| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Attack Iran, US chief ordered British | |
| 2004-06-30 | |
| Sooner or later the Mullah’s names will be Mud. America’s military commander in Iraq ordered British troops to prepare a full-scale ground offensive against Iranian forces that had crossed the border and grabbed disputed territory. An attack would almost certainly have provoked open conflict with Iran. But the British chose instead to resolve the matter through diplomatic channels. "If we had attacked the Iranian positions, all hell would have broken loose," a defence source said yesterday. "We would have had the Iranians to our front and the Iraqi insurgents picking us off at the rear." The incident was disclosed by a senior British officer at a conference in London last week and is reported in today’s edition of Defence Analysis. "Some Iranian border and observation posts were re-positioned over the border, broadly a kilometre into Iraq," a Ministry of Defence spokesman said. The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran. Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send in several thousand troops to attack the Revolutionary Guard positions. The Revolutionary Guard Corps has 125,000 soldiers, making it 25 per cent larger than the entire British Army, and is equipped with 500 tanks, 600 armoured personnel carriers and 360 artillery weapons.
| |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #29 What's it about 11A5s? Reminds me of when the right honorable Weasley Clark ordered the Brits to prepare to attack the Soviet forces in Kosovo... right.... rubes. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-30 8:41:10 PM |
| #28 What I know, Shipman, is that it is just as important to know your allies' weaknesses as it is to know your own and your enemies'. I also think that the most loyal friends identify those weaknesses to one another rather than sitting back and waiting for one another to stumble. If I were a Brit, I would accuse Americans of overplanning and micromanaging and I'd be right. Those are two of our grave weaknesses. Unfortunately, this thread isn't about that. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-06-30 4:22:10 PM |
| #27 Nope, nothing here move on. Some of my best friends speak English! You don't think the Brits had a plan to move if it was necessary? LOL! Get a grip, who do ya want to have your back? Jen, yes it does sound varily like the Pueblo incident. But it's over now so let's be done with it. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-30 3:41:49 PM |
| #26 Not against the clear-thinking Brits, but agree with too true: "We have a lot more in common with the Aussies than the Brits . . ." |
| Posted by: ex-lib 2004-06-30 1:36:06 PM |
| #25 Hi Shipman: I don't hate Brits. The main thing that I got out of my experience in the Sinai, is not so much that the Brits have a psychological hang up against us, but rather that they have a hang up about contingency planning in general. I bet dollars to your dime that Sanchez merely asked the Brits to do some contingency planning for a _possible_ assault on the Iranian positions. They didn't really understand what he wanted and got their panties in a twist (just as long as they didn't have to put them on their heads, right?). As others here have pointed out, we probably have contingency plans to attack Andorra. I don't believe that the Brits do business that way. I think that they are much more reactive. It was put to me another way on by a O-6 who headed a combined staff. If it had been done before, he gave it to the Brits. If it had never been done before, he gave it to the Yanks. BTW, if the USBAT hadn't been so insistent on bringing in the chem gear, there would have been none at all for our international colleagues to distribute during their little panic. Incidents like this are the reason that whenever one of these international peace keeping missions go in, the US or a US firm like DynCorp provides the logistics. Last word. If you want to gain a good understanding about how the US and Europeans differ in attacking and solving large scale problems, read The Path Between the Sea about the building of the Panama Canal. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-06-30 12:33:27 PM |
| #24 And another question? Isn't the border between Iran and Iraq in the center of the river down there in the South? Even if you take the Iranian claims that its the West bank of the river moving posts onto the far bank is clearly an invasion and logistically somewhat questionable. Again, something rings false about the entire story. |
| Posted by: yank 2004-06-30 11:46:07 AM |
| #23 Jen: And as someone pointed out, the Brits had the humiliation of their sailors being snatched for minding their own business. Once were warriors. There used to be a time that Brits would not allow this affront to national honor to go unavenged. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-30 11:45:33 AM |
