It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Britain suffered defeat in Iraq, says US general

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:29 AM

Britain suffered defeat in Iraq, says US general

The British army suffered defeat in Iraq when it pulled out of Basra, a senior American general has argued.

UK forces left the city in 2007, leaving the people to be "terrorised", key White House adviser Gen Jack Keane told the BBC.

Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the withdrawal at the time as "a pre-planned and organised move".

The former UK commander in southern Iraq said his actions were constrained by political considerations.
(visit the link for the full news article)

+8 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:29 AM
You know what? Considering a lot of our UK boys died over in Iraq, far too many at the hands of American friendly fire, and all in a cause created by the U.S. administration, I think these generals ought to shut the hell up.

It was an illegal war, and one that Tony B.Liar got us into because of his mental 'Christian' fundamentalist views (the new crusades). Never the less our lads fought the good fight, and pulled out in an organised and relaxed fashion when ordered to. Why were they ordered to? Because the British public was in open revolt about the fact that the Iraq war was illegal and that we had been lied to.

The American generals are shouting "YAH-BOO!!!!" because we're no longer there. Shut up you moronic, insensitive, ignorant fools.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 07:45 AM
I cannot speak on behalf of the two former commissioned colleagues that were operational in Basra at the time, but it was not just main-stream news that run with the allegations that friendly fire was a huge, huge problem from the U.S.

It's widely accepted in NATO forces, specifally, that U.S. forces while also doing some admirable peace-keeping work on the ground during this illegal invasion, were notorious for firing on friendlies. In 2005 U.S. troops had to be 'trained to avoid firing on friendly forces' in Basra.

I've always been told that we were substantially short on numbers going into Basra, and that we weren't meant to be there for that long, so it doesn't surprise me that we suffered some of biggest losses there.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:03 AM

Originally posted by BAZ752
It's widely accepted in NATO forces, specifally, that U.S. forces while also doing some admirable peace-keeping work on the ground during this illegal invasion, were notorious for firing on friendlies. In 2005 U.S. troops had to be 'trained to avoid firing on friendly forces' in Basra.

This is deeply saddening. Allies aren't allied when they operate like this - this is just disrespectful.


posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:04 AM
Erm, OK. Wow.

That's one way to say thank you to British forces, in the most non-suave and insulting manner. But, to be frank, I could not care less what the American military hierarchy thinks. I conclude the establishment, in the United States, now represents the arrogance of the Obama presidency and the egotistic, self confident and obnoxious attitude that is associated to him.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:21 AM

It was an illegal war, and one that Tony B.Liar got us into because of his mental 'Christian' fundamentalist views (the new crusades).

(sigh) doesnt surprise me. Another thread using greed, corruption, and war to demonize religion and mostly, Christianity.

This is what they want the masses to believe to incite hate. You obviously bought into it.

Tony Blair and the US admin didnt go to war over "Christian fundamentalist views" they went to war over greed for land, resources, and overall power in which gained a strategic military position in the Middle East.

Get a clue and stop being so naive.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:26 AM
This is total BS!! The facts are that the British Army completed their tasks more quickly and with a reduced casualty rate in comparrison to the Americans in Baghdad.... The fact that we shouldnt have been there in the first place is without question.. But we did all that was expected of us and in a more timely and effecient manner than the yanks could ever hope to achieve!!

As for blue on blues (friendly fire).. I myself have been victim to that in the first gulf war and then even on a live exercise in America.... They are trigger happy lunatics whose quality is the very worst... Sweeping statement I know, but generally true none the less.. Hence why Baghdad is still in turmoil years later... I think there is a jeleosy issue here, that whilst British troops are under equipt they are still better trained all round soldiers compared to their American counterparts, and are still regarded as the best army in the world...

Bring them home.. Why should my countrymen die for their interests???

edit on 29-9-2010 by Yissachar1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:28 AM
To say that we suffered a defeat is a gross misinterpretation, you’d hope that someone reaching the rank of General would have the brain cells to realise this, unless he was being deliberately provocative. The attitude of the leadership in Basra was rather uppity and defeatist, they never escaped the mindset that they knew better than everyone else. Those in Baghdad and elsewhere however (
), were enthusiastic, aggressive, optimistic and keen to get out there and work.

