On Sunday the Times reported that a secret deal between the UK and the Mahdi militia kept British forces out of the fight between the militia and Iraqi forces supported by US Marines earlier this year. Says the Times:
Four thousand British troops – including elements of the SAS and an entire mechanised brigade – watched from the sidelines for six days because of an “accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and Iraqi officers who took part in the assault.
US Marines and soldiers had to be rushed in to fill the void, fighting bitter street battles and facing mortar fire, rockets and roadside bombs with their Iraqi counterparts.
Hundreds of militiamen were killed or arrested in the fighting. About 60 Iraqis were killed or injured. One US Marine died and sevenwere wounded.
US advisers who accompanied the Iraqi forces into the fight were shocked to learn of the accommodation made last summer by British Intelligence and elements of al-Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia Muslim cleric.
The deal, which aimed to encourage the Shia movement back into the political process and marginalise extremist factions, has dealt a huge blow to Britain’s reputation in Iraq.
Under its terms, no British soldier could enter Basra without the permission of Des Browne, the Defence Secretary. By the time he gave his approval, most of the fighting was over and the damage to Britain’s reputation had already been done.
Today the BBC reports the MOD as saying that the report was ‘wholly inaccurate’ and ‘wholly misleading’.
“No ’secret deal’ or ‘accommodation’ with the militias kept us out of the city. Nor were they waiting on ‘the permission of Des Browne, the Defence Secretary,” it said.
“When prime minister Maliki launched Operation Charge of the Knights in Basra on 24 March, British forces provided the assistance that the Iraqi authorities sought from us, including armour, artillery, airpower, medical and logistic support.
“The only limit placed on the profile of our support was Mr Maliki’s rightful concern that the Iraqi security forces be seen by the people of Basrah to be those enforcing the rule of law in the city.
“It is true that, as General Petraeus described very clearly last September and again this April, the Coalition forces have been very actively supporting the Iraqi government’s efforts to seek reconciliation with insurgent elements. British forces have played a significant role in this regard.
“In Basrah, we have always been prepared to talk to anyone who wishes to renounce violence and participate in the democratic process in Iraq – including the militias.
“In no sense did this act as an inhibition on supporting the legitimate Iraqi security forces in their exercise of the rule of law in the city.”
What to believe? If the Times is correct the government has behaved with staggering duplicity, stupidity and spinelessness. I’m not rushing to judgment; on the other hand I think the government is quite capable of the above. Still, the defence minister says,
‘The allegations made in the Times article are simply not true – there was no deal, never mind a deal preventing the UK military from entering Basra… It is a pity that Liam Fox should seek to question the operational decisions made by commanders on the ground via the media. I will respond in full to his letter making all of this clear.’
Let’s see. If it is true a mitigating factor, as far as I am concerned, is that there were not exactly many alternatives given the available force structure. That’s a pretty serious indictment in itself, but of a different kind. From my perspective it seems pretty evident that the British Army needs more troops, more kit and a political leadership better prepared to accept blood on its conscience if it stands a chance of succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tuesday, 5, August, 2008 at 9:54 pm |
Orbat.com seems to think this is nothing new to the authorities:
“The British And Basra: Another Yawn-Inducing Story Times London carries a “scoop” saying that the reason British troops stood aside during the Iraqi Army’s Basra offensive was because the British had made a deal with Mahadi Army not to enter Basra without its permission. US was supposedly “shocked” to learn of this arrangement.
Well, either Times London or US are among the world’s greatest goofs if this thing came as a surprise. even we at Orbat.com knew of the deal, though obviously not all the deal. And as we’ve repeatedly emphasized, we’re so behind the curve that by the time we come to hear of something, the entire world and her parakeet have the information.
Now, we know for a fact the US knew of the arrangement. So that leaves Times London as the goofs. But actually, we know for a fact Times London also knew of the arrangement.
So what’s going on here? Only another pathetic attempt to create sensational news out of news.