| #22 "The incident began last July when Revolutionary Guards pushed about a kilometre into Iraq to the north and east of Basra in an apparent attempt to reoccupy territory which they claimed belonged to Iran." Wasn't Tommy Franks still in charge in July? But the real question is, if Sanchez was in charge why would he tell the Brits to do anything when newly constructed listening posts in Iraqi territory could easily be blasted from the air. He should have been telling the Brits to stay away from the area. Something wrings false about the entire story. |
| Posted by: yank 2004-06-30 11:43:46 AM |
| #21 I agree, Zhang Fei (as usual!:-) ) When the Brits get on this tear where we're the trigger-happy American "rubes" who must be restrained by their more refined and collected Brit allies, I become ready to fight the Revolutionary War all over again! And as someone pointed out, the Brits had the humiliation of their sailors being snatched for minding their own business. Airing this incident just shows the IslamoNazis that Britain doesn't have the And Sanchez is most certainly no Weasley Clark and Iraq ain't Kosovo! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-30 11:41:20 AM |
| #20 Shipman: Whoa serious pom hating going on! The Brits are fine fellas who just need reminding every so often that they're Brits, not EUropeans. From the Empire upon which the sun never set to a second-ranked player in the EU is not exactly something to celebrate. Unfortunately, they're adjusting a little too quickly to being EUropeans than is healthy for either British interests or self-esteem. Reduced to carping like the Irish isn't how I like to think of the Brits. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-30 11:32:17 AM |
| #19 Whoa serious pom hating going on! Wish I had some angry Brit stories but I have none. Wait a second.... there's me wife. :) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-06-30 11:15:58 AM |
| #18 #10 If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran you work mmore???? twisting half truths as real....the US army does have a decent control of the country and can focus on any city that happens to be taken over (really a few dozen or hundred hard boys with guns - but can cause havoc)..we take it back. You must remember we do not have enough troops on the ground to cover a country the size iraq. But without a draft we have few options to this.. but as far as iran is concerned are hands are not tied militarily..the dems here have tied our hand politically (unless iran makes a bold and stupid move in the interm). we could start the process of destroying the revolutionary guards leaving the regular army intact..this would help the hand of the moderates.. just watch 2005 it should be a very interesting year. |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-06-30 10:52:55 AM |
| #17 Another true stroy to illustrate how the Brits think. When I was doing the MFO (not part of the UN, contrary to what some here have posted) thing during the first Gulf War, we decided it would be a good thing to have chemical alarms and protective suits in case Saddam started lobbing SCUDs at Israel and we were downwind. Logistics were a bear. Given that here was a war going on, we were not a high priority. But thanks to the hard work of a lot of people, we got the suits out to the troops about 48 hours before the first SCUDs landed. Of course, before then, the Brits on the force thought we were a bunch of paranoid fools and were openly laughing at us. "Fucking Yanks. Busting their asses for this paranoid fantasy." After the first SCUDs started falling, the Brits and all of the other assorted international riff raff on the MFO literally spent the next 24 hours distributing, fitting, and training on the protective gear without sleep. I was relieved that our men had their gear. But I was laughing my ass off at the Brits and their 24-hour cluster fuck. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-06-30 9:47:33 AM |
| #16 I can toss in a little episode which, perhaps, provides another glimpse into the British psyche... In Saudi I made friends with a Brit who had a home in Birmingham and one in Thailand. His Thai wife occupied the home in England - racking up time towards her UK Passport, and her parents occupied the teak home in TL. One day (this was in 1992) he pulled out a bottle of Sid (siddiqi - home-brew alcohol) and proceeded to pot himself. Since I didn't drink, he was the only one flushing IQ points. After a good while (he could hold a LOT) we hit the point where he felt obliged to trash the US. He moaned and groaned about all of the Brit inventions which America had "stolen" and capitalized upon via commercial production. This went on for about an hour - some probably true, some most likely not. Anyway, when he began to wind down, I made the observation that he sounded just like American limp-dicks who complained about Japan. This started him giggling, so it ended well. He was pleased and placated that we had been given our due. Such is life in the Int'l community, no? |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-30 9:02:35 AM |
