You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
US wants UK to lead ‘surge’ in southern Iraq
2008-03-23
LONDON - The US plans to urge Britain to launch a ‘surge’ in Basra to combat increasing violence in the southern Iraqi region, the Sunday Mirror newspaper reported.

Britain, which has around 4,100 troops in Iraq, transferred control to Iraqi forces in December last year but it could now be asked to step up its role again amid top-level concern about the situation, the paper said.
The Brits lack both the forces and the will to do a surge in Basra. If they had both they would have fixed Basra before pulling back. And it's pro'ly not possible to shame Gordon Brown over this issue.
It quoted an unnamed senior US military source saying: ‘Three big militias are currently engaged in a particularly bloody battle in southern Iraq. US and Iraqi forces are involved in a huge operation to attack an Al Qaeda stronghold in Mosul.

‘But after that, the plan is to turn the coalition’s attention on to Basra and we will be urging the British to surge into the city. If they do not have enough troops, then they will be offered US Marines to help out.

‘The feeling is that if southern Iraq is hugely unstable, it will affect the success of the surge in the north and destabilise the whole country.’

The source added: ‘The proposal to go back into Basra is being examined at the highest level in Baghdad.’

But unnamed senior British civil service sources told the Sunday Mirror that Britain would be highly reluctant to go back into Basra because of pressure at home to pull troops out. ‘We do not have enough troops for a surge ourselves. The hope is that we can train enough Iraqi army recruits in the next year to cope with the inter-tribal warfare going on in Basra,’ one source quoted by the paper said.

Recent media reports say that Britain will delay its planned withdrawal of around 1,500 troops from Iraq until the end of this year because of increased attacks in Basra. The cuts were originally due to come into effect from early this year.
Posted by:Steve White

#12  LOL I see oil giants .
Posted by: Zebulon Angavick7428   2008-03-23 23:21  

#11  To me soft power means "Speak softly and carry a big stick".
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2008-03-23 19:25  

#10  For those who are unaware, political authority in Basra and surroundings is a monopoly of Shiite extremists. Southern Iraq is a province of Iran's Ayatollahs. Attacks are not being carried out by insurgents; they are being executed by militias which have the support of local government. Basra isn't like Baghdad, which had ethnic divisions; it is an integral whole, with politics being a battle between those who are prepared to attack Western troops now, or later.
Posted by: McZoid   2008-03-23 19:00  

#9  Lotp, good point, soft power was indeed the order of the day initially for the Brits in Basra. But I think from the beginning that hard power wasn't an option because the Brits never had enough of it. If they had, they might have considered the option when things started getting sticky.

Gorb, getting us to pay and bleed for it is an extension of Euro policy towards NATO. Euro leaders were never willing, even after recovering completely from WWII, to pony up their share, preferring the US to stop the Roooskies in the Fulda Gap.
Posted by: Steve White   2008-03-23 15:53  

#8  And I want Monty to whip Rommel's ass, but I think that time has passed.
Posted by: regular joe   2008-03-23 14:31  

#7  If all the Hope Mongers want to see the results of the Magic Man sitting down to talk with these jerks, they have the lesson plan readily available to peruse. Talking until you are out of breath is the name of their game. When you finally turn your back, they insert the long dagger. This, too, exposes the error in US policy. Unless we maintain occupation level forces, this hole will never be safe for the oil giants to extract the payload. What should have happened is massive supression until resistance was futile. Otherwise, let them fight it out for a few years. When the rubble subsides, deal with the victors. Even then, one must choose to deal with them, which may not be possible, or eliminate them. May be much wiser to pursue independent energy here. Then we simply starve these pests since they are not food sufficient. Would be much cheaper for us over the decades.
Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700   2008-03-23 10:30  

#6  "I think the whole world should be involved in this struggle, but they are all hoping the US will pay for the bulk of it, both in treasure and blood, AS USUAL."

Fixed that for ya', gorb.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut   2008-03-23 10:19  

#5  How could anybody be so out of touch with British attitudes that they would propose this? I just hope they can defend heir island from the fifth columnists.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2008-03-23 08:40  

#4  From their point of view, Britain shouldn't have to take major casualties in a war they entered only because of US pressure.

I think the whole world should be involved in this struggle, but they are all hoping the US will pay for the bulk of it, both in treasure and blood.

And if you can get some other fool to carry your water for you by whatever means (including suicidal socialist apathy), then why not?
Posted by: gorb   2008-03-23 08:33  

#3  If they had both they would have fixed Basra before pulling back.

I'm not so sure, Steve. I think many if not most of their commanders are wedded to the 'softly, softly' approach because it's become the default doctrine for the Brits.

America shouldn't have to cover the Brit's soft investment

From their point of view, Britain shouldn't have to take major casualties in a war they entered only because of US pressure.

Not saying that's a wise or long-term point of view for them to take, but it's pretty prevalent among Brits. And their huge welfare state is really straining to support even their current level of operations given how badly equipped many of their otherwise excellent troops are.
Posted by: lotp   2008-03-23 07:25  

#2  Well this is a nice proof that soft power and negotiation do not work in these situations. All they do is encourage the militia.

We told the Brits that but they were too busy crowing about how crude we were and how much more nuanced they were.

Now proven to be BS.
Posted by: OldSpook   2008-03-23 01:34  

#1  Well the bill is due ... America shouldn't have to cover the Brit's soft investment. Pony up Limeys the margins have been called and only hard coin of the British realm will do.

BTW CRUSH THEM PLZ! ~:")
Posted by: RD   2008-03-23 01:24  

00:00