| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| "Britain has lost the stomach for a fight" |
| 2008-12-21 |
| This is a pretty brutal assessment of the British performance in Iraq from The Times (of London). My apologies to our British 'burgers, but it's worth a read. The fundamental cause of the British failure was political. Tony Blair wanted to join the United States in its toppling of Saddam Hussein because if Britain does not back America it is hard to know what our role in the world is: certainly not a seat at the top table. But, for all his persuasiveness, Blair could not hold public opinion over the medium term and so he cut troop numbers fast and sought to avoid casualties. As a result, British forces lost control of Basra and left the population at the mercy of fundamentalist thugs and warring militias, in particular Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. The secondary cause of failure was a misplaced British disdain for America, shared by our politicians and senior military. In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys. British leaders sneered at the Americans' failure to win hearts and minds because of their lack of experience in counterinsurgency. Pride has certainly come before a fall. British commanders underestimated both the enemy's effectiveness and the Americans' ability to adapt. If a fair-minded account of the Iraq war is written, credit should go to President Bush for rejecting two years ago the report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group that called for force reductions. He defied conventional wisdom and ordered a troop surge instead. It has been an extraordinary success and, unlike Britain, the Americans will not withdraw in defeat. During debates in Washington, British forces' ignominious withdrawal to barracks was cited to argue that the United States could not contemplate being humbled in a similar way. In the end Bush was not a quitter. Blair "cut and ran". Credit to President Bush? In a European newspaper? Britain's shaming was completed in March 2008 when Iraqi forces, backed by the US, moved decisively against the Mahdi Army, inflicting huge casualties and removing them from Basra. Operation Charge of the Knights was supervised by Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, exasperated that Iraq's second city was controlled not by Britain but by an Iranian-backed Shi'ite militia. Trust in the British had fallen so low that neither the Iraqi nor the US government was willing to give us much notice of the operation. General Mohammed Jawad Humeidi remarked that his forces battled for a week before receiving British support. It cannot be a defence of British policy that the war was unpopular at home. Our mission was to provide security for the Iraqi people, and in that the US and Maliki's government have recently had marked success and we have failed. The fault does not lie with our fighters. They have been extremely brave and as effective as their orders and their equipment would allow. I have never read otherwise. It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down. Conurbation? Off to the dictionary for that one. The extent of Britain's fiasco has been masked by the media's relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government's lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack. Montgomery's rotating at orbital velocity if he heard about that one. The United States will have drawn its conclusions about our reliability in future and British policy-makers, too, will need to recognise that we lack the troops, wealth and stomach for anything more than the briefest conflict. How long will we remain in Afghanistan? There, in contrast to our past two years in Basra, our forces engage the enemy robustly. But as a result the attrition rate is high. We look, rightly, for more help from Nato allies such as Germany, although humility should temper that criticism, given our own performance in Iraq. |
| Posted by:Matt |
| #29 You should. Our most capable ally and next to Oz, our most faithful. Indeed, and we are theirs. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-12-21 21:39 |
| #28 anymouse's son spent time in Basra helping to clean up that cesspool. Agree...the Brit Pols are spineless. It's not the UK military. |
| Posted by: anymouse 2008-12-21 18:01 |
| #27 I lived in Britain for 18 months, and met a lot of Brits, both civilians and military. A lot of them are great individuals. A few, however, are enough to make me fear for Britain's fate. One of the BIG problems in Britain is that too many of their "leaders" are living in a fantasy world of British Imperialism, as if the clock stopped in 1935. The Empire is gone, except for a few places that wouldn't survive as independent nations. The arrogance, insolence, and bigotry that abounded in the Foreign Office in the early portion of the 20th Century still exists, however. Coupled with an entrenched bureaucracy that doesn't really CARE what the rest of the world is up to, more socialism than the US would tolerate, and an economy that manages to struggle along somehow under the pressure of the bureaucrats, most British just try to make it from day to day. The EU may be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and Britain will become just another piece of real estate in Europe's death spiral. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-12-21 15:09 |
| #26 the Poles or OZ is about too trade staunch ally places with Britain |
| Posted by: rabid whitetail 2008-12-21 14:02 |
| #25 "In the early days in Iraq we bragged that our forces could deploy in berets and soft-sided vehicles while US forces roared through Baghdad in heavily armoured convoys." I remember one British poster at another site attempting to support this contention by posting a picture of Royal Marines doing just that, riding around in berets in an open LandRover. Problem? The picture was clearly captioned as having been taken in Bosnia, where there are no IED attacks on allied troops. This makes me wonder if IQ has fallen that badly since my departure from the UK 40 years ago, or if misplaced and bigoted contempt for American intelligence has really grown that much. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2008-12-21 13:56 |
