NationStates Jolt Archive

British troops pull out from Basra.
-original title "Bush Furious as British Troops Pull Out of Basra"-

03.09.07
Under cover of darkness, British troops have completed their pull out of their besieged base in central Basra.

The move to the city's airport is the clearest sign yet that Gordon Brown is paving the way for a complete withdrawal from Iraq - and it comes amid American accusations of a British defeat in Basra.

Asked on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme if the move was a "pull-out in defeat... a retreat", Mr Brown said: "Let me make this very clear. This is a pre-planned, and this is an organised move from Basra Palace to Basra Air Station."

As of midday, all Britain's 5,500 troops in Iraq were consolidated in the sprawling base at the airport, itself under daily mortar attack.

Residents said they saw armoured vehicles leaving the palace in the early hours of today. Helicopters also took off and landed during the night. This morning, Iraqi soldiers were on guard outside the main gate into the palace.

People on the streets of Basra cheered the departure of the British.

Sources: Yahoo/Associated Newspapers/BCC/OccNEWS
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23410743-details/Bush+furious+as+British+troops+pull+out+of+Basra/article.do
What I find interesting is the comments from US readers..
Looks like the some are waking up and smelling the coffee.. finally.

This demonstrates the need to stay the course and continue to support Hallibur.... er.... the Iraqi government. :)

This demonstrates the need to stay the course and continue to support Hallibur.... er.... the Iraqi government. :):D

at this point, methinkz we(US) are staying just because we cant stand the thought of the Iraqis welcom.. I mean waving-US-good-bye, with flowers.. cheering and dancing in the streets. etc.

"People on the streets of Basra cheered the departure of the British."

Of course they did. Everyone would cheer the departure of foreign aggressors and occupiers that have thrust their country into a civil war.

Let's see the USA continue not to be able to learn from its copious and moronic fuck-ups and do the same to Iran. Plus ca ne change point...

Let's see the USA continue not to be able to learn from its copious and moronic fuck-ups and do the same to Iran. Plus ca ne change point...

:( Sadly I'm also expecting little learning from mistakes to take place.

What I find interesting is the comments from US readers..
Looks like the some are waking up and smelling the coffee.. finally.this are the 5 comments so far:

Bush has finally met his waterloo. It's all over for Bush. His party is over, it's time for him to pay the karma for his stupidity.
- Bro. John Cosmas Damien, El Paso, TX. U.S.A.

Bush is furious about everything he can't bludgeon into submission. Good going Britain, you have abandoned the Cowboy King!
- Brendan Jones, Omaha, Nebraska

Excellent! The Bush folly should never have been a disaster for England as well. This is one of many Americans to applaud this move out.
- Anon, Prescott, Arizona, USA

Why should Bush be furious? The Brits should feel free to do whatever they feel is in the best interest of their country obviously something Mr. Bush does not care to do himself.
- Sher, USA

Whether for or against the war, it is extremely unwise to leave the country in such chaos. Once you start something you need to finish it.
- Kathleen, Connecticut, USAof course.. these 5 Americans do get theirs news from international sources.. So they are probably not the average American.

but still its 4/5.

I'm glad we (the UK) have pulled out of Basra, it is a lot safer now and the Iraqi military is capable of containing the insurgents withint he city. If they need us they'll call but we can't babysit forever. It isn't defeat it's like a child growing up, finding its identity and doing things for itself. The child being the Iraq defence forces and the parent being the UK. America is too damn frigthened of Iraqi's running around with guns to give them full control over the capital province.

Give it two more years and we'll all be out of there, I hope. Focus attention on the Afghans and other possible war theatres that might crop up in the future (Iran, East Europe if Russia goes crazy, or N. Korea).

... is capable of containing the insurgents withint he city. the insurgent have won.

The sooner we get over it.. the sooner we can leave and turn the page.

The sooner we get over it.. the sooner we can leave and turn the page.

You mean make the same mistakes all over again...

