Brit Army Chiefs Try To Defend Nation’s Honor
Note: I track the British papers regularly, and they have all been putting pressure on the government to cut and run from Iraq, because war is hard and people get hurt and die. England can’t have it both ways. If you are going to run away, then you have to face the consequences. You can’t expect to keep your nation’s honor and reputation of strength and bravery, if you run from a war because it is hard, no matter how good-sounding your public rationale is. The surrender monkeys, here and in England, think they can run, but if they provide a good excuse, it won’t look like a cowardly retreat. Sorry guys, everyone knows what it is, and you will be stuck with your justified reputation of weakness and cowardice forever. Having done a brave job so far is not enough. Only finishing the job is enough.
The situation around Basra is simple. The Iranians have screwed things up of late, and as a next phase of the surge, it needs to be dealt with. If the Brits want to run instead of staying to help, then let them run, and live with the consequences.
Independent:
Army chiefs deny al-Sadr’s claim of victory in Iraq
By James Macintyre
Published: 21 August 2007
The British military yesterday denied claims by Muqtada al-Sadr that UK troops were retreating from Iraq in defeat, and accused the radical Shia cleric and his followers of trying to “create the false impression that they were driving us out”.
In an interview with The Independent, Sadr said: “The British have given up and know they will be leaving Iraq soon. They are retreating because of the resistance they have faced. Without that they would have stayed for much longer, there is no doubt.
“The British have realised this is a war they should not be fighting,” he added.
Asked about the claims, Major Mike Shearer said al-Sadr wanted to claim victory as British troops took part in a planned withdrawal.
“The malign influences in the city, we have always predicted, would raise their game to create the false impression that they were driving us out,” he said. “That is not the case. The reality is it makes sense, the closer we get to achieving Iraqi control in Basra province, that we reduce our operational footprint in the city and allow the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in policing security of their own city.”
British troops have so far withdrawn from three of the four provinces of Iraq and in Basra - Iraq’s second largest city - they have pulled out of two of the three bases they have used since the 2003 US-led invasion.
Al-Sadr - whose Mehdi Army is fighting coalition forces - also suggested that the UN could perform a new political role in Iraq, replacing US and UK forces.
Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, yesterday met Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani. He echoed the calls for UN involvement. “We would be ready to participate here beside the Iraqis.”
The UN Security Council recently decided to expand its operation in Iraq for the first time since it withdrew from its Baghdad headquarters after a bomb killed 22 there in 2003.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
Running solves nothing. Wherever the Brits go…whether home to Britain, to the Balkans or wherever, AQ, will pursue them, because they are perceived by them to be weak.
This is what happens when libs get control of a country.
This is the kind of weakness that will be America, if broomhilda gets into power in 2008.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:21 amThe day the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani walked Muqtada al-Sadr out of that mosque in Sadr City we lost almost all initiative on al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army. Sad but true.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:23 ammay-be they are realist, see the situation, even though if your army is stronger, even if officially it wins the war, locally it’s still the mess : http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/19/opinion/ediraq.php
this is the same result we had in 1962 in Algeria, may-be it’s time to move and let the different factions there to solve their agressivity
August 21st, 2007 at 8:10 amThis, routing the infedel BS has happened before in the media and will become history eventually. Case in point, the hazing of the then redundent Combat Base in Khe Sahn, in Vietnam. After Tet, ‘68, forward Bases were made Helecopter fed rather than road fed like Khe Sahn was and it was being abandoned, dismanteled and completed in late June, early July. This was well known and published in the MSM. But, General Giap, the master of manipulating our MSM, decided a final attack to prove he ran us out, would be a media coup. Members of my unit that were at the hazing of the base said that attack was a turkey shoot for them and air support with no casualties on our side.
When Giap released his “triumph” of finally kicking the Marines off the base to the press, low and behold it became truth. To the point a local Army dude that kicked around the base three years later heard the “story”, his unit believed it and he even published it in a book he wrote and only shelved in the local library. I plead my case for him to add a back page to his book with first hand testimony and Marine History book versions to no avail. I pasted the real version in later.
The moral here is wait and see what side history will take on this story, Sadr’s or the Brits.
August 21st, 2007 at 8:30 amFrenchy:
Not quite. The Brits are not thinking long-term. Iraq sits between Syria, Saudi, Iran and Kuwait. It is of stategic import.
Without anyone to check AQI or any of the other Syrian or Iranian backed militias, they will direct their attacks against the oil fields in Saudi and the other Gulf States.
The price of oil will skyrocket in the West and in Europe…or there will be no oil for anyone…because the Gulf States will be too busy fighting off AQI attacks against them.
OBL has already stated that his next objective after Iraq is the Gulf states, Eqypt and Europe…especially Spain.
Moving all troops to Afghanistan is a strategic mistake.
