The Battle for Basra

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NEO_CON, Nov 8, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. A fair report well written and unbiased. He rightly critisises Blair for lack of action, allowing the city to sink to its current levels of arnachy. The work of the Army over the last 3 years is slowly being undone by lack of action from this weak Government.

    God help our military being led by this muppet. Perhaps Rommel was right with his Lions and Donkeys comment.
  2. Disagree, strongly disagree.

    The situation now has nothing at all to do with the way that we have dealt with the Iraqi people and everything to do with the Iranian influence coming across the border. I might know what I am talking about as I was down town Basra as recently as last week.

    We have the right attitude of toning down the "war" footing to a more relaxed look, and if it was not for outside influence, this would be working really well.
  3. NEO_CON

    What is your point, the Iranian backed Militia belong to Political Parties that have been elected to represent the people of the 4 provinces. As most Iraqi (less the Kurds) do not like the occupation it is not surprising that there have been some attacks. Perhaps the UK is becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

    Is our softly softly approach working? Since no can define what the UK/US end state is it is difficult to determine who methods are more effective. Plus - the obvious political differences between S Iraq and Central Iraq.

    The bottom line is if you let the Genie out of the bottle by invading Iraq and allow free and fair elections then the occupier has no right to choose the government.

    What is your take on the situation??
  4. I disagree with it.

    The writer of the article glosses over the fact that unlike the successful counter-insurgency campaigns that the British Forces have previously undertaken this one is being conducted alongside the US. This in itself a serious problem when trying to bring peace to a populace so enraged by the actions of 'The Great Satan' (although the Iranian influence doesn't help).

    Yes the US have lots of guns but unfortunately the 'brains' behind this article has completely missed the point that waving guns in peoples faces and using cluster bombs during operations in built up areas isn't the way to get an unhappy population to see your way of thinking.

    Its kind of rich for a commentator from a country with such a poor background in counter-insurgency operations to belittle the hard learnt but well practised doctrine of the UK forces.
  5. No doubt an interesting article, but I did not get past the basic factual errors about the recent sequence of events in Basra. Eg, the so-called "storming of the compound" did not precipitate the widely-televised riot, but took place later.
  6. My take on this subject is , I don't have one . There are people on this site who are far more qualified to comment than I am . I am some what of a Optimist for what that is worth.
  7. Why post the article then?
  8. I agree with this post. The occupiers relationship with the shias in the south looked lesshostile than with the Sunnis removed from power.

    To what extent are the locals maniipulated by Iranians? Or is this local hostility to the occupation in general and us in particular? If we have peedoff the people who have benefited from the occupation then something has gone very wrong indeed.

    The original article looks like another piece of complacent US journalism. Discrediting the British hearts and minds approach isn;t working then lets carry on with the Israeli techniques. It does nothing to answer the fundamental issues about objectives.
  9. cpunk

    cpunk LE Moderator

    I'm surprised to see Aden quoted as a COIN success, it was nothing of the sort and, interestingly, we face the same problem in Iraq that we did there. The problem is that everyone knows that we're going, sooner or later, and this makes us irrelevant in the long term: much of the violence now is between factions positioning themselves, militarily and politically, for the post-coalition era. Taking the occasional swipe at the Brits in Basra does wonders for the political prestige of cnuts like Sadr who would still be sitting in Qom were it not for the Coalition.

    We're making the mistake of trying to be an honest broker when we might be much better off identifying groups whose long-term interests aren't entirely inimicable to ours and giving them all the help we can, in as robust a style as possible. The reality is that our 'footprint' in southern Iraq is so light that we aren't in a position to maintain security if everyone is against us and my view is that it is certainly better to have some of the militias on board than to go for the all or nothing approach which the US seems to favour.

    The American Spectator article is a juvenile piece really: it ignores the fact that the US sets the political targets and ignores the realities of British operations on the ground. The idea that we don't often leave our compounds is absolutely ludicrous, for example.
  10. Casualty rates for US and UK forces in Iraq are about the same. The relatively lower lever (for now) of general violence in SE Iraq is due (IMHO) to the relatively homogenous nature of the population there (i.e. all Shia) rather than any particular difference in approach of the respective occupiers.
  11. Ok here's a Question.

    If the US where Gunning down the locals in Basra, and the Brits where being nice and cuddly in central Iraq, would the situation be any different?
  12. That is indeed a question. As for an answer, who knows.

    Hypothetical situations are all well and good but hypothetically the Iranians should be thanking us for removing the leader of a regime that they were at war with for so many years, not providing weapons and training to Saddam's mates.
  13. This is because they have a new enemy--non-muslims.

    I give it 5 years MAX before we're at war with Iran.
  14. This blog talks a little bit about the politics of the south


    This would indicate that the soft approch didn't nessarly harm the south.