You mean make the same mistakes all over again...*pulls tarot cards and Christal ball*
I see some past mistakes.. I see the war party -and the BIG mass media- going the same path.. all over again.. same blueprints..

can you see?

*pulls tarot cards and Christal ball*
I see some past mistakes.. I see the war party -and the BIG mass media- going the same path.. all over again.. same blueprints..

can you see?

Humans. So predictable.

I'm glad we (the UK) have pulled out of Basra, it is a lot safer now

Don't you mean 'they are a lot safer now'?

Don't you mean 'they are a lot safer now'?once the war is over.. in the long run everybody is safer.

once the war is over.. in the long run everybody is safer.

In the long run, we're all dead ;)

Smart decision on the behalf of the British government.

What I find interesting is the comments from US readers..
Looks like the some are waking up and smelling the coffee.. finally.

What I find interesting is your obviously biased name for the thread as the first thing I read in the article was the people of Iraq calling it a defeat.

In any case, what I find most interesting are the following quotes from the article.

People on the streets of Basra also celebrated the departure of the British.
"We reject any strangers and they are colonialists," said Rudha Muter. "We are pleased that the Iraqi army are now taking over the situation - we as an Iraqi people reject occupation, we reject colonialism - we want our freedom."
Colonel Bob Stewart, who led UK forces in Bosnia, told GMTV that critics of the approach "may be right" because Basra is still "lawless" after four years of British occupation.
Asked if the Iraqis would be able to take control of Basra, he said: "I don't think so."
"The Iraqi security forces want to take full responsibility for their own security ... The decision is an Iraqi-led initiative and is part of a Coalition-endorsed process.

It will be very interesting to see what happens next. If the Iraq Army is able to control the area, maybe that will accelerate the pull out of coalition forces.
If not...can anyone say Vietnam? :mad:

What I find interesting is your obviously biased name for the thread...some posters will say "## is biased".. no matter what I put on the tittle.. No sweat, I am used to it.

Its like IDF (and others like him) sooner or later they will godwhin "## is a nazi/anti-semite/commie/fascist/etc"

Don't you mean 'they are a lot safer now'?

Cast your mind back to 2003, back then there was this small war involving the USA and UK vs. Iraq. Now i'm not the worlds biggest expert but last time I checked war was pretty damn dangerous. After the war the insurgents were very dangerous. Now in the present day the insurgents' numbers and willingness to fight have sharply fallen. It is safer now for a British rifleman to walk down a road in Basra than it was several months ago.

Cast your mind back to 2003, back then there was this small war involving the USA and UK vs. Iraq. Now i'm not the worlds biggest expert but last time I checked war was pretty damn dangerous. After the war the insurgents were very dangerous. Now in the present day the insurgents' numbers and willingness to fight have sharply fallen. It is safer now for a British rifleman to walk down a road in Basra than it was several months ago.#1 methinkz stats reflecting the number of US/UK KIAs will prove you rite or wrong. (probably wrong)

#2 What do you mean "After the War..." ???

FYI The "mission accomplished" banner-on-a-Carrier was just Bushite delusion. The war is not over yet.. almost over but still going.

hmmm, while i think its a not-so-subtle votewinner for PM Brown, and i believe you should stay and clear up the mess you made, part of me is glad... not a part of me i'm too proud of, mind. i just don't want to see this Iraq war issue damage Brown like it did Blair, and for it to play into the hands of the Tories...

#2 What do you mean "After the War..." ???

The Iraqi army surrendered. Enough said, war over. Counter-insurgency is completely different to a war, not much, but it is very different.

EDIT: prove me right or wrong? watch the news every now and again. One ordinary patrol on the street and then... BANG... roadside bomb, three dead, several wounded. Been happening since the end of the war.

I'm probably wrong here, but isn't the situation quite a bit different between Basra and Baghdad? Basra is far more homogenised Shia than Baghdad so that most of the agression is people attacking the British not each other. So in Baghdad the best way to keep the peace is to throw loads of troops at it to keep the two factions off each others throats, whereas down south it makes more sense to do what the Coalition has been promising all along, and "stand down while the Iraqis stand up" or whatever it was.

