| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US 'believes Britain has lost in Basra' |
| 2007-08-08 |
| American officials believe British forces have been defeated in Basra, it was claimed yesterday. A senior US intelligence official The rebuke highlights the increasing violence in Basra, one of four provinces handed over to British control after of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Three of the four provinces have been pacified and handed back to local leaders; Basra, the most populous, is due to be returned by the end of the year. In a stark reminder of the deteriorating security situation, two British soldiers were killed in the province yesterday. Private Craig Barber, 20, from 2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh died after being hit by small arms fire. The other soldier, from 1 Squadron RAF Regiment, has not yet been named. Major Mike Shearer, a spokesman for British command in Basra, rejected the suggestion that UK troop levels in the province, which are now down to 5,500, had been cut too fast. "This is not Dorset, but Basra's crime levels are half the level of Washington," he said. "What we are trying to do is get the security situation to a manageable level where Iraqi solutions can be delivered to Iraqi problems." A second British official in Basra said the American criticism was misplaced. "Yes, there's violence and yes, there's corruption," he said. "But the electricity directorate, the water directorate, the government structures still work. The Iraqis down here can work their way through the violence." Gordon Brown told George W Bush at their meeting at Camp David last week that British troops planned to hand over responsibility for Basra to local leaders within months, but that the decision was in the hands of British commanders. Britain's former governor of Basra, Sir Hilary Synnott, said the US criticism was payback for British claims two years ago that Basra was a success while Washington had failed in Baghdad. "It's not so long ago that some members of the British government were boasting that Basra was doing very well, better than Baghdad. That was very unwise." Brigadier General Anthony Hunter-Choat, a security director for Iraq's reconstruction programme, said America had initially backed the British "softly, softly" approach to security in Basra, by which power was devolved to tribal leaders, rather than ruling from the top down. "The Americans thought the British were highly successful," he said. "Now they've started to think that the people the British used to keep the place going are not the right people to hand Basra over to." A think-tank report, quoted in the report, said the legacy of British rule in Basra was "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighbourhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias". A former British defence official, now working in Baghdad, said London's push to withdraw forces had been criticised at the "highest levels" in Washington. America "has been very concerned for some time now about a) the lawless situation in Basra and b) the political and military impact of the British pull back," he said. A spokesman for the British embassy in Washington said yesterday that the Washington Post report did not reflect America's official position on British force levels. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #17 If so, Bush was sworn in and must have moved those troops he had already secretly, gotten moved, ready to invade. More than that -- Clinton was Prez in 2000. Bush wasn't sworn in until 2001. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-08-08 19:54 |
| #16 THE END was at Suez in 1956. Only death rattles have kept the corpse moving since... |
| Posted by: borgboy2001 2007-08-08 19:47 |
| #15 Several weeks ago when I read that Mr. Gordon Brown announced that the words "war on terror" and "muslim" officially will no longer appear in the same sentence...well...let's just say I knew then the war on reaver (muzzie) jihad was lost in Europe. For gawd's sake the House of Saud can sue in London to stop any mention of Saudi financing of terrorism. Cambridge Univ. caved WITHOUT a fight and agreed to pay HUGE atty fees and substantial damages to a f*ckin' terrorist supporting banker AND to "pulp" all unsold books identifying the Saudis perps. In the USA more than a dozen US colleges have caved into "reaver" (muzzie) demands for tax payer financed footbaths. Footbaths for reveavers so they can clean up before prayer to their "g*d". Think about that. I mean really think about that. The ACLU says ...hey...we are not gettin' into this...it's a health and safety issue for the schools...build the footbaths or face the warth of the ACLU (and reavers)if you don't build them!!! Are there tax payer funded / built holy water dispensers adjacent to the entry door of any "meditation rooms" on the campus of any public universities? No...I didn't think so...Why not? Anybody can use them (so goes the rationale of the ACLU for the reaver (muzzie) footbaths).Okay, so reavers traditionally clean their feet before prayer therefore footbaths are okay....but put up a holy water dispenser at taxpayer expense (Catholics traditionally use holy water to bless themselves with prior to prayer) and watch the ACLU scream bloody murder. Double standard. We are losing the war of ideas. Push back. Please. Push back. Now. Reavers (muzzies) have the upper hand for now. For how long I do not know. I sense, however, that retribution is in the offing. An awful retribution. Stop all reaver immigration to the USA. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-08-08 18:00 |
| #14 With the sectarian Shia mobsters in charge, the Brits say " the electricity directorate, the water directorate, the government structures still work." And I heard that Mussolini got the trains to run on time, too. Bad choice. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-08-08 15:45 |
| #13 British officials in Basra reject the notion that UK troop levels in the southern Iraqi province had been cut too fast Blah blah blah. The troops may have done fine, but whatever the case, the leadership didn't. If this is the case, then just like the title says, the Brits have lost Basra, however you want to partition the statement. Then again, it should be a good magnet for bad guys, and we know where to go when it is time to kill a bunch of them. Now if only we can do it on the sly when the time comes! |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-08-08 15:26 |
