The same tactics that reduced violence in Baghdad are bringing progress to Basra

See this report from the New York Times.

Comments

[Andrew Spencer]

It is good that the training of the Iraqi Army appears to be paying off but it is a pity that the citizens of Basra have had to wait another year before this sort of 'Surge' was attempted. Had the Iraqi 10th Division been able to act in conjunction with British forces last year then maybe things would have got better sooner.

Having said that, part of the reason the US surge in Baghdad was able to achieve so much last year was because the Mahdi Army (JAM) was on ceasefire. Taking on Moktada al-Sadr earlier might have made US gains in Baghdad impossible were they forced to fight the JAM and al-Qaeda in Iraq simultaneously.

The sad thing is that material support for the southern 'surge' is coming from the Americans rather than the British. Apart from the training (for which far fewer troops would be needed), there seems to be little purpose in having 4,000 troops in Basra other than simply waiving the flag as a face-saving exercise for the Americans.

ironically, our presence there is damaging relations with the Americans as it simply reminds them of our failure in southern Iraq. If the government no longer has the stomach for the fight in Iraq (which sadly it doesn't seem to), then the 4,000 British troops in Iraq would be far better deployed to Afghanistan where troops are so desparately needed.

[Steevo]

Andrew, the American soldier understands the separation of Brit policy with respect to the soldier on the ground. I have not read one report, on the ground, from our non-commissioned officers and rank and file troops criticizing the Brit soldier's abilities. Not one. Those I have read have, concerning bravery and competence in the midst of battle have been of expectation and praise.

You have to deal with your own nation.

[Andrew Spencer]

Steevo,

I'm really glad to hear that. I would not for a moment criticise the behaviour of British troops on the ground, the problem is not them but the lack of political will shown by the British Government and, to a lesser extent, by the top brass. The Government and many high up in the British Army are desparate to get out of Iraq and deploy to the 'good' war in Afghanistan. This failure of political will has meant that British troops on the ground have not been able to carry out an effective policy in southern Iraq. It is this, not the behaviour of British troops, which has damaged relations with the Americans, as the comments by McCain and several US generals suggest.

[Steevo]

Yes but that's political and disagreement with your higher-ups. I don't mean to undermine your feelings but I say big deal. Its just like how many of our conservatives can continue to admire Blair in spite of trying to micro manage events on the ground. It means nothing one way or the other with respect to perception of your young men and women.

BTW your forces provided some very necessary logistical support in this latest operation.

[Andrew Spencer]

Yes, I know we provided some logistical support but from what I gather we were rather frozen out of discussions between The US and Iraqi Government on Maliki's instructions.

It's good that events in Iraq havn't affected relations between the US and British troops and I think that on a fundamental level we remain the closest of allies. However, on a more temporary basis, I think there is little doubt that the Brown government as damaged relations with the upper echalons of the US government and military. Hopefully, this will soon be water under the bridge.

[niconoclast]

It would appear that muslims hate one another even more than they hate America.Shouldn't their internicine strife be encouraged.Let them raize each other's mosques to the ground.Self immolation seems to be an Arab/muslim thing.Let them bring about their own final solution.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"However, on a more temporary basis, I think there is little doubt that the Brown government as damaged relations with the upper echalons of the US government and military. Hopefully, this will soon be water under the bridge.

Posted by: Andrew Spencer | May 12, 2008 at 17:15"

Andrew : I think that you will find that the media, for ever looking for bad news headlines on Iraq, is the party really responsible for stirring up discontent between British and USA forces, most of which I doubt actually exists. Last time McCain was here he praised the part played by British military in Iraq. A read of "Foreign Fields" will reveal the great effort played by our troops and the cooperation with USA forces.
In the early days Basra was subdued, quiet, friendly, and, effectively under British control. USA forces met with greater opposition in Baghdad. This led to Max Hastings jumping to the wrong conclusion and stirring things up by implying that British tactics were superior to American.

Basra changed: infrastructure problems, a legacy from the days of Saddam could not be corrected overnight. Insurgents were paid good money to attack British Forces and they, the militants, were inflamed by clerics, Iran being thought to be a malign supporting, logistic influence. The appearance of British patrols in Basra was like waving a red flag to a bull. It was decided to regroup the army on the airport base and to assist the Iraqi army and police (thought more acceptable to the inhabitants of the area) to return Basra to a more peaceful condition. It would appear that that strategy is now paying off. It should be remembered that British troops previously in Basra had been deployed to Afghanistan, where it was thought the need was greatest.
The usual suspects, the newspaper and electronic media, are the probable cause behind any alleged strain in relations.
It was ever thus and in WW2 things were just the same, although some of the generals contributed with a clash of their of egos as to who was right and wrong on strategy - Montgomery and Clarke for instance. Forget the media squabbles. We have to work together to get the job done.