It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

US requests UK forces backup

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
US forces have requested that the UK back them up in taking back the city of falluja, a strong hold for insurgents.
The sooner we get control of iraq the better, its really only a matter of time before the city of falluja is taken back either by a more careful approach by the brits or the all out fire power by u yankees.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:09 PM
link   
another mess to help clean up



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   
What they will be needing to know is that if they do there under American control and not many of Britain’s forces will like that. Also I think if we did Britain will be loosing more forces lives if we joined the Americans but if we did I think also we should be able to run things for our selves.

[edit on 16/10/2004 by SE7EN]



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 08:34 PM
link   
To an extent I agree that a UK force if its deployed needs a degree of Independence (I know UK Forces are in the Basra region)

But in an nationwide operation by something like 180,000 multinational troops predominately US, a co-ordinating command and control structure is need to avoid true chaos (as opposed to the media and web inspired one).

As "majority shareholder" thats a legitimate US claim.

From what I have heard (and basically everything repeated here is what we have all heard and chosen to accept each to thier own PoV) the Brits own approach to ops have led to a lower UK death toll and relatively quieter operational zone around Basra....compared to American zones.

The Australian Army Task Force Vietnam was said to have had a similar experience after Tet in 1968 through to the 1972 withdrawal, with thier own zone around Nui Dat supposedly getting quieter following the crushing of most Viet Cong and NVA activity and a well implemented hearts and minds campaign that well suited some of the more laid back approach of Australians. I know I know.....lies and sterotypes of the right historians and observers. I am sure what some would call those of the left have thier own views on this.

The thing was we were under American control in Vietnam and our troops still managed to maintain a degree of independence and action that won it some credit.

So do the Brits.

When Australia led the UN Mission to East Timor post election we got the job for several reasons. Besides combatant Indonesia we were the closest, We provided the vast majority of the troops, and we were probably the most motivated and professional available and willing to do the task.

When the INTERFET mission was tranfered to a new UN Command and Australian numbers declined (we only have a limited surge capacity) Command was handed over to one of our regional neighbours, Thailand I think. With Aus troops under its command, but with final say held in Australia on the strategic level about how they deployed. The day to day running was decided at the command level.

I expect that is the situation for the most part in Iraq. The nature of the insurgent attacks could not allow you to wait to respond tactically until London and Washington agreed, although I have no doubt there have been plenty of occassions where politically motivated machinations from both have hobbled operations in thier later stages, to the frustration of both GIs and Squaddies and thier field commanders.



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Also I might add I think the Iraqis like our troops more than the US troops we can walk around with out our helemets for protection and not get shot at and if we joined with the americans in missions we going to need them again lol.

[edit on 16/10/2004 by SE7EN]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Just came across this:



www.sundayherald.com...

One of Britain’s top military analysts has described the plan to send the Black Watch regiment to back up American troops in Iraq’s most dangerous areas as a “critical, serious and ultimately unnecessary decision that makes no logistical sense’’.

Lord Timothy Garden, former assistant chief of the defence staff and a leading analyst with the Royal Institute of International Affairs, believes the plan will lead to the UK sending even more troops to Baghdad or Fallujah. He said that would blur the present boundaries, which see Britain in a peace-keeping role in the south of Iraq while America takes on insurgents in the main trouble spots.

Garden branded the claimed strategy “bizarre”. “There are 130,000 US troops in Iraq and the 600 British troops will find it difficult to be integrated with them. What is being attempted here is to blur the boundaries that divide US and UK control.”


The article goes on to quote several politicians making the obvious connection that this has more to do with politics and Bush's re-election than anything else.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 05:21 AM
link   
The first Battalion of Australians in Vietnam was intergrated into a US Airborne Brigade for its first ...two years I think, before joining with AATFV as a seperate force

US Forces at that time were passing the quarter million mark. We had the support of the entire USArmy structure at that time.

But I'm not saying the critic is wrong about the Black Watch working with the USArmy now.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I think the main difference of opinion is the way in which the two forces opperate. We have obviously got something right in the way we operate due to the far lower level of isurgency, and casualties.

The Americans, for their part, see force as the only answer, whereas our guys have expierience in this sort of thing (NI, Bosnia, Kosovo too name a few) and are better at dealing with the locals.