By 2007, Basra palace (British HQ in Basra) was like a homing beacon for militia, the presence of British soldiers was causing considerable unrest. April saw one of the last main operations in Basra, a large SAS-edged assault deep into a militia hotbed, essentially saying “come out and have a go if you think you’re hard enough”. They killed just over two dozen militia without suffering losses, though it didn’t have any noticeable effect and if anything the violence got worse. The palace suffered near-perpetual mortar fire and every logistics team would have Wild-West style running gunfights on supply routes.

I don’t know precisely why we withdrew, I believe that the effect British soldiers were having was weighed up against the risk of soldiers operating there. It is quite evident that our presence was not calming the area down, no matter how many militia were killed, and obviously there was a huge risk to British soldiers which had to be justified. If the Basra leadership had a better mindset then they could have sorted it out, but I guess they put British lives first and that sits fine with me.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 08:45 AM
I believe it was this incident which sparked the immense anti-British movement in Basra:

If there’s any interest I can explain the truth behind this incident in full, needless to say that they weren’t planning a terrorist attack.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:07 AM
reply to post by Soshh

People use the incident as evidence of the British engaged in divide and rule please explain what happened.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:07 AM
Yeah, I agree. I don't think it is considered defeat if a country rallies around bringing their troops home because they never agreed with the pretexts of the war. Britain didn't suffer defeat, the citizens pulled the troops out to get them home. I'll count that as a win for the people, not a loss for the military. Shut up! You bloody scar-faced U.S. General from Avatar!

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:10 AM
reply to post by Parallex

I love these US Generals trying to deflect from their own miserable failures. So the British lost in Iraq, and the Americans did not?

Hmm let's see. Shia insurgents, undefeated, now helping to govern Baghdad when it was realised by the US and UK they could not be defeated, Sunni insurgents paid to not kill US Soldiers and free to govern their neighbourhoods as they too could not be defeated, and other Iraqi insurgents still carrying out various attacks.

So if the insurgents are undefeated, where does that leave the US administrations and it's Generals?

Oh dear.

Nevermind, I'm sure Afghanistan will be a push-over in comparison.....oh. Whoops.

I'm sure er, Iran will be a push-over......oh. Oh dear.

Victory has many fathers. Defeat is an orphan. And these Generals and Bush and Obama don't want to be revealed as the fathers of that defeat so they blame the partner in crime instead.

The British governments lost the war, sure. But they lost because the American governments lost the war too, and they were the senior partner in crime, with Blair as sidekick.

And they lost because Iraqis rose up and decided they did not want their country invaded and occupied as a result of a war of aggression for geopolitical, geostrategical and materialistic gains.

How very inconvenient.

edit on 29-9-2010 by Regensturm because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:12 AM
If it's any consolation, America lost in Iraq and is still losing in Afghanistan.

But, don't tell that to the trigger-happy, soldier-sniffing crowd in this country.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 09:54 AM
reply to post by INQUISITION11

I did say “in full” so it will be a large post but I will try and leave out any superfluous information.

As part of an MI6 (SIS - I’ll call them MI6 to avoid confusion) agent-running operation, several SAS men were drafted in to act as escorts for MI6 operatives meeting sources. The SAS presence was designated Operation Hathor. As time went on this detachment increased in size, they began to advance from their baby-sitting role and used intelligence gathered from their MI6 colleagues to launch raids. The Operation Hathor detachment would eventually grow into “Task Force Spartan” but that occurred after the incident.

Intelligence found that the local police force, based at the Jamiat police station, was corrupt and militia-infiltrated beyond belief. They were carrying out assassinations and kidnappings as well as other activities that you wouldn’t expect from an effective policing unit. The first thought was to storm the police station and lift the head of the police force, Captain Jafar. This was deemed too risky and extremely politically sensitive, so instead it was decided that they would trail Jafar, map out his normal movements and lift him somewhere quiet and out of the way.

