In last Friday’s “‘Mess-o-potamia’ Homage to Jon Stewart,” Pat Lang gave us links to writings by T.E. Lawrence. Lawrence’s “A Report on Mesopotamia” — written for the London Sunday Times eight-five years ago — would suffice for today’s news, with only a few insigificant word substitutions:
The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
On the heels of the weekend news that the British have scrapped plans to reduce their troop numbers in Iraq, which I reported here a few months back, along with the good news that the British would send another 5,000 troops to Afghanistan — and what will now become of that plan to help our forgotten stepchild Afghanistan? — comes another bloody disaster, which was ably and horrifyingly summarized today by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now:
UK Forces Attack Iraqi Jail To Free Two British Troops
New questions about Iraq’s sovereignty are being raised after British forces attacked an Iraqi jail on Monday because they believed two detained British commandos were inside.
British troops opened fire on the jail in Basra and used six armored vehicles to smash down the jail’s walls as helicopter gunships flew overhead.
The provincial governor of Basra described the British assault as “barbaric, savage and irresponsible.” The Associated Press reported 150 prisoners escaped during the siege.
As the British raided the prison, Iraqis started attacking the British vehicles with firebombs and rockets.
One of the British armored fighting vehicles was set ablaze. Photos showed a British soldier on fire climbing out of the hatch and jumping to the ground, as a crowd pelted him.
An Iraqi official said that the British soldiers were arrested after they had fired at an Iraqi police officer. At the time the British soldiers were undercover and dressed as Iraqis.
After the prison was breached in Basra, the two soldiers were found not to be in the jail but in a nearby house.
The British Army attempted to downplay the incident claiming that the men were released after negotiations. The government said it feared for the lives of the British commandos after discovering they had been handed to “militia elements”.
The British attack on the Iraqi jail came one day after British forces arrested three members of the Shiite Mahdi Army.
Update [2005-9-20 22:25:6 by susanhu]: What I’ve read since I posted this leads me to question some facts in Goodman’s early morning report. Please see Londonbear’s comments below, which point to some possible erroneous early reporting by the AP, etc. Also please see Juan Cole’s attempt at a timeline of this confusing story.
|
Meanwhile, two more Iraqi journalists are dead. Assassinated. And four Americans — a U.S. State Dept. official and three Blackwater employees — have been killed in a suicide car bombing. Fifty-two Iraqis died over the weekend, a Kurdish parliamentarian was assassinated, and the U.S. official troop death toll tops 1,900.
On Saturday afternoon as I laid down to rest my back, I read my print-outs of Pat’s downloads by T.E. Lawrence. I turned on the television, by pure chance catching the last hour of the gloriously restored “Lawrence of Arabia.”
Continued BELOW:
More from T.E. Lawrence’s report on Mesopotamia:
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt’s six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia’s three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. …
[……..]
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?
Not much has changed. Not at all.
Today, Juan Cole has several important articles on the British mess (and tragedy), including this report from Iranian television — which probably has quite a bit of truth in it, and which is surely not aiding our quest to win hearts and minds as it is rebroadcast worldwide, even on BBC:
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Iranian Television on Basra Tensions
BBC World Monitoring translated this report on Al-Alam, the Iranian Arabic-language satellite program, on Sept. 14:
September 14, 2005, Wednesday Basra residents blame UK troop “violations” for increase in militant attacks
SOURCE: Al-Alam TV, Tehran, in Arabic 17:13 GMT, 14 Sep 05
BODY:
Text of report by Iranian Arabic language television news channel Al-Alam on 14 September[Presenter] In Basra, popular and official opinion has attributed the escalation in militant attacks against British forces in southern Iraq to their continuing violation of the rights of the residents, in addition to the lack of justification for theses forces to remain in the region.
[Correspondent N’amah Abd-al-Razzaq] Eight US and three British dead, and a further ten wounded. This is the toll of the militant attacks that have targeted the US and British forces in southern Iraq in the last week. This follows a clear escalation in the militant attacks targeting the foreign forces specifically in Basra.
These statistics are based on the reports published by the British forces in southern Iraq. However, some eye witnesses have indicated a larger toll, especially in the rocket attack that targeted the British and US consulates in the presidential complex. Because the site is completely fortified, it was impossible to confirm the final toll of the attack and everyone had to make do with the British story which denied that there had been any casualties.
Popular and official opinion in Basra says that this noticeable escalation in the level of militant operations is the result of the occupation troops overstepping the mark and continuing to violate the dominant values of Iraqi society.
[Amr Thamir Ali, traffic policeman] This is the result of the conduct of the British towards the people. [Words indistinct]
Read all of the BBC report and Cole’s comments.
Riverbend said this last year that the US was pushing for civil war…
Yes, Parker.
And, as Pat Lang told NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Sept. 16, we HAVE a civil war NOW.
I think he finds the parsing of words about do we or do we not have a civil war on our hands to be rather irritating, and irrelevant. A civil war is what we have got.
P.S. I put up the link to Pat’s interview — All Things Considered. It’s short, precise, and quite good.
Riverbend does not have a searcheable site… but she also mentioned awhile ago that it was US troops doing a lot of the car bombs and how one of her neighbors was arrested because he saw the american troops leave the area of where a car bomb went off.
I can believe that. I have been telling my friend in Il. this and she must think I have absolutely lost it. But I ahve been thinking this on my own without any factual facts. It is how we do things. We like to stir the shit. Whey do you think the likes of blackwater is there…for heavens sake. These guys are bad news any day no matter where they are. ppl without a heart or conscience.
