Has Iraq demolished the British Armies military reputation?

perseus

Active member
British troops officially ended combat operations in southern Iraq today, handing over control of their base in Basra to US forces. The British prime minister said "Today Iraq is a success story. …. "Britain can be proud of our legacy that we leave there." However, I don’t think many people believe this, least of all the insurgents and our American colleagues.

Britain had gained a reputation over the years of being able to send a small but highly skilled body of professional soldiers to a wide range of theatres in various wars and colonial disputes. So why was Iraq a monumental **** up for the British, what went wrong?

Immediately following the invasion, the British situation seemed to be going well in Basra. This made them very cocky criticising what they called US "heavy-handed" tactics. However, after Petraeus took over the tables were turned, the US situation improved in the North, whilst the British situation deteriorated in Basra. The Americans accused the British of "cutting and running". The Pentagon and Congress become pretty sceptical about UK military contributions even though they valued them from a political point of view.

Some US military commanders sharply criticised Britain for not having sufficient troops in Basra, and for allowing rebel Shia militia and criminal gangs to police the city's streets. Therefore, in 2008 a plan was hatched by the Iraqi Prime Minister and the Americans to finally rid the Basra streets of criminal gangs and hostile Shia militia. Despite being mainly conducted by the Iraqi army (the people the British were training) this operation seems to have proven successful, embarrassing the British even more.

There are plenty of excuses for the lacklustre British performance. Was the British Army's equipment up to scratch, or should Britain have provided civilian aid more quickly? Perhaps the militia groups supported by Iran had a strategic political motive for allowing the Iraqi army to temporarily win so they can be more easily ousted later? Or is there is a simpler explanation, the Americans and Iraqi’s (eventually) learned how to do counter insurgency, and did a much better job. Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that Iraq has demolished the British Army's reputation, although it certainly has dented it!! At the core the soldiers, NCO's & young officers are excellent - highly motivated, professional & wanting to get the job done. It is at the senior levels that I feel there is a certain malaise and over confidence, which is where some of the problems start.

Additionally the force was under resourced. Unlike the US Forces who got surged, the Brits got cut back - in the name of political expediency, which hampered their ability to control the ground and influence the situation in Basra.

As with all situations there are many sides but here is my view. We committed to the war in Iraq, which was unpopular. We should have held to our committment, resourced it properly and made sure that the soldiers on the ground were able to do their job and that the Iraqis were in a position to take over when we withdrew - whenever that would be, not on a timetable to suit local govt elections and gain votes!

The British Forces have been under strength for quite a while, before Options for Change, but Iraq & Afghanistan, the FI, NI, Germany, Bosnia to name but a few have shown that we fly the flag abroad, support our allies, protect our interests, but neglect our armoured fist. One day we will actually have leaders worthy of their followers - truly lions led by donkeys.
 
It was a political move the way i see it and really nothing to do with the performance of the troops on the ground.
 
It was a political move the way i see it and really nothing to do with the performance of the troops on the ground.

Whilst I grant the British were undermanned in the South and they could have maintained armoured patrols at a cost in lives, the fact remains that the Mahdi army took over Basra by effectively driving the British off the streets, and the city had to be retaken by much more numerous Iraqi forces. The way the Americans led this drive, virtually over the heads of the British Army without their participation, speaks volumes.

The increased use of explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) restricted the British to their bases, which militia targeted with rocket and mortar fire on a regular basis.

In late September 2006, British forces launched Operation Sinbad, a six month operation originally intended to purge militia from the Iraqi police but eventually targeted the militias directly. However, British forces did not have sufficient numbers and despite a temporary decrease in violence, British troops were again under attack and withdrew to their positions at the palace and the airport.[21]

The UK military returned control of Basra to the Iraqi forces in December 2007 and concentrated its forces at the city airport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Basra_(2008)

My view is that the British Army never had their hearts in the Iraq war, since it was poorly supported by the politicians and civilians back home especially after the lack of a smoking gun. Neither had they prepared for a long occupation, or got much economic benefit from it.

Perhaps the main fault was in the lack of preperation for this by the coalition forces. As Rumsfold said 'he didn't do nation building' and Bush said in 2003, 'job done'. I think the British wanted more preperation for post Iraq security, jobs and welfare, whilst the Republican leaders in the US wanted to pander to their electorate by giving Saddam a 'bloody nose', feed American taxpayers dollars into American cooperations 'rebuilding Iraq' and use the oil revenue to fund the army.
 
Last edited:
It was a political move the way i see it and really nothing to do with the performance of the troops on the ground.

I agree with Spike. Furthermore I don't believe the British military's reputation has slipped or been tarnished at all.
 
I'm not aware of their reputation being hurt but if is true that their approach was "overly cautious" it probably had to do with that the commanders were ordered that preserving the lives of British troops was absolutely paramount.
 
again and again, the British did not hold basra, not because they coulnt, but because they were ordered to pull out, they trained the iraq army to retake it, never belive what you read in the papers as the british army never only release information they want the press to have, their were other political reasons why they did what they did, if they were beaten, then you can say all this stuff, but the fact was they pulled out under orders.
 
