iraq they were believed to have more expertise in counter-insurgency than their US allies still learning the lessons of humiliation in Vietnam.

But now they are facing their own �Saigon moment� with plans for a withdrawal predicted by some on the British side to be ignominious and by a US military adviser to be ugly and embarrassing.

Not only that, but the British are expected to rely on US troops for cover to protect their convoys. Some officers are expressing concern about the way their campaign is ending.

Next month the British will pull back from their last base in the city of Basra at Saddam�s old summer palace. What the Ministry of Defence is keen to avoid is a photograph of the last helicopter taking off from the palace. The image would be too close to that of the last helicopter taking off from the American embassy in Saigon in April 1975, an enduring symbol of US defeat.
The troops on the British helicopters will not be leaving Iraq. They will be pulling back to their base at the airport outside the city to await the final order to withdraw.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, chief of defence staff, has denied US claims that the British have been defeated in southern Iraq, saying that their mission was to put the Ira-qis back in control and that they will soon achieve it. But British soldiers fear that withdrawal will look like defeat, and the way in which it is taking place will make them more vulnerable, resulting in higher casualties.

They are already under relentless rocket fire from the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army. An average of 40 attacks a week are hitting the airport base. The final withdrawal could take another six months, yet intelligence reports suggest that Shi�ite militia attacks will only rise over that period.

The death toll this year is already 41. It is set to exceed that of any previous year. The number of wounded already does so with 55 seriously or very seriously wounded by the end of last month. �History has shown that you cannot pull out in a measured manner,� one British officer said. �It is usually all or nothing. Aden was a classic example of what happens if you hang around.�

Casualty figures in 1964, the first year of the insurgency in Aden, the former British colony on the Arabian peninsula, were just two. But there were 44 casualties as the British prepared to leave in 1967, giving the impression of a defeat.

It is the final British withdrawal from Basra airport that is the cause of most concern, with military commanders expecting to lose between 10 and 15 men. Most of the troops will be flown out by Tristar, with some equipment being airlifted out in C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster aircraft.
But the bulk of the heavy equipment and vehicles will have to go by road, either to Kuwait or to the southern port of Umm Qasr where it could be loaded onto ferries.

�Britain won�t be able to pull all its troops out through the airport, which is why they will have to fight their way out,� said Stephen Biddle, a senior fellow of the US Council on Foreign Relations, who has advised President George W Bush.

The coalition�s overwhelming superiority in firepower, particularly from the air, will ensure that there is virtually no chance of massed attack. The RAF will fly Tornados to provide air cover and the US Navy will be able to provide Super Hornet aircraft from its carriers in the Gulf. Special forces will patrol the areas on either side of the convoys, dealing with any attempted ambushes.

The US is also expected to send thousands of troops to provide a protective cordon north of the Kuwaiti border.

But the militias can be expected to use the same insurgency tactics that have inflicted serious casualties on the coalition across Iraq, trying to harass the British troops in small numbers.

They are incapable of inflicting a real defeat: their attacks will be �theatre� aimed at creating the appearance of one. �They probably won�t fight in the open but in built-up areas along the road,� Biddle said.

British commanders are concerned that the Americans will add to that impression by sending in troops themselves. Biddle suggests they might need as many as two brigades in Basra, about 7,000 men.
�It�s quite clear the British didn�t have enough troops to stabilise the area,� he said. �The south is in badly declining shape and poses some serious dilemmas for the theatre command in Baghdad.�

One US Army officer said: �We could not afford to see southern Iraq overrun by insurgents which would threaten any future use of our main supply route from Kuwait.�

British officers believe that the potential difficulties posed by withdrawal are being �overhyped� by US counterparts. They believe the Americans were irritated by previous British suggestions that the US did not understand counter-insurgency tactics.

�I accept we haven�t done the best job possible in southern Iraq but that is largely the result of underresourcing,� one British officer said. �I cannot see how the Americans could do any better . . . Basra is a hell-hole because we do not have enough troops there to control the city. We have been left to hold the flag while politicians enjoy their holidays and wait for Bush to make a decision.�

Army chiefs fear Iraq exit will be Britain’s Saigon moment - Times Online

Vortex · 08-19-2007, 03:49 AM

Quote:

U.S. Adviser Tells London Paper: Brits Have Lost Basra

Published: August 19, 2007 12:20 AM ET

LONDON An adviser to the U.S. military said British troops have lost control of the Iraqi city of Basra and face an "ugly" withdrawal in the coming months, a British newspaper reported.

Stephen Biddle, a member of a group that advised U.S. Gen. David Petraeus in Iraq last year, told the Sunday Times that "insurgents are calling the shots" in the southern city.

"I regret to say that the Basra experience is set to become a major blunder in terms of military history," Biddle was quoted as saying by the newspaper. The insurgents "in a worst-case scenario will chase us out of town."

British forces have already been moving from a combat role to aiding Iraqi forces in southern Iraq, and Britain is expected to hand over control of Basra to Iraqi troops in the next few months.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has also promised to make a statement in October on the future of the 5,500 British troops in the region.

Biddle, a military analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations, said insurgents and militia groups were likely to target British soldiers with ambushes, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades as they leave.

"It will be a hard withdrawal. They want the image of a British defeat," Biddle told the paper. "It will be ugly and embarrassing."

~snip~

U.S. Adviser Tells London Paper: Brits Have Lost Basra

I don't know how many sources you want, JOM.

Invayne · 08-19-2007, 03:51 AM

Fuck this. Look, we were told right from the beginning that this was going to be a VERY long haul. From what I understand, we're going to be there in SOME way for another 10 years. (I don't have a link. I read it yesterday somewhere....)

Vortex · 08-19-2007, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Invayne

Fuck this. Look, we were told right from the beginning that this was going to be a VERY long haul. From what I understand, we're going to be there in SOME way for another 10 years. (I don't have a link. I read it yesterday somewhere....)

The War as We Saw It - New York Times