| #15 The Iranian Army, systemwide, has about 1,000 tanks, every last tread of which are considered obselete, ranging from the T-55 to the Brtitish Chieftain. The IRGC (the Pasdarans)while it may well be 125,000 in size, does not reflect how the Mullahs would most likely use them. The Pasdaran are mainly a cadre force to be drawn from in times of war. I read somewhere that the Pasdarans are an agrregation of independant units, mostly rifles, some armor, and some AAA. In order for a unit to be designated Pasdaran, it must have at least of battalion size Pasdaran force attached to the unit, usually a brigade or a division. The Mullahs would not deploy the Pasdarans as a concentrated force but would disprese them in active army units to 'stiffen' them. And by stiffen, make sure the commander of whatever brigade or division they are in follows orders. The Pasdaran's strength will not be in those units designated as Pasdaran, but in the 'recruiting' drives they will most likely conduct on the eve of war, about 3 million strong, replacement units for the losses they expect in a war. I don't think the Iranians are girding for war because we haven't seen reports of desertions or recruiting drives, a surefire sign of war, IMO. And the Mullahs know what is in store in the event of war. They are not likely to give up what they have by going to war against the west, but if they think the end is near, they will have no problem in sacrificing the Army, the Pasdarans and the 3,000,000 'recruits' they have before they do fade from the scene. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-06-30 8:46:43 AM |
| #14 #6, the Brits went without body armor in part because they didn't have enough to go around. The US had some supply issues, but not nearly as severe as the Brits. Spoke recently to a US Army officer who's spent a lot of duty time in Europe. He thinks we made a mistake not creating the appearance that the Euros and Brits were more involved in Afghanistan, as it humiliated them. OTOH, he admits they could not plug into our ops except in the most limited ways because they simply didn't have the equipment, doctrine and training to keep up. There are several reasons IMO the Brits were asked to manage the south of Iraq. Some of it is due to Bush sr. and the CIA's sellout of the Shia a decade ago. Some is due to British ties there. And a lot is due to the fact that they could manage that role without too much strain but, except in some special ops, simply couldn't contribute to the force-on-force fighting without severely limiting the US forces. Worth keeping in mind that the Brits are not Americans ... We have a lot more in common with the Aussies than the Brits, who at heart are Euros with historic ties to the US and Australia. They also hate us, in some cases, for their lost Empire and the fact that we have an unsought-after one instead. What they dislike most about the direct US use of force (of all kinds) is that it makes it hard for them to avoid admitting their relative lack of capabilities in some of these areas. Funniest, and saddest, evening I've ever spent was at a British B&B run by an accountant who made a bunch of money in Rhodesia (when it was Rhodesia and the blacks knew their place) ... his sense of moral superiority over us clumsy, pushy Yanks was pathetic, given that the money that built his fancy place in the Cotswolds came from his role as a privileged white in a segregated ex-colony. I saw a lot more of that in Britain, especially in England, 2 yrs ago than I'd seen a decade before when visiting. Sad ..... but it opened my eyes to what Britian has become. |
| Posted by: too true 2004-06-30 8:41:12 AM |
| #13 While Mr Straw was trying to resolve the issue peacefully, British military commanders on the ground were calming their Iranian counterparts, the ministry said. Excellent job they've done 'calming' them, what with these same goons grabbing those sailors while continuing to feed terrorists across the border. |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-06-30 8:39:44 AM |
| #12 Anonymous466333: If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran? Let me demonstrate the faultiness of this analogy by putting out my out - if Iran cannot control drug trafficking within its own borders, how can it start a war with the US? Guerrilla warfare and conventional warfare are two different things. This is why Arab armies haven't attacked Israel even though it can't prevent Arab terrorists from killing about 500 Israelis a year. Conventional Arab armies would be squashed by Israel, even as it continues to fend off Palestinian terror attacks. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-30 8:07:24 AM |
| #11 #10 If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran? We aren't trying to control Iraq, we're trying to make it Sovereign! And it's quite easy to start a war with Iran. Dr Evil: You take the "Nooclear" bomb here, put it on this "missle", and launch it at the target. Simple, yes? |