The Brits are leaving because their media is against them staying in Iraq. The media does not run an Army. But in the West they make decisions by emotion, rather than by tactical and strategic consideration.
The propaganda of the left is wrong. They are not in Iraq. When they do visit Iraq, they stay in the Green Zone, get drunk and send out Iraqi stringers to do their dirty work for them.
The media in Britain lies as much as the media in America lies. Only idiots buy their bullshit. And only a fool pulls out of a fight when it is damn near won.
August 21st, 2007 at 12:16 pmDan, Iran is the key role, once they get their official recognition as a ME leader, they’ll make money with the oil and western goodies and I am nearly sure they’ll fight AQ, because they like confort too ; bringing there our way to handle democraty doesn’t work, if they want a tyran, then let them have him ; the only problem for western countries will be the securation of the shipping and transport of their oil and our manufactured produces ; that is why most of the western countries think yet to have only special forces, who can intervene very quickly in a “hot” place and carriers with planes which can drop mini bombs
August 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pmFrenchy:
Not going to happen. The Gestapo in Iran have all the power…until they are deposed nothing in the mideast will change.
They will never be deposed unless the US takes them down. Their people are too scared to help themselves.
You aren’t going to secure the oil transit points while the wells themselves are constantly under attack…which will be the problem if the US abandons Iraq.
The strategic value of that oil cannot be overstated. Without it Europe would be forced to buy their oil from Russia. Then Russia will be able to excercise hegegomy over all of Europe.
It is not an outcome that I would like to see. Leaving Iraq now is just plain stupid.
Letting Iran continue to wage their proxy wars in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, Morroco, Eqypt and Pakistan is also not an acceptable outcome.
Sooner or later Iran must pay a price. That price is war.
August 21st, 2007 at 3:18 pmin theory your right, but pratically, this situation will never end till something new happens
August 21st, 2007 at 4:16 pmIt ain’t a theory. It is a fact. Understanding the tactics, theory, intentions and rationale of the enemy makes this scenario plausible.
What the British have done is to spend more of their time applying Clauswitz and Napolean’s theories to this war and less time studying Mao or even their own Sir Robert Thompson, who successfully defeated an insurgency in SE Asia.
I quote Sir Thompson:
“Necessary measures were taken to achieve the three objects: of protection, of uniting and involving the people, and of development with the ultimate aim of isolating the guerilla units from the population.”
( Defeating Communist Insurgency)
Sir Thompson’s experience coincides with Mao’s experience against the Japanese and the Nationalists.
Iran and AQ have read Mao. Their insurgencies and proxy wars are therefore predictable, the outcome of failure to control these insurgencies is also predictable.
I have also read OBL’s and AQ’s translated communications.
(They are available for public consumption for anyone willing to take the time to do the research.)
This war will go on ad nauseum until the West wins and the radical Muslim world finally pays a price that is too high.
VDH made it clear that no Muslim insurgency has ever been defeated without taking the gloves off.
In the US experience, this taking off of the gloves was known as General Order Number 100.
August 21st, 2007 at 5:17 pmThe Brits to avoid the stigma of retreat can prove their chops by going to Sadr with extreme prejudice taking his flea infested head to Afganistan with them. Someone might then get the impression that Mookie was badly mistaken about British intentions.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:17 pmDan, you’re talking straight stuff. Any attempt at appeasement will fail. Any diplomacy will only delay the inevitable.
August 21st, 2007 at 7:18 pmIran doesn’t want to talk, they want to push us as far as they can and take advantage of the U.S’s crappy international image.
Why do we have a crappy international image? Because of the lack of support from countries that owe us their very existence…the Frogs pop into mind but I don’t want to start something.
France and Britain and Germany may go down to the Muslim horde but we ain’t going to.
Mutty, your wrong, France is the only country in EU who can manage integration and control over islamists see that link ; if we didn’t had terrorism attack in our country, it ’s because we survey closelely our magrebin population
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373621
now, going to war in Irak was a mistake that your government did, cause there was no AQ there in the earlies 2000 to 2003 but in Afghanistan, yes, Saoudi, yes, Egypt, yes,… Saddam, even as a tyran, was the western alliee,he was laic, he handled all sorts of islamist revendications ; see now, this is the mess till another dictator will handle the power
and mutty, we know better than you the arab mentality, that was why we did not want that war ; but I agree, de Villepin was a stupid monkey, he could have said the same thing without hurting your sensibility, he just made a bluff fart, that he is paying now, he has court pursuits for a triggery attitude towards Sarko too , before the latter won the elections
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:06 amMutt:
Thanks. You are correct sir. There is no talking to these dogs…unless of course that talk is through the barrel of a mini-gun?
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:35 amFrenchy:
You make me laugh. You are such an idiot.
August 22nd, 2007 at 6:04 pmThe handover is to militias in ISF uniforms. The Brits pooched Basrah, bigtime.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:06 am