| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| Black Watch ordered in |
| 2004-05-28 |
| HUNDREDS of Britain’s fiercest troops were ordered back into Iraq last night to crush a growing uprising. Lightly-armed UK soldiers will be swapped for heavily-armoured men from the Black Watch to finish off terrorist resistance. Around 600 troops from the world famous regiment with 50 tanks will rumble into Iraq within weeks. A battalion of 800 Royal Marine Commandos has been put on standby to beef up the UK force. The net increase will be 200 men - plus a further 170 Royal Engineers. Their role will be to bolster defences around British bases to stop suicide bomb or rocket attacks. Tony Blair is tipped to order in a far bigger force of up to 3,000 in a few weeks. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon told MPs yesterday that the move was aimed at stamping out a rising revolt by guerillas in the British-controlled south of Iraq. I hope the people of Al-Ammarra like bagpipe music |
| Posted by:Howard UK |
| #21 Frank G: ZF - paid by Saddam? I think Sadr's orders and resources come from Tehran I find that unlikely - if they were being paid by Iran, why are they shaking down businesses in the cities they occupy for protection money? I suspect that Sadr is a freelancer, which is why he is having difficulty paying his people.* He's taking big casualties without inflicting many in return, unlike Saddam's henchmen. This tells me that his men are both untrained and poorly-armed. Compare the record of his men vs the stellar record of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which was financed and trained by Iran, and it becomes clear that Iran has nothing to do with Sadr. This is why he's on the ropes. * One of the things that makes guerrilla warfare so difficult is this persistent need for money - guerrillas have to feed their families, too. Very few of them work full-time - a real job just takes too much out of a guerrilla wannabe for him to be militarily effective. Guerrilla movements have to buy weapons and ammunition, both of which can get expensive, because shipments are discovered all the time while en route to their final destination. This is why very few guerrilla wars succeed - the list of the movements that have been crushed are in the hundreds, whereas the successful ones amount to a few dozen, at most. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-28 3:17:46 PM |
| #20 Smart move to bring in more pros. It's going to be pretty hot as the Jun30th date arrives. The Iranian jihadies will need a victory over the invaders to have their imprint on the future of Iraq. When they make their play I hope the pros litter the road with jihadies. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-05-28 12:57:40 PM |
| #19 Don't F with these nasty boys. The idea of fierce kilt wearing soldiers with 21st century weapons must really "offend" the arab enemy. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2004-05-28 12:08:44 PM |
| #18 The Black Watch. I almost feel sorry for the bad guys. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-05-28 11:05:35 AM |
| #17 ZF - paid by Saddam? I think Sadr's orders and resources come from Tehran |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-05-28 10:43:20 AM |
| #16 Oh great, a squirrel race war. When are the Islamazoid nutters going to jump into the fray? |
| Posted by: ed 2004-05-28 10:37:00 AM |
| #15 Ah, but the point is, to the twits in the media, the Black Watch sounds "fierce" They don't understand that the highest compliment one can pay to a modern soldier is to describe him as professional, a quiet warrior who takes care of business whether it be training at Salisbury Plain or reducing a jihadi machine gun nest. It's all in a days work. There are very few militaries in the world whose soldiers can be called professionals. Britain has one of the best. Glad your on our side. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-28 10:33:34 AM |
| #14 Howard UK: Although I wouldn't say Amarah was a walk in the proverbial park - apparently Saddam never fully pacified it. Collectively, Shiites doesn't have a reason to be revolting against American occupation - they're about to get it all when the handover occurs. Sadr's revolting either because he's being paid by Saddam, or because he wants it all for himself - i.e. he sees himself as another Ayatollah Khomeini - the supreme Islamic ruler of Iraq. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-28 10:29:35 AM |
| #13 "HUNDREDS of Britain’s fiercest troops were ordered back into Iraq last night to crush a growing uprising." Can anyone argue that the uprising has been growing recently? Sadr's guys have been bagged at the rate of about 30 a day. Fallujah is quiet (for now). Now, it may be that the approaching transfer of sovereignty will lead to an upsurge, but I don't see it happening at the moment. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-05-28 10:18:15 AM |
| #12 ZF: Yup a different gravy entirely in Fallujah. Although I wouldn't say Amarah was a walk in the proverbial park - apparently Saddam never fully pacified it. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-05-28 10:12:17 AM |