I also am under the impression (as relayed by the Spanish media) that the Brits have nothing to be ashamed for, they did the job that they could under the circumstances.

Rattler
 
Topic: Has Iraq demolished the British Armies military reputation?
by perseus

Topic: American bail out British Army again?
by perseus

Anybody else see a pattern here?

First time is an accident.
Second time is coincidence.
Third time is habit.

First time Americans bailed out the British, was when they helped them get rid of 13 unruly colonies.:wink:

Does seem the topics border on bashing, even though they are done by a countryman and put in the form of a question.

Just my opinion and does not reflect the views of management.:p
 
Chuckpike

I am only reflecting about what is widely thought about outside jingoistic circles. Exactly the same terminology has been used by senior British politicians and they require the electorate to retain their position. If you don't wish to participate in such discussions there is no obligation.

Perhaps you better have a look at what your own countrymen are talking about, such as America invading countries for pure greed, and 'lost wars' in countries were Americans never actually never lost a battle and their political ideology has eventually succeeded. (sensible debate in my opinion but perhaps treasonable in your view?)
 
Chuckpike

I am only reflecting about what is widely thought about outside jingoistic circles. Exactly the same terminology has been used by senior British politicians and they require the electorate to retain their position. If you don't wish to participate in such discussions there is no obligation.

Perhaps you better have a look at what your own countrymen are talking about, such as America invading countries for pure greed, and 'lost wars' in countries were Americans never actually never lost a battle and their political ideology has eventually succeeded. (sensible debate in my opinion but perhaps treasonable in your view?)

I apologize I did not see the British only sign on this topic. Might point again to the topic title being poorly written.

I really only commented on the coincidence of your topics. They are so close to the same subject that they could have been consolidated into one.

Not sure your long winded complex sentence could be classified as sensible debate. Just my opinion.:?
 
Topic: Has Iraq demolished the British Armies military reputation?
by perseus

Topic: American bail out British Army again?
by perseus

Anybody else see a pattern here?

First time is an accident.
Second time is coincidence.
Third time is habit.

First time Americans bailed out the British, was when they helped them get rid of 13 unruly colonies.:wink:

Does seem the topics border on bashing, even though they are done by a countryman and put in the form of a question.

Just my opinion and does not reflect the views of management.:p


It does reflect my views, and I am not jingoistic. Unfortunately, Perseus's approach and style of introduction into these subjects leaves me wary of his motivation. My suspicions would have to be that he is very much a troops out man, rather from a political point than from one of troop-protection. This is, of course, a very left-wing view in this country. This is only my opinion, and I am not accusing Perseus, but let me say that I would have been happier if the originator of these threads had not been a fellow countryman. And I have not wish to stifle the debate, we are having our own here, but based upon the poor hand our troops seem to have been dealt.

Please rmember that Brit troops have been constantly in action since WW11, all types of warfare and their courage and proficiency has been unchallenged.

We lost another 10 yesterday, and the injury figures have not yet been released.

I was amongst The Rifles last year, by invitation, with those soon to be heading back to Afghanistan and very senior officers. All were keen to get back, and were of the opinion that the job was do-able. I kept my doubts to myself, but my view of that great porous Pakistan border country gave me concerns. As I have said before, Taliban could keep cutting and running for 100 years, and winning territory is hard to hold and make safe - requires big numbers. I always cosidered that would be a greater challenge than Iraq initially.
 
It does reflect my views, and I am not jingoistic. Unfortunately, Perseus's approach and style of introduction into these subjects leaves me wary of his motivation. My suspicions would have to be that he is very much a troops out man, rather from a political point than from one of troop-protection. This is, of course, a very left-wing view in this country.

On the whole I support the war in Afghanistan providing the correct resources are given to the troops whoever they are. I thought my views were clear about that. You may note also that the two quotes in previous posts were not from left wing but a centre and right wing politician. The left wing view is heavily stifled in the UK, if you approve of wars think yourself lucky this is the case, remember that 80% of UK citizens didn't approve of the war in Iraq. Try reading a true left wing view if you really want to know what the left wing thinks (not the Guardian which a true left winger would think of being establishment).

http://www.medialens.org/

Unmentioned by the Guardian, the "well" is also bone "dry" in Britain and America. Consider our political system:
1. Meaningful political choice for people opposed to US-UK militarism and wars of aggression: None.

2. Choice for people opposed to socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor: None.

3. Choice for people serious about subordinating maximised corporate profits for genuine action to halt catastrophic climate change: None.

4. Choice for people seeking mainstream media supporting genuine change: None.

5. Choice for people eager to elect politicians with 'ring of confidence' smiles and charisma: Substantial.
As should also be clear from my posts, my concern in Afghanistan and Iraq was at ruining the British armies reputation by placing them in situations were the people on the ground were not able to use their professionalism. The British Army has always excelled at small scale conflicts, the last one was Sierra Leone, it's a shame to ruin this by mismanagement in these other theatres.