We’ve said this a gazillion times. When US pacified Baghdad 2007-08, it had 8 of its own brigades and 10+ of the best Iraqi Army brigades. In Basra, which is the second largest city in Iraq, the British had one of their own brigades, and three useless Iraqi brigades that were infiltrated from top to bottom by Mahadi Army. And that lone brigade was also responsible for other cities. So what exactly do people expect that the British should have done? And don’t forget, the British people have never accepted Iraq post-fall of Baghdad is their war. The majority would rather have their troops out. It is only loyalty to the US that has kept the British in Iraq.”
Wednesday, 6, August, 2008 at 1:28 pm |
From my perspective it seems pretty evident that the British Army needs more troops, more kit and a political leadership better prepared to accept blood on its conscience if it stands a chance of succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quite right. Unless the British Army is prepared to commit massive amounts of troops and resources to supporting the efforts of one gang of semicriminal Iranian-backed Shia militia to recapture an effluent-soaked Mesopotamian slum from another almost indistinguishable gang of semicriminal Iranian-backed Shia militia, in furtherance of an uncertain and nebulous strategic goal, we will continue to be scathingly rude about them.
See how they like that.
Wednesday, 6, August, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
Ajay, you’ll have to forgive me if I am misinterpreting you. My irony-detector is on the blink. This isn’t about Basra, in my opinion. I attended a talk by Gen Dannatt about 18 months ago, possibly as much as two years ago, at which he talked about the difficulty in Iraq of leading the army in an operation which was essentially about withdrawing with dignity and honour intact. He did not mention it but I was reminded at the time of Napoleon’s maxim ‘…a general should regard it as his first to maintain the honour and glory of his arms.’ I thought he had his priorities entirely right.
It’s the honour and dignity of the British Army that is at stake; compared to that I care very little about an ‘effluent-soaked Mesopotamian slum’. That it’s seemingly being drained away in pursuit of an ‘uncertain and nebulous strategic goal’ really pisses me off; it suggests that the government, where I’m fairly certain the decision was taken, (I noted last night Mark Urban on Newsnight coming about as close as a journalist can to saying Des Browne was lying outright) doesn’t have much of a grasp of the importance of or care for either concept.
I’ve got Napoleon on the brain today. He had a simple explanation for why honour mattered: ‘One obtains everything from men by appealing to their state of honour.’ You can see a practical illustration of this in the Army’s recent list of awards for gallantry:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/ForcesHonouredForBraveryAndServiceOnOperations.htm
It is impossible not to be overwhelmed by the bravery and skill of these guys, young people who do get it and put everything on the line for it, like this guy:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/HistoryAndHonour/RoyalMarineReservistToReceiveTheGeorgeCross.htm
Sir John Hackett wrote in The Profession of Arms:
‘What a society gets in its armed services is exactly what it asks for, no more, and no less. What it asks for tends to be a reflection of what it is. When a country looks at its fighting forces it is looking in a mirror; the mirror is a true one and the face that it sees will be its own.’
I don’t think people like everything they see in the mirror. There’s courage and selflessness there, no doubt! But there’s also a frank whiff of cravenness, indecision, strategic lassitude and willingness to sacrifice a hard won and vitally important military tradition to political expediency. It seems to me also that the Army has been whitewater rafting since March-April 2003, just headed downstream holding on to the gunwales or paddling like mad to avoid the next rock, with no eye on the next bend. You can do this for a while but eventually you crash.
So, look, I’m not being scathingly rude about the Army. All right? I’m perfectly happy with cutting deals with insurgents in order to co-opt them, split them, or integrate them in the non-violent political mainstream. That’s COIN 101. But that’s not what this deal was about, IMHO; this was painting lipstick on a pig. It sucks and it won’t wash and it matters because the Army doesn’t draw its morale from one bucket labeled ‘Iraq’ and another one labeled ‘Afghanistan’.