I think the big problem for Bush is that he's seen just how radicalised Shia the south is becoming and he wants somehow to change it at the point of a British bayonet. Which needless to say is not what the British signed up for.

EDIT: prove me right or wrong? Dude.. in your imagination "the war is over and we (US) won"

I am not even going to waste time -anyfurther- pulling KIA stats for you.. you are beyond any concept of reasoning or logical though.

What I find interesting is the comments from US readers..
Looks like the some are waking up and smelling the coffee.. finally.

Well, that's good.

Dude.. in your imagination "the war is over and we (US) won"

I am not even going to waste time -anyfurther- pulling KIA stats for you.. you are beyond any concept of reasoning or logical though.


Oh my God! Your arguement is thin! The US won the war, last i checked two nations were in this fight and if you wanna ignore the KIA statistics for after the fighting between the allies and the Iraqis then fine. But that is deluded, men, good men, died at the hands of the Iraqi army and then after the surrender, to unprffessional insurgents made up of the odd iraqi soldier and civilians.

You haven't stated your point very well. People die during wars and after them.

Oh my God! Your arguement is thin! The US won the war.I am not arguing with you.. -If you havent noticed yet- I have refused to prove you wrong.. I have refused to argue with you..

I reserve myself the right to stop arguing with anyone that I consider a not worthed of my time. The jury is out.. and there is no appeal procedure, sorry.

Well, that's good.yes, it is encouraging.

Oh my God! Your arguement is thin! The US won the war, last i checked two nations were in this fight and if you wanna ignore the KIA statistics for after the fighting between the allies and the Iraqis then fine. But that is deluded, men, good men, died at the hands of the Iraqi army and then after the surrender, to unprffessional insurgents made up of the odd iraqi soldier and civilians.

You haven't stated your point very well. People die during wars and after them.

Two nations were involved in this fight?

An owl picture is due here, with the obvious statement of O RLY!?

Because you're more wrong than you could ever be. Last I recall, a few dozen countries were involved in this war and most of them, with a single exception, still call it the Iraq war..

After the war the insurgents were very dangerous. Now in the present day the insurgents' numbers and willingness to fight have sharply fallen. It is safer now for a British rifleman to walk down a road in Basra than it was several months ago.


I am very glad you are not a British Army Commander, because you quite obviously do not have any idea about the reality of the situation of the ground in Iraq, let alone Basra.


In early 2003, UK troops walked around in berets on the streets of Basra.

In 2007, UK troops rode in Warrior Armoured Vehicles and most certainly wearing helmets.


Your 'observation', or rather lack of it, is back to front. In fact, I would dare say you probably dress back to front and have your breakfast for supper.

Armchair generals are all well and good dear fellow, but there's a jolly good reason they are Armchair generals and you have very frankly given an example why.


It's a defeat, but it was a defeat as soon as the whole illegal enterprise began. Best not to prolong it.


Basra waved the British troops out, not with fondness, but relief.


And the British military has finally realised that arming and training the Iraqi police and military is more or less arming and training insurgents.


Why?


Because Iraqis can not accept being invaded and occupied, and their infrastructure blasted to smithereens, after years of inhumane sanctions which amounted to a siege.



Now, you may find that strange and peculiar that Iraqis do not just lie down and welcome be invaded, but I for one can perfectly understand why, in consideration of that, Iraqis become insurgents, and for sympathisers from other countries do as well.

Let's see the USA continue not to be able to learn from its copious and moronic fuck-ups and do the same to Iran. Plus ca ne change point...

Thank goodness we're not going to attack Iran.

Surely this is not a surprise to observers of UK national politics??