| #24 "I wonder how many American veterans of WWII feel the same way?" I wonder how many Iraqi veterans feel the same way. |
| Posted by: Jiggs Shorong2120 2008-12-21 13:15 |
| #23 “The secondary cause of failure was a misplaced British disdain for America, shared by our politicians and senior military.” The frustration among the Senior British military started when they came in believing they were the Counter-Insurgency Big Cocks but thought that their role in the US operational plans had not been clearly defined. Some may argue that’s a justifiable complaint others call it arrogance. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2008-12-21 12:41 |
| #22 You should. Our most capable ally and next to Oz, our most faithful. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-21 10:55 |
| #21 Most of us really care about Britain? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-12-21 10:35 |
| #20 I should have made it clear when I posted the article that this piece is a piece by Times columnist Michael Portillo rather than an editorial by the Times. As of right now, the Portillo column has drawn more comments here at Rantburg than it has at the Times website. I don't know what that means. |
| Posted by: Matt 2008-12-21 10:20 |
| #19 They won't break down the gates. They will open them from within and are already doing so. Posted by: lotp 2008-12-21 09:03 I was speaking metaphorically about the British civilization, but I fear you are very much correct in the physical sense, lotp. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-12-21 09:25 |
| #18 In Belgium I recently met an old guy, tall, dignified, white mustache, ex-British Army, WWII. Fought in Market Garden. His image of Americans was the 82nd Airborne, whom he fought with. He was so happy to share his story with an American, who I guess he doesn't meet many of living in Belgium. No trace of anti-Americanism. |
| Posted by: Cynicism Inc 2008-12-21 09:08 |
| #17 JFM, for all the our many flaws including occasional hooliganism and political correctness, I think we Brits have achieved considerably more in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the WoT in general, than France. We, in France, don't have shariah courts. For occasional hooliganism I refer you to a text published in Rantburg around ten years ago who talked of rot in British mindset far deeper than occasional. Pay attention to the part about girls wanting to be taken home and showing their b..bs to persuade the automobilist. While you could call it by another name because no violence is involved I still think that it has the same roots and particiâtes in the same rot. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-12-21 09:05 |
| #16 Thus, Britain will never see the need to defend itself until the barbarians are breaking down the gates. They won't break down the gates. They will open them from within and are already doing so. |
| Posted by: lotp 2008-12-21 09:03 |
| #15 An army of lions commanded by a deer will never be an army of lions. - Napoleon Bonaparte |
| Posted by: P2k on holiday 2008-12-21 08:06 |
| #14 The Britons who threw it away with both hands, completely uncaring of their own or others' fates or responsibilities, I cannot understand. Then you need to read more about the Great War, Darwin, and Marx. And The Strange Death of Liberalism by George Dangerfield. My interpretation is having brought so much change to the world they began to suffer from cognitive dissonance when the change undermined the foundations of their world view. WWII was its last gasp. Like the champion relay runner, it handed off the baton just as it was about to collapse from the effort. To whom will we hand it? And don't forget the Falklands. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-21 07:08 |
| #13 To others: Stop dreaming about 1940 British. JFM is correct. I find a tremendous amount to admire in the Britain that first built, then administered, the world's greatest empire. The Britons who threw it away with both hands, completely uncaring of their own or others' fates or responsibilities, I cannot understand. The Britons of the current day, unthinking, unthanking, gelt, as Kipling would say, I hold in near-complete contempt. The men who fought at Rorke's Drift, or who held the Residency at Lucknow, or who boarded the Altmark, or faced down the Graf Spee--these men would hold current-day Britain as not worth the sacrifice they made to keep her free. One of my British friends, an expat who deeply bemoans the current state of affairs in his country, told me his grandfather (decorated RA veteran) said if he had known in 1939-45 that Britain would turn out as it has, he would not have been willing to fight for her. I wonder how many American veterans of WWII feel the same way? |
| Posted by: Jolutch Mussolini7800 2008-12-21 06:42 |
| #12 I also didn't hear JFM talking about how things were so great in France. Remember, he said we'd flee to California. I think he knew what he meant. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-12-21 06:01 |
| #11 "I think we Brits have achieved considerably more in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the WoT in general, than France." Maybe so in Iraq and maybe more than the French regulars in Afghanistan, but I hear good things about the French special operations troops. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-12-21 05:49 |
| #10 JFM, for all the our many flaws including occasional hooliganism and political correctness, I think we Brits have achieved considerably more in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for the WoT in general, than France. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2008-12-21 05:21 |
