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.
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: