BBC: Basra Progress "Staggering"

Gee, how did this happen. I thought this war had been lost? Looks as though Bush's surge the current POTUS didn't support was the right idea.

Maj Head, 40, was commanding B Company from 1st Battalion, The Light Infantry.

"It's quite staggering," he says, removing his hard helmet and replacing it with his Army beret and looking around warily.

"We used to patrol through here in a Warrior [infantry armoured fighting vehicle] and you wouldn't have worn a beret then.

"Most of us wouldn't have come here then except in 6 Warriors with 55 heavily-armoured blokes in the back, and even then we'd be twitchy."

As we walk through the market, attracting a crowd of rowdy children, Maj Head laughs incredulously.

"This is a quantum leap forward. The biggest problem I have here now is small children trying to nick my pen and sunglasses.

Comments

[SacTownMan]

I guess I should exprect to see this story in my morning paper tomorrow right Dan?

Well at least it will be on MSNBC or CNN tonight!

What did you say? "When pigs fly!"

How enchanting!

[IslamoLlama]

Clearly the terrorists have been emboldened since Obama took office.

[Lala]

Yes, shame about Pakistan.

[Steven Den Beste]

The thing that's sad about that article is that the main reason it got so bad in Basra was because the Brits refused to try to take out the Sadr militia, who moved into Basra and started running it according to Iranian-style Islamic law.

Oddly enough, in the long run that's going to be a benefit because now the Iraqis have seen what would happen if they let Iranian puppets take control. Even the Shiites don't want that. But if the Brits had been willing to engage the Sadr militia the way the Americans took on al Qaeda In Iraq it wouldn't have gotten so ugly in Basra.

It took the surge to straighten that out, but it was mostly Iraqi army units which did what was needed: move in, engage the militias, actively try to kill them, and accept that doing this will result in friendly losses.

The Brits were a lot more helpful than some of our "allies", and did commit troops at least, but they were more risk averse than I would have liked and in the end their attempts to hold down their own casualties led to the whole place being a lot more dangerous -- to the Brits, and to everyone else -- than if they had gone in and fought it out.

So there's a dark and ironic undertone to this BBC article. It describes how Basra has improved. But if the British had continued to have their way, it wouldn't have improved.

[Lala]

Truth is beautiful.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- The thing that's sad about that article is that the main reason it got so bad in Basra was because the Brits refused to try to take out the Sadr militia, who moved into Basra and started running it according to Iranian-style Islamic law. --"

All this time, I thought the reason it got so bad in Basra was because the United States invaded the country on the false pretense of hunting for nuclear weapons. Then Republican administrators swept in, decapitated the Iraqi Government, and left Sunni and Shi'ite rival factions to pick over the scraps left behind.

Turns out the entire Iraq War would have worked out just fine if the Brits had blown up a few more buildings in Basra. Then the Sadr militias - a group of religious locals wrangling for political power with the new federal government - would have gone the way of Al Qaida in Iraq - a series of terrorist cells composed primarily of Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians sponsored by foreign governments. (Also, Pro tip: Al Qaida in Iraq? Marginalized [but not removed] by another series of local militias commonly refered to as the "Sons of Iraq" whom occupied the opposite political spectrum of the Sadrists, and who are now wrangling for power with the federal government, much like the Sadrists.)

So there's a dark and ironic undertone in Steven Den Beste's response, in that he doesn't appear to have any idea what was going on in Iraq currently or at any time in the past.

[Mickey C]

IslamoLlama, you remind me of the child who has shown his Mother only the parts of his report card that he wishes her to see, while leaving out much of the more "inconvenient" information that would reveal the darker, and therefore, more stark portrait of his overall endeavors.

No one is blaming Britain for the 'level' of her involvement or for the job she did while in-theatre. Though the fact remains that in a great many situations, Basra included; the Brits did only that which they felt needed to be done, and with as little fanfare and direct fighting as possible. Such was the political climate in both Britain and the US, from the top down, and from which, were our orders first digested, regurgitated, and then sent forth.

When they did fight, they did so to the best of their ability, and, may I say, showed themselves to be quite skilled, dedicated and brave.

The poster who first brought this subject matter into view, frankly; offered up a no less, nor any more narrow based viewpoint than you did. His was simply a pro-US opinion based on perceptions derived (no doubt)from a variety of sources. Still; his viewpoint was no more a nuanced view of what really took place than was yours - all things considered of course.

Where you seemed to veer off course, (for me anyway), was when you forgot to mention that not only was it the US who had spent umteen years garnering intelligence that clearly supported the idea and liklihood of Saddam having secret nuclear weapons. But you also seemed to dismiss the very real possibility that he had enough contacts in the so-called "nuclear underworld trade" necessary to ramp up that capability whenever he chose to.

Our now much maligned "intelligence" agencies who formulated the basis for the action we took, in what the world now looks at with a scornful eye, were, in fact, joined by a majority of credible intel agencies around the world in coming to the same conclusion we reached concerning Mr. Hussein and the others in his employ. This included Britain, France, Germany, Israel, Russia, and a number of others who all did yeomans work in sussing out what they thought was really happening under the Saddam regime.

Perhaps, next time, in your haste to fault only us, you could be a bit more genteel in your criticism and include your own governmental agencies as well for "invading under false pretenses."

I shall hold my breath waiting for that moment.

[SacTownMan]

"I shall hold my breath waiting for that moment."

Sorry that's not allowed in the Astroturfing handbook and Uncle George would cut off the paychecks!

Lame-O does have a fixation on a testicular cleansing ritual that may require a certain ability to hold one's breath for a while though!

Years of inbreeding have caused a certain troll to be unable to turn down the hate meter!

Rest assured "it" will drop another "Shorter Dan" verbal diarrhea moonbat rant anytime now!

If it wasn't for Lame-O's Daily Koz talking points we wouldn't have get to hear from the "half-witted" community now would we?