| Posted by: Charles 2004-06-30 7:48:25 AM |
| #10 If the US army can not control a single city in Iraq, How is it that they will be able to start a war woth Iran? |
| Posted by: Anonymous466333 2004-06-30 7:41:19 AM |
| #9 Verlaine, that sounds about right to me. Way to go. Superhose too. B52s aside, a massing of troops is sort of 20th century. But if Iran sends in quick response brigades, for whatever reason, then what? Are the mullahs ready to make a bold move. Or are they faking a strong public support. Me thinks they have several million supporters. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-30 3:38:28 AM |
| #8 In Kosovo the Russians were a semi-cooperative force - that had nukes. In Iraq, the Iranians are an infiltrating force that is facilitating the killing of Iraqis and Coalition troops - British troops, as well, unless one chooses to believe that the Shiites in Basra were inciting themselves. If I plan to "negotiate" with the Revolutionary Guard, I would certainly not make my first step granting all my forces a long weekend my first step. It is my belief that the Americans deal correctly with the Mahdi army, an Iranian surrogate. Step number one in negotiations with Iran is to demonstrate a willingness to kill Persian fanatics in large numbers. If Regan hadn't demonstrated his willingless to obliterate the entire Iranian Navy, escorting Kuwaiti tankers past Iranian Silkworm sites in 89' might have been more difficult work for me. As it was the most interesting part of my happy four months of sailing back and forth through the Staits of Hormuz, was listening to the Brits torment the Russian captains over the bridge-to-bridge radio. Note: don't read this as a statement of support for the Vincennes fragmenting the Iranian airbus at high altitude. Non-Islamokook Iranian civilians are not our enemies. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-06-30 2:29:11 AM |
| #7 This Sanchez is top-notch, give the guy another star. |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-06-30 2:23:43 AM |
| #6 Love the way the article listed the IRGC's order of battle, comparing it to the British Army --- as to imply that Iran would dare engage in conventional conflict with the coalition. Hilarious. If only. And the whole bit about the risk of "provoking" conflict with Iran, but (hallelujah!) the cool Brits "resolved things diplomatically". What clueless b.s. The Brits are great but there is a weird strain running through some of their military and diplomatic types that seems ever desperate to paint the US as their less sophisticated cousins. This reached its preposterous apogee with all the stupid stories about Brit troops going without helmets or body armor, and how this and their comparative savvy were making things easier in Basra than the Triangle. Which the idiotic US media lapped up, of course. As if there were the remotest comparison between the snarling nitwits in Saddam-friendly Sunni territory and the compliant if rough-edged folks in Basra. And what's this nonsense about "two fronts"? At no time has there been anything approaching an insurgency in the south that might have "picked off" British forces from the rear. And in July '03, there was barely anything going on anywhere outside jihadi car bombings of a few prestige targets and the beginnings of trouble up north. Every one of these sorts of articles leaves the Brits looking a bit less impressive than I like to think of them. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-06-30 2:15:52 AM |
| #5 Every now and then the Telegraph throws out some red meat to that part of their Tory base that delights in looking down the end of their noses at the Americans. |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2004-06-30 2:15:25 AM |
| #4 Yeah, I doubt this transpired the way the article says, too. However, why would our guys on the ground have to do the fighting? Our boys in the air could have gotten some work in. Fixed positions like these would have been like target practice. |
| Posted by: beer_me 2004-06-30 1:39:33 AM |
| #3 "Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez then ordered the British to prepare to send..." Sounds like someone was making contingency plans. Not exactly an unheard-of activity. Especially for something as fluid and unpredictable as war. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2004-06-30 1:38:38 AM |
| #2 Anyone who buys this story as written is off his meds. There is no possible way this is the whole story, how it transpired, nor accurate regards US and UK military commands. Sanchez, not exactly my favorite, is NOT the looneytune Weasley Clark. In fact, it is that he is so careful and correct that I have bones to pick with him. Recall Fallujah and ask yourself if that Gen Sanchez is the same Gen Sanchez described in this wacky mud-raking hit piece. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-06-30 1:22:57 AM |
| #1 Dammit, that was our in and the Brits blew it! :) |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-30 1:12:13 AM |