Brown is paving the way out...he has to. At this moment his premiership rests on what happens in Iraq. He has to fight an election soon; within 18 months I believe. So he is running out of time and needs to avoid getting sucked into the quagmire. Bush is irrelevant to Brown with regard to Iraq because Bush will not be around after 2008. If he is then Brown still made a wise decision.

This moving of UK troops to the airport is not a surprise move. It was bound to happen. Is it a defeat? Maybe, maybe not. Either way the UK presence was never going to be as huge a success as people proclaimed. The reason is as plain as the nose on your face.

So these troops will gradually reduce in numbers...but guess what? They will be rotated to Afghanistan.

Now for a real fact...the British Army is fux03d. Its running out of experienced combat soldiers.



Daily Hansard - Westminster Hall

30 Jan 2007 : Column 34WH


Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD)

...
I will talk mainly about overstretch, but will also cover other issues. Despite denials from the Ministry of Defence, it is clear that our armed forces in general and the Army in particular are overstretched. The National Audit Office says that our armed forces are about 5,000 below strength, which is about 2.8 per cent. That has roughly been the case during the past five years as the armed forces have been operating above predicted deployment levels. During the past five years, some 14.5 per cent. of soldiers have been sent on missions more frequently than recommended by harmony guidelines. Medical services have been the worst hit, with reservists filling 66 per cent. of vacant accident and emergency department and intensive therapy nurses posts.

Figures from the Defence Analytical Services Agency show that approximately 14,500 personnel left the Army in 2006. Many left before their period of engagement was up. They blamed too many deployments and the impact on their families. The retention crisis has led to some of our most skilled and experienced soldiers quitting the Army. Shorter gaps between tours of duty, and concerns about kit, and pay and allowances are starting to hit morale and put further pressure on service families. Those factors contribute to poor retention levels.

The Defence Committee has said that personnel shortages are creating a “clear danger” and that the military will be unable to maintain its commitments in the near future. With major deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans, and forces working in a total of 28 countries—already alluded to earlier in this debate—the Committee found that the services were operating

“in insufficient numbers and without the equipment they need”.

We have heard much about General Sir Richard Dannatt, but it is worth considering that in saying that relations between the armed forces and the Government could be undermined if current levels of commitment were maintained, he said that he was

“reflecting a view widely held in the armed services”.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070130/halltext/70130h0006.htm

Oh my God! Your arguement is thin! The US won the war, last i checked two nations were in this fight and if you wanna ignore the KIA statistics for after the fighting between the allies and the Iraqis then fine. But that is deluded, men, good men, died at the hands of the Iraqi army and then after the surrender, to unprffessional insurgents made up of the odd iraqi soldier and civilians.

You haven't stated your point very well. People die during wars and after them.

Sir. Thou art a maroon. Doth thou say fair Britain is no longer sovereign?

I mean for fucks sake dude....wtf is this fucking thread about???

:headbang:

Doesn't having the opposing army surrender generally count as a victory?

Not in asymmetric warfare no.

Dude.. in your imagination "the war is over and we (US) won"

I am not even going to waste time -anyfurther- pulling KIA stats for you.. you are beyond any concept of reasoning or logical though.

Doesn't having the opposing army surrender generally count as a victory?

yes, it is encouraging.

Indeed.

Thank goodness we're not going to attack Iran.

Sure, you aren't. Just like you wouldn't elect Bush for the first time the second time around.

You are not a peace-loving people. You crave your wars.

Cast your mind back to 2003, back then there was this small war involving the USA and UK vs. Iraq. Now i'm not the worlds biggest expert but last time I checked war was pretty damn dangerous. After the war the insurgents were very dangerous. Now in the present day the insurgents' numbers and willingness to fight have sharply fallen. It is safer now for a British rifleman to walk down a road in Basra than it was several months ago.

....Wonder why they stopped the foot patrols a while back then....And why did they have to do a few deals with locals? The fun of it?
The Basra palace had come under near daily rocket and mortar fire from Shia militias until the British troops released about 30 gunmen a few months ago and spread the word that they would soon withdraw.