| #12 Another way of looking at this is that the British aren't, and *shouldn't* intervene in what is essentially a Shia vs. Shia fight. First of all, it is bigger than the British could handle anyway. And second, that the fight is an unconventional struggle between nationalists and Iranian backed Shiites, with the US SOCOM working on behalf of the nationalists. So all the Brits could really do is just keep an overall lid on things, but stay out of it, yet have enough forces to move quickly and decisively if needs be. No matter what happens, the US is going to have to move South once the Brits pull out. But by then, the Sunni areas will be mostly cooled and under the control of IA, so our hands will be free. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-08-08 14:18 |
| #11 I am, at this moment, sitting in Heathrow for my flight back to the States. The earlier commenter is right -- England has surrendered to Islam. The streets and shops of Knightsbridge and Kensington are flooded with men in dishdashas and women in abayas, as well as many military age Arabs with fancy shoes, clothes and cars. Two quick anecdotes of surrender. I was taking a Thames cruise with my family when the tour guide noted that London Bridge City was owned by the royal family of Kuwait. The guide, a salty old Brit, then thanked the Kuwaiti royal family for all they've done for England and for allowing the London Bridge Hospital to accept National Health Services cases. Later that afternoon, we were walking by Hyde Park Corner when we saw a stetch Mercedes Limo pulled up into a restricted zone. The driver spoke on his cel phone while 3 scruffy young Arabs laced up their Rollerblades. My wife and I were hoping a Bobbie would come along and tell them to move on, but it didn't happen. I haven't been to London for about 10 years, and was stunned by the change in the makeup and character of the city. I got the impression that, because of their money, rich Arabs could do whatever they want. Unfortunately, Rule Brittania (or even Tony Blair's corny Cool Brittania) appears to have been replaced with Abdul Brittania. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2007-08-08 13:55 |
| #10 I am, at this moment, sitting in Heathrow for my flight back to the States. The earlier commenter is right -- England has surrendered to Islam. The streets and shops of Knightsbridge and Kensington are flooded with men in dishdashas and women in abayas, as well as many military age Arabs with fancy shoes, clothes and cars. Two quick anecdotes of surrender. I was taking a Thames cruise with my family when the tour guide noted that London Bridge City was owned by the royal family of Kuwait. The guide, a salty old Brit, then thanked the Kuwaiti royal family for all they've done for England and for allowing the London Bridge Hospital to accept National Health Services cases. Later that afternoon, we were walking by Hyde Park Corner when we saw a stetch Mercedes Limo pulled up into a restricted zone. The driver spoke on his cel phone while 3 scruffy young Arabs laced up their Rollerblades. My wife and I were hoping a Bobbie would come along and tell them to move on, but it didn't happen. I haven't been to London for about 10 years, and was stunned by the change in the makeup and character of the city. I got the impression that, because of their money, rich Arabs could do whatever they want. Unfortunately, Rule Brittania (or even Tony Blair's corny Cool Brittania) appears to have been replaced with Abdul Brittania. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2007-08-08 13:54 |
| #9 Some of the British High Command are blaming the "Surge" in Baghdad for the trouble in Basra. You know, driving all the Mahdi Army types south. (Flying pigs need somewhere safe to land) The Chief of British Defence Staff is Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup. Isn't a jock stirrup the cod piece on a jock strap? It's like the Brits a remaking an old 1964 movie, Dr Strangelove. We all remember Gen Jack D Ripper and Major Bat Guano. If it wasn't so sad it would be funny. |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2007-08-08 12:50 |
| #8 The British did not lose, they quit...gave up! Their leadership did. They gave up the world over. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-08 12:40 |
| #7 And Basra was supposed to be the easy sector. So much for all that "soft hat" nonsense. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2007-08-08 12:24 |
| #6 Rue Britannia. |
| Posted by: doc 2007-08-08 11:54 |
| #5 That's okay Mr. Law, come December or next March at the latest there will be no more Britain as a nation state. The EU "treaty" (aka constitution) will remove what sovereignty the Brits have left. C'est la vie. It was a nice run while it lasted. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2007-08-08 11:22 |
| #4 The British have lost to the Islamofascists the world over, thanks to their leadership. The British did not lose, they quit...gave up! Tossers! I see a big backlash coming soon, in a lot of places. I predict it will be bloody and the Islamo's will be surprised by its ferocity. |
| Posted by: Natural Law 2007-08-08 11:18 |
| #3 The British have lost to the Islamofascists the world over, thanks to their leadership. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-08-08 11:03 |
| #2 I'm more concerned that Britain seems to have lost in Londonistan. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-08-08 10:47 |
| #1 By contrast, US officials said yesterday that American troop levels had reached a post-war high of 162,000, surpassing the previous peak recorded in January 2000. Am I missing something here? Did we have troops in Iraq in January 2000? If so, Bush was sworn in and must have moved those troops he had already secretly, gotten moved, ready to invade. Bam -- swear in, we invade.... I hope this was a typo... but probably one that will never be corrected. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2007-08-08 10:45 |