| #11 Armour was called up prior to the A&SH's bayonet charge as a reinforcement but couldn't get at the enemy due to marsh terrain. I think we will use it a lot more, judging by the ITN coverage. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-05-28 10:08:46 AM |
| #10 Howard UK: It's the Northern Ireland approach - visible but low profile & unantagonistic works best. Not always possible with RPG's whizzing past your windscreen! The British are in the southern Iraq, which is Shiite and at worst neutral towards the occupation. The US is in the Sunni Triangle whereas it has taken the vast majority of its KIA. Based on all after-action reports to date, killing Sadr's men is cake, but killing the Sunni remnants of Saddam's regime is taking a lot more work. And some of Saddam's former henchmen are pretty good. A Wall Street Journal editorial page article from yesterday disclosed that 12 Marines who were killed in one engagement in April were killed by a single sniper. (This was before artillery - a classic anti-sniper weapon - was used to take the snipers out). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-05-28 10:07:52 AM |
| #9 I'm not saying the enemy haven't got the message already, I just don't see how an armoured patrol could have dealt any more effectively with such an ambush than the foot patrol did. The fact is the British "arms" in Amarah are already plenty good enough to deal with what faces them, despite what the Sun says; the question is whether "armour" will help or hinder efforts to effectively and permanently pacify the town. If the British forces are going to hunker down and endure whatever is thrown at them for the next few months before leaving, armour might just do the trick. If they are going to confront the jihadis and give them a dose of their own medicine with a view to eradicating them, they're going to need to be able to pursue a light enemy. They're going to need to be able to move fast, house to house, day and night, often quietly and usually trying to retain the element of surprise. They're going to need speed, stealth, fluidity, intelligence (both kinds), determination and aggression. Inches of Chobham are somewhere further down the list of priorities, IMO. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-05-28 10:01:24 AM |
| #8 Barely got a mention in the UK either. Bulldog - I don't think we go after them to avoid 'upping the anti' - the fact that we sent 35 home in coffins the other week was symbolic enough for them to know we mean business. It's the Northern Ireland approach - visible but low profile & unantagonistic works best. Not always possible with RPG's whizzing past your windscreen! |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-05-28 9:44:13 AM |
| #7 The Argylls' bayonet charge got absolutely no coverage in the US media, by the way, as far as I can see. Off-theme. |
| Posted by: Matt 2004-05-28 9:30:18 AM |
| #6 I think the Sun here is confusing the issues of "lightly armed" and "lightly armoured". Personally, I think a lightly armoured operation in Amarah has at least as much hope of success as a heavily armoured one, provided it uses its 'lightness' to advantage in the urban environment - i.e. offensively. I saw the ITN footage too - a fair enough reaction, but the fact they mounted a tactical withdrawl without apparently planning to regroup and go after their attackers, was disappointing. You'll have noted the report commenced with the observation that "within minutes of beginning to patrol on foot..." - suggesting the jihadis were holding off until the British troops didn't even have thin-skinned vehicles' protection. Being inside armour will offer more protection, but it also reduces flexibility and mobility. It's risking a western 'knights' vs. eastern 'saracens' situation again. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-05-28 9:27:55 AM |
| #5 At the mo' the Brits are cruising around Al-Ammarrah in nothing more than Landrovers. It's been a miracle there haven't been more casualties. However, the Northern Ireland training stands us in good stead. The brits were on TV the other night when a blast bomb was thrown at them. There response was to just back away slowly and watchfully - I don't thk we're courting trouble but if it finds us we seem to be able to deal with it - don't know how we'd cope with somwething the scale of Najaf/Fallujah tho ' - whole different b.g. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-05-28 9:17:14 AM |
| #4 But I thought being heavily armed and using tanks was a sign that the Americans had no "touch" with dealing with riff raff? |
| Posted by: Laurence of the Rats 2004-05-28 9:07:11 AM |
| #3 You call that a bayonet charge? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-05-28 8:01:40 AM |
| #2 ...heavily-armoured men from the Black Watch to finish off terrorist resistance. Like the sound of that. |
| Posted by: Chairman of The Bored 2004-05-28 5:50:29 AM |
| #1 The "lightly armed soldiers" they're replacing are the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. They'll need to do some serious ass-kicking pdq if they want to have the same fearsome reputation as their predecessors... |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-05-28 5:36:26 AM |