I know many in the forces (including many of my own family), and none would agree that our forces under US command is a good thing, as the way they operate will rub off onto us, and we will be tarnished also. We are happy to operate alongside the US, but not completley under, as we have a whole different way of doing things, which tends to work.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   
I fail to see the problem UK forces fighting under US command to help put an end to the insurgents attemps to prevent a free Iraq.
With all do respect it seems to me that the UK forces are doing a better job at winning hearts & minds or dose the american media coverage of Iraq paint the picture worse then it is?
My guess is that because the UK forces are better at winning over the Iraqi public and the UK media has a differnt focus to the american media.
The american media goses for the image of Iraqi whos out of a job and dosnt have running water. Of course the UK media will run the story about the guy who dosnt have power or running water . but the UK media gives a more balanced view for example the BBC covers world news that isnt about Iraq or the USA.
cnn isnt to bad foxnews is the worse in terms of so called "world news"
In other words is the USA media focus to narrow to give a fair assessment of the situation in Iraq?



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Read the story.

They want to re-align the forces. They need to move American forces to engage insurgents and need to fill the gap that will cause. It has nothing to do with who is better with what. No offense to our British allies, but Basra is not exactly that much of a hotbed.

Quit trying to spin military operations. Keep with the political stuff folks, most of you are better suited to it and at least that way you'll seem much more plausible with your delusions.



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Check out this link to the BBC in the UK.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11

With all do respect it seems to me that the UK forces are doing a better job at winning hearts & minds or dose the american media coverage of Iraq paint the picture worse then it is?


IMO it might be because of the army's exsperience in NI and bosnia and so on that has really helped them there.
they know the drill and how to stop them, it just takes time.
the american forces are in a far more dangerous area though, with shiates (ironically) fighting the soldiers that saved them. they do what they have to do to keep thier men alive. america has lots of troops so has a harsh attitude to insurgents. if a group fires on a humvee then the US will call in the calvalry and i mean everything from troops to gunships.
where as british tactics are quieter more intel and sneaky based. the americans do this but not to the same extent. since britain has smaller number of troops it really does surgical pinpoint attacks not all out like the american strategy of go in and secure the whole area by removeing every one of them , which is a difficult costly but very effective way of doing things. the british do it more like take out the leaders and the rest will fall.
just my view on how they do it.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Oct, 17 2004 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Armystalker
No offense to our British allies, but Basra is not exactly that much of a hotbed.


The reason it's not much of a hotbed might have to do with the approach they used which was "advancing slowly and softly as opposed to hitting the door from day one"

If they had chosen the approach of just bombing the hell out of them like the operation in Fallujah, there might be more resistance.

It seems that it was the siege in April that really started the violence.


Siege of Fallujah polarizing Iraqis (April 15, 2004

...Ayatollah Awadi worries that vicious fighting between US Marines and local insurgents in the Sunni triangle city of Fallujah is likely to spread across the country. "This is no longer about Fallujah," he says. "If they aren't ready for peace, it will spread and be just as hot in Ramadi, Abu Ghraib, the southern provinces, the whole country, really."

Indeed, Iraqi leaders and foreign analysts say the fighting in Fallujah, which has claimed around 700 Iraqi lives and has turned the muddled center of Iraqi public opinion - where people were ambivalent about the occupation but not actively opposed - decisively against the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority and its local allies.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by xpert11

With all do respect it seems to me that the UK forces are doing a better job at winning hearts & minds or dose the american media coverage of Iraq paint the picture worse then it is?


IMO it might be because of the army's exsperience in NI and bosnia and so on that has really helped them there.
they know the drill and how to stop them, it just takes time.
the american forces are in a far more dangerous area though, with shiates (ironically) fighting the soldiers that saved them. they do what they have to do to keep thier men alive. america has lots of troops so has a harsh attitude to insurgents. if a group fires on a humvee then the US will call in the calvalry and i mean everything from troops to gunships.
where as british tactics are quieter more intel and sneaky based. the americans do this but not to the same extent. since britain has smaller number of troops it really does surgical pinpoint attacks not all out like the american strategy of go in and secure the whole area by removeing every one of them , which is a difficult costly but very effective way of doing things. the british do it more like take out the leaders and the rest will fall.
just my view on how they do it.


