| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Britain: Our Army failed its test in Iraq |
| 2009-01-04 |
| As we enter the year when the last British troops leave Iraq, further evidence is emerging of just what an abject failure Britain’s military intervention in Iraq has been. Despite the bravery of many individual soldiers, the only real success of the Government has been the extent to which it has managed to hide from view how, thanks to its catastrophic misjudgements, this has been the one of the most humiliating chapters in the history of the British Army. In recent weeks, drawing on a wealth of published and unpublished sources, my colleague Dr Richard North has been compiling the first comprehensive account of this story, for a book to be published this summer as our troops beat their final inglorious retreat. Like any tragedy, it is a story which has unfolded through five main acts or stages, Stage one began in April 2003 when, after 40,000 British troops took part in the US-led invasion, Britain was given the responsibility of restoring order in the predominantly Shia south-east of the country centred on Basra. We began with hubris, imagining we would be welcomed by the local population as liberators and that, such was our experience in Northern Ireland, establishing order would be no problem, Almost immediately, however, our troops came under sporadic attacks by armed militias, notably the “Mahdi Army’’ run by a militant cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr. Having dismantled the structures of authority and reduced our troop numbers to 11,000, we had nothing like enough men to fulfil our legal duty under the Geneva Convention to maintain public order and safety. Stage two began with the fateful decision in late 2003, endorsed by General Mike Jackson as head of the Army, to deploy 178 Snatch Land Rovers as our chief patrol vehicle. The intention, as part of the attempt to ''win hearts and minds’’, was to avoid using armoured Warriors in favour of vehicles looking less aggressive. In 2004 Muqtada’s Mahdi Army launched a conventional uprising in several cities, including Baghdad, provoking a massive US response which led to its defeat. In Basra and the south, therefore, the Mahdi Army resorted to guerrilla tactics, notably roadside bombs which caused havoc with the hopelessly unprotected Land Rovers. By summer 2005, as yet more soldiers died, the British were forced to suspend Snatch patrols. As the cities of Basra and Al-Amarah to the north came under militia control, this was where the British lost the confidence of an increasingly terrorised population, Stage three in 2006 centred on the extraordinary, largely unreported drama surrounding Al-Amarah and the nearby base at Abu Naji, our largest after Basra. Unable to keep control over the city, the British hunkered down in Abu Naji, subjected to constant mortaring which they had neither the men nor the equipment to deal with. In August we retreated, supposedly handing over to the Iraqi army, only for the base to be triumphantly looted by the Mahdi Army, which by the end of October had turned Al-Amarah into a vast bomb-making factory, supplying insurgents all over Iraq. Stage four in 2007 saw the Americans launch their spectacularly successful ''surge’’ to the north, with 20,000 additional men, equipped with the properly mine-protected vehicles the British so tragically lacked. Now impotently confined to just four bases in Basra, under constant attack, the British could do no more than protect the convoys needed to supply them. Forced to abandon one base after another, in September they retreated to Basra airport. In effect, for the British the war was over. The fifth and final stage came in March 2008, when the Iraqi government and the US Army, frustrated by the failure of the British to carry out their responsibilities, and determined to end the flow of weaponry out of Al-Amarah, launched the operation known as ''the Charge of the Knights’’. Entering Basra in overwhelming force, they routed the Mahdi Army, restoring the city to peaceful normality. Last June, Iraqi and US forces similarly liberated Al-Amarah. It was made clear to the British that their presence in Iraq was no longer relevant. The British Army had entered Iraq in 2003 with a reputation as ''the most professional in the world’’. Six years later it will leave, having failed to fulfil any of its allotted tasks and having earned the contempt of the Iraqis and the Americans after one of our most humiliating defeats in history. The fault for this lies almost entirely with Tony Blair, abetted by one or two very senior military commanders, who failed at any point after the invasion to provide the men and equipment needed to carry out the task to which Blair had vaingloriously agreed. The price paid has been measured partly in the deaths and injuries of our men – but above all it has been in that destruction of the Army’s reputation which will be one of the most painful and lasting legacies of the Blair era. |
| Posted by:mrp |
| #19 NS, the Brits have not suffered a humiliating defeat. Those good, brave soldiers did; but the Brits that run things got just what they wanted. They're selling PC soft power to the rest of the EU cause that's what the EU wants. It's cheap and allows them to look down their noses at the US. They can't DO crap, but they can blather on for ever. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-01-04 21:22 |
| #18 Deac, nothing wrong with the British military at the mid-level (battalion, ship commander) officer level nor the enlisted. Its the leadership and upper-level officers who have contributed to the mess by allowing the rot to continue in less functional equipment, less supplies, and a lack of political courage. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-01-04 19:23 |
| #17 Chalk up another one for The Left. They keep inflicting failure on the world, but they keep getting elected. |
| Posted by: Cynicism Inc 2009-01-04 19:13 |