There were 2 cars involved in the undercover operation and it was eventually decided that they had enough information to capture Jafar in the way that they intended. However, one car had aroused suspicion and on their way back they were stopped at a checkpoint. A policeman opened the car door and tried to pull the driver out, who killed him and injured several others at the checkpoint before speeding away. Their car was locally bought and as terrible as it looked and they eventually decided that they couldn’t escape the police in pursuit, so they lay down their weapons and were captured and beaten up etc.

Fortunately unbeknownst to the police, the other car was involved in the chase and was able to trail the captured soldiers back to the Jamiat police station before returning to Basra palace with the bad news. A cordon of soldiers from the Staffordshire Regiment was formed around the general area (it was these soldiers who were seen on fire in media reports) and a predator drone was dispatched by JSOC but it would take several hours to arrive. A Sea King helicopter was eventually on the scene and saw people being moved into the police station with RPGs and other such gear; basically they were preparing for an attack.

It is assumed that the police and militia elements eventually decided that they were out of their depth, and they moved the soldiers to a house on the outskirts of town. A scuffle outside the station caught the eye of an observer on the Sea King, which followed the captives to the house. There was concern that the soldiers were being handed over to a militia group for execution and the (unauthorised) decision was made to storm that house. A noisy and excessively violent assault spearheaded by Challenger 2s and Warriors was made on the Jamiat station itself, but this was mainly a diversion to misdirect media attention. The SAS assault on the house with the captives inside found that they were alone in a locked room. There are many theories as to why the militia decided to leave them alone but they made the right decision none the less. I hope that this was a enlightening and enjoyable read for you.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 10:37 AM
Quite frankly, I care not a jot what some General says, and nor do I care if we were "defeated"

The only thing I care about is that our troops are out of this illegal war.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 11:35 AM
I know I MIGHT be breaking the rules here...

What on Earth happened to the OP?

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 12:49 PM
I remember how difficult the British found it to control Basra, but I don't know if it's fair to say they did a poor job, quite the contrary.

The RAF in GW1 however was a different story. From the inability of the Tornado F.3 to be forward deployed because of inadequate systems (not to mention inferior performance to the Iraqi fighters) to the critical losses incurred by the Tornado force and the use of the highly questionable Hunting JP233 runway attack munition, the RAF's story in Iraq was not a good one, the ground forces performed much better, especially the Challenger tank units.

The RAFs poor performance appears to have continued in Afghanistan. One story that leaked out related to certain British ground units requesting assistance from US and not RAF close air support aircraft, including one incident where a female RAF Harrier pilot was unable to identify a ground target that was subsequently attacked and destroyed by a US aircraft.

The UK's forces are criminally under-funded, and many of their weapons systems are either outdated or generally sub-par, witness the fact that the RAF has already been forced cannibalize 3 Tranche 1 Typhoons for spares not to mention the essentially unarmed Type 45 destroyer. In my opinion however, their ground forces do a good job.

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 01:48 PM
Can no one spread the word without contempt? I thank the OP for bringing this story into the light, but you could have done so a little more eloquently.

Name calling is not the best way to push your point across the table.

And the fact that many of our British brothers were KIA by friendly fire is a very saddening thought, just as sad as them being there in the first place.

You say the war is illegal, but what war isn't? Is there a war that you would support? If your nation, presumably the UK, were attacked, perish the thought, would you then feel a war was justified? Does it have to come to that?

I guess if something like that were to happen, there would be conspiracy theories running rampant (i.e. Pearl Harbor).

Again, thank you for the story.


posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Soshh
I hope that this was a enlightening and enjoyable read for you.
Yes that was both enlightening and enjoyable to read.

I was wondering what really happened.

Thank you!

posted on Sep, 29 2010 @ 04:26 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

No problem mate, thanks for highlighting that grammatical error by the way!

General Jack Keane was interviewed for 'Secret Iraq' which was on tonight at 9 on BBC2. Did anyone watch it? If you missed it then I recommend hunting for the repeat. It's a two-part documentary and I assume that the next one is on the same time next week. It told the story of the rise of the insurgency in Iraq and by astonishing coincidence it included the Jamiat incident towards the end.

Though the story was told from a different perspective and they didn’t give you anything juicy like I did

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in