Feb

22

Why didn’t we learn from them?

Posted by Little Miss Know it All

February 22, 2007 |

The article below begs the question….if we had the Brits on our side, they were doing so well, and have decades of experience fighting a terrorist war with the IRA, why didn’t we adopt their methods and tactics?

 From the London Times–

From The Times

February 21, 2007

British troops to start Iraq pullout by April

Philip Webster, Political Editor

British troops will start coming home from Iraq within weeks, Tony Blair will announce today almost four years after the start of the war that removed Saddam Hussein from power.

The Prime Minister will say that up to 1,500 of Britain’s 7,000 contingent around Basra could be out by the summer, with the first coming home by April, and 3,000 by the end of the year if the process of handing over control to the Iraqi security forces continues to go well, The Times has learnt.

Mr Blair will say that Operation Sinbad, the security and reconstruction plan conducted in Basra over the past six months, has been a success. Since it ended this month Mr Blair and forces’ chiefs have assessed the ability of Iraqi troops to do the job.

Mr Blair will give the go-ahead for withdrawal despite President Bush’s decision to send more than 21,000 reinforcements to Baghdad. The decision will be seen by some as a signal that the Government is prepared to demonstrate its independence from the US.

The war is seen across the parties as Mr Blair’s most unpopular policy act, and one that has probably accelerated his departure as Prime Minister. He has always been keen that the British withdrawal should start before he leaves office, and that now appears likely to happen.

Details of the announcement were scant last night. Mr Blair was criticised for not taking part in the recent Commons debate on Iraq but promised to make a statement about the future of British forces as soon as Operation Sinbad had been assessed.

There are 7,200 British troops serving in Basra. They are in Shaibha, south Basra, and in Maysan province. More than 130 British Service personnnel have died in Iraq.

The Times has learnt that Mr Blair will emphasise that his hopes of withdrawal will be conditional on signs that the Iraqi forces are able to fulfil their mission. The next rotation of troops in Basra — with 1 Mechanised Brigade taking over from 19 Light Brigade in the early summer — had been due to go ahead without any reduction in numbers.

There has been a growing view that the continued presence of British troops may have contributed to the violence in the city. Soldiers in Basra have predicted that the attacks will fall off when the British leave.

One factor in the move has been the assessment that the international force in Iraq will not recreate a perfect Western-style democracy. General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the General Staff, said in October that the Government should lower its expectations in Iraq.

Sir Richard, who took over from General Sir Mike Jackson in August, said that the continuing presence in Iraq of British troops was “exacerbating the security problems” and that they should come home soon.

This contrasted with Mr Blair, who told the Labour Party conference that it was important for troops to remain in Iraq to secure the peace. He said: “If we retreat now, we won’t be safer; we will be committing a craven act of surrender that will put our future security in the deepest peril.”

Mr Blair is widely expected to leave office in June or July. Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the US National Security Council, said: “While the United Kingdom is maintaining a robust force in southern Iraq, we’re pleased that conditions in Basra have improved sufficiently that they are able to transition more control to the Iraqis.”

But privately, there appeared some irritation in the US that the news had leaked out in London the night before Mr Blair had been due to make his announcement.

A Democratic Party strategist said: “This is the final proof of President Bush’s complete international isolation. He cannot now even count on the support of America’s closest ally, having put the special relationship with your nation under such strain that it is now a breaking point.”

It is understood that, following the initial withdrawal of troops in April, further draw-downs of UK personnel would be dependent on the conditions on the ground. Mr Blair will not, as some reports have suggested, say that all British forces will be out by the end of 2008. After the initial removal of 1,500 troops other personnel will withdraw to their heavily fortified base in the south of Iraq in preparation for their final pull out.

The start of the handover was signalled yesterday when the Iraqi Army division based in Basra transferred from Coalition command to take its orders for the first time direct from an Iraqi headquarters in Baghdad.


Comments

2 Comments so far

  1. James on February 23, 2007 3:47 pm

    It’s the old adage. The British know how to hold street, conduct check points, win over people, while Americans know how to take a country and storm a house. The Troubles provided us a real world training ground and although the dynamic there is much different and intelligence took years to install it shows that learning from mistakes helps. Also I think the key difference is that US training of the Iraqis is being conducted mainly by private consultants or regular USA, rather than the US Armies Special Forces which are the specialists in training an army while under fire. If you look in Basra, the British used contingents from their own specialists in this field rather than private sector folks. If you look in Afghanistan you will see US Special Forces training the Afghans with better (not great) but far improved results than in Iraq. Apparently we should have finished the job in Afghanistan and then thought about Iraq……

  2. Christopher Waldrop on February 23, 2007 7:54 pm

    You’ve made an excellent point: we should have finished the job in Afghanistan. Since it was known even before we went into Iraq that the intelligence about “weapons of mass destruction” was based on speculation and wishful-thinking by warmongers the only legitimate reason to invade Iraq was humanitarian–something we couldn’t justify while we supported murderous dictators in other countries (like Uzbekistan). Taking out Saddam was a noble idea, but it was done for the wrong reasons at the wrong time in the wrong way. And three wrongs don’t make a right.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind

<< Post Navigation >>

« « Anything to Look Good | Enough Sharing Already! » »