| #16 The Brits have suffered a humiliating defeat. They need to get their hands around it before they find themselves part of the EUropean Defence Force. I doubt they have the time to do so as did we after Vietnam because their domestic enemies have such powerful foreign allies. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-01-04 19:13 |
| #15 Agreed DB - after reading the story about the 3 Brit ex-soldiers attempting to repel pirates armed with McGyver era weapons quite sharply the quality of the soldiers vs. policy. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-01-04 18:47 |
| #14 I call Horse shit. The British Army from Capt. doen is a damned good force. It's the Politicians and the Upper Eschelon that are Dickekweeds. Go Tommys!! |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-01-04 15:54 |
| #13 Ideally, the Marines that marched in with the British should have stayed with them. Dealing with restive populations in both Iraq and Afghanistan supplemented by every nutcase available from Pakistan, Syria and Saudi Arabian with funding from Iran was a tall order for the small post-Cold War military forces available in the USA and UK. It would have been nice to have help from other interested parties, but I think the will of Europe has been broken. I expect that the end result will be a nuclear Iran that will blackmail Europe into ponying up the Danegold in perpetuity. The United States will retain its membership in the club of countries willing to engage in significant international action. The club membership has shrunk to the US, Israel, Russia, China and India. The UK will probably adopt the same type of risk adverse policy that the US adopted post VN until Reagan and post Somalia. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2009-01-04 15:36 |
| #12 The intention, as part of the attempt to 'win hearts and minds', was to avoid using armoured Warriors in favour of vehicles looking less aggressive. Kinda like equipping Alexander's Companions with Show Jump horses. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-01-04 15:17 |
| #11 "The British Army had entered Iraq in 2003 with a reputation as the most professional in the world". IMO, most of the poor decisions resulted from the admirable quality known as “British Pride”. Unfortunately, that pride soon grew into arrogance. (In both civilian and military leadership) Almost immediately, the commanders of the elite fighting force with the most respected counter-insurgency pedigree were squawking about playing second fiddle to less experienced Yanks. Blair, to his credit, put on a good face but clearly his “poodle” moniker left him pining for his days in short-pants. The premature and very public denials of Iranian involvement in supplying weaponry was the clearest sign that disruption of the Shia rat-lines was no longer their main objective. At that point, even a stooge like Sadr could figure out that a sustained assault would send shivers up the skirts of the British Parliament. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-01-04 13:14 |
| #10 In August we retreated, supposedly handing over to the Iraqi army, only for the base to be triumphantly looted by the Mahdi Army, which by the end of October had turned Al-Amarah into a vast bomb-making factory, supplying insurgents all over Iraq. I must have missed that bit somehow. Still, a pointed lesson in how hearts and minds can only be won after security has been established by force. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-01-04 12:35 |
| #9 Speak any English? |
| Posted by: .5MT 2009-01-04 11:41 |
| #8 The intention, as part of the attempt to 'win hearts and minds', was to avoid using armoured Warriors in favour of vehicles looking less aggressive. The above is the prime idiocy of the "leader class" in England. And army;s job is NOT to look less agressive nor to be less armored nro to be passive, espedcially in an area where hostiities are ongoing. Its the upperclass twits that believe the Arabs think like upperclass leftards that came up with this idiocy (similar to our state department). Strong Horse, that's how the Arabs go, and its very practical from a peasant standpoint. If you have one set if people telling you "Here have a bag of food and we are nice guys", and the other ones telling you "we will slice your throat like we did your neighbor's if you don't do as we say and don't bet on the nice guys to save you - they don't stay and they don't fight.", well its pretty clear which side will win support of the popukace. The libtards in Europe have starte to believe their own bullshit completely, and have the military and some conservatives doign so as well. They are about as adept at dealing with reality as was Hitler in the bunker moving imaginary divisions around while the Soviet artillery was hammering his roof. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-01-04 11:39 |
| #7 This article said it all. |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-01-04 11:16 |
| #6 Tommy didn't fail Britain. Britain failed Tommy. "Softly, Softly" send the British Army softly into that goodnight. The sun set long ago on the British Empire. Tommy, we hardly knew ye. |
| Posted by: William Marcy Tweed 2009-01-04 09:29 |
| #5 *Ahem* Tony Blair "and his Labour government, along with the weaselly complicity of the Europhile Conservatives, as well." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-01-04 08:53 |
| #4 I don't care who you blame as long as it's not the ranker! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-01-04 08:51 |
| #3 Yes, but it didn't stop 'senior' Army officials to issue criticism, eaten up and expounded upon by the usual MSM Quislings, on the Yanks handling of the whole affair did it? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-01-04 08:50 |
| #2 The individual soldiers of the British army are still some of the best. Once again though, their leadership lead them to defeat. The British military and political leaders have always been the British Army's Achilles' heel. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-01-04 08:42 |
| #1 Bad, bad Tommy---can't win with both hands tied behind his back and a 60 pound weight chained to his leg. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-01-04 08:37 |