The British forces' ability to control events in Basra waned in recent years as the militias rose in power.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2161449,00.html


A senior Iraqi security official told a US newspaper that the transfer of Mahdi army prisoners had been agreed between the British and Iraqi authorities to buy peace as UK forces finally withdrew. According to one Basra prisoner in contact with a British lawyer, six of those freed by mid-August under a deal approved by Major General Jonathan Shaw, commander of UK forces, were "grade A terrorists".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,2159621,00.html

This individual doesnt seem to think as you do either, for some reason....
Former Foreign Office official Rory Stewart, who served as deputy governor of two southern Iraqi provinces from 2003 to 2004, told the BBC's Have Your Say programme that "we simply do not have any control over southern Iraq and that has been the situation in my mind for about two-and-a-half years now".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6975375.stm

You might explain your apparent conflict with reality....

To admit defeat is to blaspheme against G. W. Bush!

wtf is this fucking thread about???

:headbang:Its was supposed to be about the article, Brit Gov finally doing what any democratic Gov would do, and the US reactions.. and our reactions.

but this is a ## thread.. so you should expect some evolution and some revolution.. fun fun fun :D

Surely this is not a surprise to observers of UK national politics??of course not.
as matter of fact, the UK Gov was way overdue.

Its was supposed to be about the article, Brit Gov finally doing what any democratic Gov would do, and the US reactions.. and our reactions.

but this is a ## thread.. so you should expect some evolution and some revolution.. fun fun fun :D

That the bloke (or blokess) said that only Iraq and the US were involved...in a thread with an OP about the UK forces who have been involved in Iraq since like for fucking forever...it really staggers belief...I actually felt my IQ lower when I read the post in question...

Luckily I had Mr. Mill's On Liberty at hand ;)

Sir. Thou art a maroon. Doth thou say fair Britain is no longer sovereign?

I mean for fucks sake dude....wtf is this fucking thread about???

:headbang:That the bloke (or blokess) said that only Iraq and the US were involved...in a thread with an OP about the UK forces who have been involved in Iraq since like for fucking forever...it really staggers belief...I actually felt my IQ lower when I read the post in question...

Luckily I had Mr. Mill's On Liberty at hand ;)ok, I get it.
you meant to say "wtf is this fucking Post about???"

and yes.. after reading his post my IQ was damaged too :D

ok, I get it.
you meant to say "wtf is this fucking Post about???"

and yes.. after reading his post my IQ was damaged too :D

Scary huh?

Scary huh?yeah, and it tests my patience..

Looks like Bush's coalition of willing is going be look even smaller, with everyone abandoning him except his best friend Johnny Howard.

[QUOTE=
Because Iraqis can not accept being invaded and occupied, and their infrastructure blasted to smithereens, after years of inhumane sanctions which amounted to a siege.[/QUOTE]

Find me one country that can appreciate this, look at what happened after 9/11, an attack that lasted one day and the US found enemies everywhere even at home. In Iraq They are already busy for 4 years, I would get a bit annoyed at the destruction of life and home. Even if you call it an application of democracy.

Looks like Bush's coalition of willing is going be look even smaller, with everyone abandoning him except his best friend Johnny Howard.
Lol, while it may seem like Australia is a good ally of the US in Iraq, in reality we only have about a few thousand troops in Iraq, in the most stable part of the country, we haven't suffered a single combat casualty, and basically just sit in our bases except for the rare patrol. Our support is token only.

Lol, while it may seem like Australia is a good ally of the US in Iraq, in reality we only have about a few thousand troops in Iraq, in the most stable part of the country, we haven't suffered a single combat casualty, and basically just sit in our bases except for the rare patrol. Our support is token only.

I thought that was few hundred! I think we have less than 1000 troops in the Middle East. Bush needs Howard's support because other world leaders prefer they not to get trapped on the bog created by Bush and company.

yeah, and it tests my patience..

Yeah. I don't mind opposing viewpoints as long as there is some intelligent thought in those views...