PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Memo: don't rely on the Brits during a battle
Old 8th Jan 2009, 07:12
  #58 (permalink)  
phil gollin
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
First - Basra; please do not buy into the "The UK forces failed" PR. What happened was that after the Iraqi elections a pro-Sadr (sp ?) local governor and administration was elected. The Uk forces tried to keep enforcing the patrols etc... (REMEMBER the "raid" on the police station by Challenger tanks which knocked down the walls ????). The confrontation was stopped by the Coalition (i.e. Americans) and Central Iraqi Government telling the British to stop taking on the corrupt Police, etc..... and withdraw from the city. This was "politics".


Second, again Basra, this time last year. Again forget the PR and remember what actually happened. It was NOT a glorious Iraqi army victory whilst the British forces did nothing. What happened was that The Iraqi Army attacked, but were repulsed. There were then "negotiations" and strangely enough nearly all the mahty (sp ?) army disappeared. THEN the Iraqi Army "attacked" and won a "glorious victory". Again "politics"


Third, Iraq in general. Why are British forces still there ? After the withdrawal to the Airport there was no real reason for British forces to be in Iraq (remember all those "British forces will leave Iraq by ....." dates ? Certainly there were strong rumours for "early 2008", "Summer 2008", "Christmas 2008" (especially strong due to finishing of UN Mandate), "Easter 2009" and now (????) "mid 2009". There is no reason for the British forces to be there other than to keep up the illusion of a "coalition". All it does is waste resources better used elsewhere. Again "politics"


Fourth, Afghanistan, Originally the British only supplied specialised services (Special Forces, Air Refuelling, etc...) to support the invasion. The major commitment was sent in ONLY as part of the NATO commitment which was MEANT to be "Nation Rebuilding" and specifically NOT to be the major fight against the Taliban which was specifically reserved by the US (rumoured to be partly "pride" and mostly because they did not want to have NATO input to ROEs). It was only the failure of the US to be able to combat the Taliban that has led to a renegotiation of NATO's role. Again "politics".


Just going by political or incompetent media rhetoric gives rise to lots of misconceptions.

.
phil gollin is offline