| #9 Much of their argument is based on a false axiom, that is, the purpose of the British in Basra was just to hold Basra Much of your argument is flawed and based on false premise. More still than in a conventional war it military aspect is subordinated to teh political aspect. And here we allowed Al Sadr to get political weight, get a big influence on the Iraki constitution, allowed the isalmizatiion of South Irak, in addition that both within Irak and outside we gave the impression that far from being a liberation, Iraki Freedom replaced "modernist" and "secular" Saddam by Taliban-like rule. To others: Stop dreaming about 1940 British. They are no more. New genartions have been molded by the Beattles, punk rock, drugas, hooliganism ad a dose of political correctness who would make you flee to California. And now they have plenty of Pakistanis within the gates. |
| Posted by: JFM 2008-12-21 04:37 |
| #8 What Bulldog said (and a few others up-thread). I know I've said this here before, but the most prominent impression I gained from British officers in my Baghdad office was one of demoralization, based on precisely the collapse of will noted in the article and comments. The sources of that collapse are probably several, but the effect of relentless indoctrination (presumably beginning, as in the US, in the educational process), especially what's become of the press, cannot be over-emphasized. Adding to the pain of it all was the characteristically highly intelligent, humorous, humane, and articulate nature of all the British officers I encountered, without exception. On a relevant side note, I'll never forget the BBC correspondent, a very nice and intelligent guy, who secretly confided to me his support for the US effort in Iraq - he made it clear that his views made him adopt a double-life, and that of course I could breathe nothing of his apostasy to other reporters. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2008-12-21 04:24 |
| #7 The article's a fair assessment, but the media's role is much greater than suggested. I would say: never underestimate the power of propaganda on the majority of people. In my experience in the UK (possibly this is the same elsewhere) about half of people lack the inclination or intelligence to form their own considered opinions about politics. They rely on their acquaintances and the media to give them steer. The BBC, which has single-handedly led a concerted campaign to institutionally socialise debate and gut the national confidence, has been responsible for turning public opinion callously anti-war and reflexively anti-American. Anti-Americanism and anti-war sentiment in the UK are not principled, rational, choices but the result of indoctrination. The BBC has fomented both through silencing opposing views and legitimising the advocates through exploiting its position as a de facto monopolising news provider in this country. The Times should focus its spotlight on the BBC and help hold it to proper account. |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2008-12-21 02:39 |
| #6 We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack. The results of the recent elections here speak loudly to the contrary. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2008-12-21 01:41 |
| #5 Ouch. Well that will leave a mark; unfortunately it will be seen as a badge of honor. |
| Posted by: regular joe 2008-12-20 22:36 |
| #4 I think the short version of the article is that the UK is no longer strategic, but still tactical. Be interesting to see if the former east europeans move to strategic postures - seems they could. UK, France and Germany may only have Africa left to exercise strategy, or they may have to deal with their respective, um, domestic diversity situations. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2008-12-20 21:34 |
| #3 England has always produced a high quality of soldiers. The failing of the English military, like always, has been the political leadership and politically placed generals. When the junior officers and regular soldiers were cut loose, they produced amazing battlefield victories. The problem now, is the lack of political will from the leaders and lack of communicating to the population why it is necessary to fight. Combine that with a leftist MSM that trumpets defeat, the public will never support a war. Thus, Britain will never see the need to defend itself until the barbarians are breaking down the gates. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-12-20 21:04 |
| #2 "But as a result the attrition rate is high" High? WTF? How many have they lost in Afghanistan over the entire year? My information shows total non-US casualties in Afghanistan for all of 2008 has been 133. I know that not all of those are British. Even if they were, 133 is a "high" attrition rate? That right there tells you the (lack of) value they place on the mission. Screw 'em. If they are going to be crybabies about it, it might be better for them to take off and go home. We wouldn't want them to hurt themselves. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2008-12-20 20:51 |
| #1 Much of their argument is based on a false axiom, that is, the purpose of the British in Basra was just to hold Basra, in a conventional sense, not to control Basra, for which they were numerically ill equipped. Holding Basra meant that as long as they just sat put, no other force could claim Basra, or use it to create a new front against US and allied forces elsewhere. In Napoleon Bonaparte's campaign east to Ulm and Austerlitz, he had an entire army just stay in Italy, to guard his southern flank. Thus protected, his main army was able to achieve victory in perhaps the greatest battle in history, though grossly outnumbered. But that army just sitting in Italy still performed the vital role of holding Italy. Even if the Mehdi Army revolt had been a success, and Najaf and Basra were under their control, the Brits would have denied them Basra. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-12-20 20:35 |