[edit on 17-10-2004 by devilwasp]



the UK has had it's armed forces conducting peace keeping around the world every year since 1950 (with the exception of 1968 for some reason), be it in Malaya, borneo, korea, yemen, northern ireland, bosnia, kosovo etc. They are much better at the hearts and minds cos they have developed and are all practiced at their use. I was recently talking to a british soldier friend of mine who is going back to iraq soon. He summed it up perfectly. There were two incidents the same day, both sniper contacts, one against the US one against the british. The US guys called in an airstrike and levelled half the village (but got their man). the brits used 8 man and around 100 bullets (4 kept him pinned down while 4 went round the back - same tactics as in NI). Which method do you think did more for the hearts and minds campaign? (plus was a lot cheeper!)



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Well from what ive heard the US and UK generals are having standup rows about how to run the war. The US prefer the 'go in and blast em out approach' while the UK troops prefer the coax em out with cheese then whack em while they nibble.

Fact is British have many years worth of experience in dealing with terrorists our 30 year campaign against the IRA is a prime example. If we ran that like the US Belfast would be a pile of rubble by now. Coax em out then WHAM! Without nuking half the populace in the process.

The US would use a nuke to hit an elephant.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 06:54 AM
link   
I think there are places where the US should have flattened the place.

Pardon the frustration.

but

US policy meant they ignored or tried to grease palms in potential hotbeds initially. Then they started to flare up.

Then the US troops finally got given green light to go in hard.

From memory Falluja was the first. Just when it seemed like US Forces where going to close in and crush the surrounded insurgents, bam! US policy and PR needs called them off....an "agreement" was brokered.

The same thing looked like it happened in Najaf a few weeks back.

Now the insurgents have regrouped and recruited in Falluja and its on all over again. Bets on when a new "agreement" will be brokered?

How long before its on again in Najaf like this too?

How many time are the poor bugger civilians in the middle and the US troops going to have go on that merry go around? (The insurgents themselves...dont give a rats about them).

Maybe thats why it looks like the US Forces are going in for overkill ( I dont know it could just be CNN playing the same shot in a loop)....The military bosses want to make sure the insurgents are finished before some suit screws their troops again with another ceasefire?

I think Armystalker has a point. Command just wants to reallocate units to cover dispositions. But hey, we are allowed our opinions.

[edit on 18-10-2004 by craigandrew]



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I thought the idea of buying weapons off the people in big iraqi cities such as falluja was great as long as they are destroyed straight away (i mean melted down not just taking the firing pin out). After a few months their weapons will be drastically reduced and so the would be insurgents will have spent their money and be reduced to lobing rocks at troops or giving em a slap in the face with the sole of their shoe



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Seems they are thinking about extending the tour of the Black Watch Regiment and send ing them to Fallujah.
As they are due to be disbanded under government defence cutbacks, any fatalities would mean fewer to claim unemployment benefit when they get laid off. Maybe that's being a bit too disrespectful of Tony's cronies


Seriously though, I'd hope that if they are to be used then it becomes a British military operation under full British control. Let them do things their own way and not become a participant in a political point scoring contest.



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Cept the world is awash with cold war black market weapons and ammo and people willing to sell them. Read somewhere that there were over 40 million AKs exported by the soviets since 1950s.

Not to mention all those weapons people picked up for free at bombed out bases while the Coalition took thier sweet time securing them

Not really the military's fault....most of the generals were saying they had enough hi tech troops to topple Saddam, but they needed more low tech for the occupation phase. Rummy knew best, didn't he?



posted on Oct, 18 2004 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Well in my opinion George Bush (or who evers really calling the shots) wants to see foreign blood spilt before your elections so your casualty count doesn’t look so bad(although admittedly its a bit late now).

That aside i'm disgusted at the very thought of Americans (or any one else) being in charge of our troops. If you cant do the job as, its gonna be even harder when you have to command troops that are used to a different style of doing things. i don't want to see Britons dieing because of some incompetent American general cant do the job at hand. You wouldn't like your troops being told what to do a French guy why should it be any different for us. incase you yanks didn't realize the majority of the british public have a very dim view of American policies and politicians and (in my experience at least) a fair few think ur countries nothing more than a joke. so i cant see this going down to well back here.

It seems pretty clear that the majority of people here believe the UK has a good reputation for keeping the peace so wouldnt it make sense to put the American troops under the command of the british? Just a thought.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join