2007 August 19 Sunday
Brits Lost Basra, Will Fight Way Out Of Iraq

The British forces in southern Iraq have totally lost control of Basra. They will fight their way out of Iraq in about a month.

What US generals see, however, is a close ally preparing to "cut and run", leaving behind a city in the grip of a power struggle between Shia militias that could determine the fate of the Iraqi government and the country as a whole. With signs of the surge yielding tentative progress in Baghdad, but at the cost of many American lives, there could scarcely be a worse time for a parting of the ways. Yet the US military has no doubt, despite what Gordon Brown claims, that the pullout is being driven by "the political situation at home in the UK".

A senior US officer familiar with Gen Petraeus's thinking said: "The short version is that the Brits have lost Basra, if indeed they ever had it. Britain is in a difficult spot because of the lack of political support at home, but for a long time - more than a year - they have not been engaged in Basra and have tried to avoid casualties.

"They did not have enough troops there even before they started cutting back. The situation is beyond their control.

"Quite frankly what they're doing right now is not any value-added. They're just sitting there. They're not involved. The situation there gets worse by the day. Americans are disappointed because, in their minds, this thing is still winnable. They don't intend to cut and run."

The Brits will be out of Basra Palace in a couple of weeks.

Two generals told The Independent on Sunday last week that the military advice given to the Prime Minister was, "We've done what we can in the south [of Iraq]". Commanders want to hand over Basra Palace – where 500 British troops are subjected to up to 60 rocket and mortar strikes a day, and resupply convoys have been described as "nightly suicide missions" – by the end of August. The withdrawal of 500 soldiers has already been announced by the Government. The Army is drawing up plans to "reposture" the 5,000 that will be left at Basra airport, and aims to bring the bulk of them home in the next few months.

Some of the articles claim the US will have to send more forces to southern Iraq to protect the supply convoys coming up from Kuwait.

Civil war may escalate between Shia factions in southern Iraq. I figure the winning faction will either some day control all of Arab Iraq or at least will control the Shia Arab section of Iraq.

One US official said that recent US military intelligence reports sent to the White House had concluded that Britain had "lost" Basra, and that Pentagon war games were predicting a virtual civil war in the South once British troops left.

Which faction is going to win? Will that faction then take on other Shia factions in Baghdad in order to win control of the "central" government?

Some British officers think predictions of a civil war after withdrawal are exaggerated.

But in his outburst last autumn the head of the Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, came close to implying that further British sacrifices in Iraq were pointless. He said the British presence was "exacerbating" the security situation and that the troops should leave "soon". Commanders argue that the majority of attacks in Basra are on British forces – between 85 and 90 per cent, they estimate – and point out that when Iraqi forces have taken over other British bases in Basra city, such as the Shatt al-Arab hotel, violence has fallen. "We are a major part of the problem," said one officer. "Without us the murder rate would be lower than in Washington DC."

Since the British presence is already so minimal do the Brits really restrain the factions at this point?

The British retreat will cost 10 to 15 British deaths.

A MILITARY adviser to President George W Bush has warned that British forces will have to fight their way out of Iraq in an “ugly and embarrassing” retreat.

Stephen Biddle, who also advises the US commander in Iraq, said Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias in the south would try to create the impression they were forcing a retreat. “They want to make it clear they have forced the British out. That means they’ll use car bombs, ambushes, RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] . . . and there will be a number of British casualties.”

The comments coincide with British military estimates that withdrawal could cost the lives of 10 to 15 soldiers.

The withdrawal from their base to the airport is expected to go well. But from the airport to out of the country is going to be a gun battle.

The Brits will learn what Saigon was like for the Americans.

WHEN the British went into Iraq they were believed to have more expertise in counter-insurgency than their US allies still learning the lessons of humiliation in Vietnam.

But now they are facing their own “Saigon moment” with plans for a withdrawal predicted by some on the British side to be ignominious and by a US military adviser to be ugly and embarrassing.

Not only that, but the British are expected to rely on US troops for cover to protect their convoys.

The Brits never had enough troops. But then neither did the United States. The number of Iraqi youths willing to take up arms against the United States or against any government supported by the United States is so large that the US could only suppress the violence in Iraq with a draft to expand the US Army by a factor of 3 or 4.

We have no strategic interests at stake in Iraq. Al Qaeda isn't going to take over when we leave. The Kurds and Shia Arabs will see to that. Even the Sunni Arabs only wanted Al Qaeda to help them beat the Americans and Shias. We can leave and save huge amounts of money and many lives.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 August 19 08:32 AM  Mideast Iraq Exit Debate


Comments
Wolf-Dog said at August 19, 2007 12:43 PM:

How about the moment when the American troops start pulling out of IraQ? Then the US troops will almost certainly be harassed with heavy weapons including anti-aircraft missiles during the retreat. What I am worried about, is a death-march in the deserts over there, if thousands of American troops are somehow cut off and captured during the retreat from Iraq.

Dave said at August 19, 2007 2:36 PM:

The best thing would be to retreat to bases and wait for the Iraqis to turn their attention onto each other before making the final exit, then hopefully you'd be less of a target.

The #1 problem is we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, Middle-Easterners need a strongman to keep their countries from descending into chaos, but the #2 problem was the whole plan was wrong from the outset, In Britain it was going to be the first 'politically correct' war with the troops "vulnerable" to prosecution as war criminals under the ICC and numbers on the ground being reduced in strength for purely political reasons. Trying to secure the larger Basra region with only 5000 troops is insane, by comparsion London has around 35,000 Police..

gcochran said at August 19, 2007 3:58 PM:

If we retreat in strength, bringing our armored vehicles and heavy weapons along with us, we'll have far less trouble than we did invading in the first place. Then we faced ~400,000 kinda-sorta organized troops, including over a thousand T-72s, and we lost less than 140 men killed - less than the cost of two months of occupation.


You have to be an idiot, or utterly ignorant of modern war, to think that we've have serious trouble in that kind of withdrawal. Naturally, such baseless worries are conventional wisdom.



Wolf-Dog said at August 20, 2007 1:40 PM:

During the withdrawal we will be facing a totally different enemy than Saddam's centralized army which was a sitting duck. The nnew enemy is decimating the armored vehicles and tanks that you are talking about, with very advanced mines and roadside bombs that are still elusive.

Randall Parker said at August 20, 2007 6:02 PM:

Wolf-Dog,

We will lose very few people during a withdrawal. We have soldiers driving around Iraq all the time. Since they are spread out around Iraq many different Iraqis who live in different areas can attack them. As US forces withdraw from the north and west they'll cease to be vulnerable from attacks by Iraqis in those areas. So the exposure of US forces will gradually go down.

We also are constantly bring soldiers into Iraq on the same roads they'll withdraw on. How will they be more at risk driving in one direction rather than the opposite direction?

gcochran said at August 20, 2007 6:42 PM:

In order to drive around Iraq safely, we need to stop IEDs from being planted anywhere. In order to leave safely, we have to clear one road. As for decimation, we've lost about 20 tanks destroyed in four years, out of more than 1,000 .


Wolf-Dog said at August 21, 2007 6:17 PM:

Right now the top of the line M1 Abrams tanks are less vulnerable, as we lost very few, as you said, but the other armored cars, especially the Humvees are fair game. The soldiers are not carried by the M1 Abrams tanks, but by much lighter vehicles. We shall see if there will be very few casualties when we are pulling out.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©