The fact is that you both just wan't to hear good news so nothing rocks the boat. I raised these issues because it was obvious that everyone must be thinking this, but presumably because of the danger of disrupting the allied bond it was thought best not to mention it. It is disappointing that we haven't had a more informed debate on this.
 
Last edited:
You can't believe anything Brown says, anywhere, anytime. His closest colleagues tell us that his big problem is his big lying. As Seno would say, he tells us only what he thinks we want to hear.

Which way do you want it, as far as your postion is concerned - are you now still standing by your denigration of our troops, or are you switching sides to Socialist Brown's glad tidings, even tho' he has led them up the creek with hardly a paddle.

Are you with Labour or with The Tories and Libs on this one - hard to tell now, in light of your last post.

I stand with our troops regardless of newspapers and politicians scrabbling for positions. Our troops must not be the fall guys, they are our finest contribution to these momentous events, our only shining light. These loud and quick critics are bottom of the pile.

You claim that the left wing view is stifled in this country is complete rubbish. Since 1997 the left wing view has been the only game in town. The socialists have held total sway and freedom to wreck all the have touched, and it is they who led us into war ,remember, and have controlled completely all political events over that period.

ONLY the left wing view, led by the BBC has prevailed since 1997. That in no way indicates that I am Tory or Liberal - leave me out of it.
 
Last edited:
Military action verses "Police" action.

I'm an ex-grunt from Canada and the Canadian Armed Forces reputation was severely damaged as a result of a combination of successive "Liberal" governments who basically gutted the Forces and sent us on a series of UN "police" actions that compromised the very basic principles of "combat arms" training and doctrine. Police officers are not Soldiers and Soldiers must fill the police roll only briefly in order to maintain a fighting spirit.
Occupational forces will ,historically, deteriorate in ability and morale as their role becomes ever more complicated and contested.
The role of combat soldiers is "to close with and destroy the enemy" not drag around "imbedded" reporters and police the casbahs.
Don't be too hard on the British Army, their reputation should not be sullied by this Iraqi jigsaw puzzle. Just my two bits...
 
Since 1997 the left wing view has been the only game in town. The socialists have held total sway and freedom to wreck all the have touched, and it is they who led us into war ,remember, and have controlled completely all political events over that period.

ONLY the left wing view, led by the BBC has prevailed since 1997. That in no way indicates that I am Tory or Liberal - leave me out of it.

This is absolutely crazy Delboy, Blair killed the left or socialism and Brown has carried on their chummy relationship with Business and the City.


The aim was simple. Get rid of all the old left-wing policies like unilateral disarmament, high taxation and nationalisation, reform the party machine and its red-flag image and make Labour less scary to middle England - and never mind annoying the core voters who had nowhere else to go. ..

Most significantly, by tearing up the very core of the party's old constitution - the controversial Clause IV, which talked of securing "common ownership of the means of production" - Mr Blair was symbolically killing off "Old" Labour



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6129844.stm

With regard to the 'wars' the Conservatives would have done exactly the same as Labour, and the same dissenting voices would come from the Labour benches instead, purely for the sake of political gain.

Nothing exemplifies the complete break of Labour with any left wing ideology than the increases in inheritance tax thresholds. This allows middle class children to idle their life away, divorced from work or economic reality.
I am really disillusioned by them all, but it is 'gaining without strain' I am most opposed to. It is debatable to what extent which party is most guilty.
 
Only a dyed in the wool Socialist could describe my post as absolutely crazy.

Despite all the jolly froth, the Socialists of the socialist Labour party have brought England to its knees with their policies of BIG government, a pursued 'no-top-limit' of any sort immigration policy, reducing our freedoms, creating a ruling political class who wish only to dictate to us.

This is why your introduction of the two threads in question was presented by you to all nations involved here on this forum as an invitation to denigrate our currently engaged fighting forces.

If you were interested in honest discussion of this issue you could have taken it up in Britain, amongst the British, and not hung our Army out to dry, before the world. Thanks very much, brother.

OK Perseus, I think I have made my point, for what it is worth, that, as always, our troops are doing what is asked of them, and dying in the attempt. Meanwhile, our Government is hurrying around trying to cover its rears. So I won't labour the matter further, and you and I can move on without rancour I trust.

Just to make my position clear, I was very much for the Iraq war, on the basis of Sadaam's refusal to comply, his giving the distinct impression of holding WMD, of the Inspectors refusal to get of the fence and come up with a solid 'nay', and acceptance of Mr Blair's appraisal of the situation.

The war was dealt with swiftly and surely; the post-war became a nightmare. Guess who gets the blame now? A clue - They wear uniforms, and nurse their wounds.


POLITICAL HEROES AND POLITICAL COWARDS:-


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1199283/Political-cowards-true-heroes.html
 
Last edited:
Back
Top