Yes she does! it is called Baghdad burning. you can get to this sige by going to curser.com and search the blog sights there. you will see it.
Parker, her [riverbend] letters to the world, is like a book I once read…home before morning…by an army nurse in vietnam. If you could read them all at one sitting you would see the change in her view on things and how she is feeling in her heart. So obvious….
It seems to me that civil war is exactly what Cheney and the neocons wanted in Iraq all along, as it gives them the pretext to keep more troops in the region for as long as the violence continues.
Does anyone really think BushCo is going to withdraw a significant number of troops, (even for political reasons related to the ’06 elections)?
I don’t think so.
They had suggested immediately after taking Bagdad that they wanted to split the country in three…
Who said that, Parker?
I remember reading that. They said that but cant remember who said it. I thought then how silly, but now, I dont know if it was so silly…bs It was someone in our government said it…I remember that they wanted a woman in control of the northern most ..the kerdish part. The other two were men..
The Three-State Solution?
Juan Cole
Also there are links to Richard Perle who was then Chairman of the Defence Policy Board in the Pentagon now who is just an adviser… was keen on pushing the “Three state solution
Do you think the US wanted a civil war? I say yes for that then gave them the excuse to stay there! So sad that I have to say things like this. It is truly becoming history revisited!!!!!!!!!! IN more ways than one.
Shame on the Brits for not heeding the warning…Shame on us for not heeding the warning. But I have said this more times that not…..we simply refuse to see the hitory of our enemy. We were warned!!!!
The US is too damn stupid to know what it wants.
google split iraq and you come up with this. see below.
Split Iraq for the sake of its population – User comments at …
Split Iraq for the sake of its population – User comments on article: [Looting:]
An Iraqi Tragedy.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/8631 – 23k – Cached – Similar pages
Calblog: Split Iraq into 3 Countries? Why!
Split Iraq into 3 Countries? Why! The new story I keep hearing about Iraq is that
it needs to be split into 3 seperate countries. This is because evidently …
http://www.calblog.com/archives/003971.html – 13k – Cached – Similar pages
US, Britain Attempt to Split Iraq: FM
US, Britain Attempt to Split Iraq: FM. Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohammad Said
Al-Sahaf has said the insistence of the United States and Britain on maintaining …
english.people.com.cn/english/ 200012/12/eng20001212_57565.html – 17k – Cached – Similar pages
A-list message, [A-List] Britain/US split: Iraq
[A-List] Britain/US split: Iraq, Keaney Michael Wed 25 Sep 2002, 09:21 GMT;
[A-List] Britain/US split: Iraq, Keaney Michael Thu 26 Sep 2002, 09:11 GMT …
archives.econ.utah.edu/ archives/a-list/2002w39/msg00051.htm – 9k – Cached – Similar pages
A-list message, [A-List] Britain/US split: Iraq
… [A-List] Britain/US split: Iraq, Keaney Michael Mon 29 Jul 2002, 07:38 GMT;
[A-List] UK ideological state apparatus: schools, Keaney Michael Mon 29 Jul …
archives.econ.utah.edu/ archives/a-list/2002w31/msg00002.htm – 13k – Cached – Similar pages
US drafts plan to split Iraq into three zones – Irish Independent
Welcome to Unison the best source of Irish News, Regional News, National News
and Sport, International News and Sport, Entertainment, Classifieds, …
http://www.unison.ie/features/wariniraq/ news/stories.php?ca=310&si=968066 – 23k – Cached – Similar pages
ParaPundit: Jim Hoagland: Sunnis In Iraq See Democracy As A Threat
Modest proposal: Split Iraq. Admit that Humpty Dumpty can’t be put back on …
One big complication would come from any proposal to split Iraq: What to do …
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001778.html – 15k – Cached – Similar pages
ABC Online Forum
Subject: split iraq up, post id: 378. The only way to stop civil unrest and
ultimately, … Why would anyone want to split Iraq into separate states? …
www2b.abc.net.au/news/forum/newsonline5/ archives/archive14/newposts/37/topic37296.shtm – 39k – Cached – Similar pages
Daily Times – Site Edition
ABU DHABI: Any plan to split Iraq into ethnic Kurdish, Sunni or Shi’ite Muslim
territory would have grave consequences for the Gulf Arab region, …
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default. asp?page=story_13-1-2004_pg4_3 – 17k – Cached – Similar pages
Workers Revolutionary Party – Iraq’s US dictated constitution …
Central to this constitution is an attempt to split Iraq and Iraqis into sectarian
areas and groups, Kurd, Shia and Sunni, using federalism as a weapon. …
http://www.wrp.org.uk/news/315 – 13k – Sep 19, 2005 – Cached – Similar pages
Result Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Raw Story has this British blog linked today:
Oh, there’s been civil war upon civil war in Iraq for quite some time. It’s not two sides that are fighting as in the Shiites and the Sunnis, it’s multiple sides fighting within and without of each of many groups.
I can’t imagine what Patrick Lang and Juan Cole are thinking about staying until the country is stabilized. The greatest destablizer is the United States and Britain.
There is no point in being there, we have vomited all over everyone there and now we say we want to stay and help clean up our own vomit and we continue to vomit over everyone …and ourselves.
When you have made a mistake you need to turn and go in a different direction, not stay and wait for the place you wanted to GO to COME to you.
By January the Army and Marines will be sending soldiers back for third tours. That is not sustainable. We need to cut at least half the troops from Iraq soon.
So if we are going to stay, where will the troops to do it come from? Forget draft. The army wanted 80,000 recruits by the end of September, and will be 6,000 to 9,000 short of that. They are already retaining gays. More stop-loss orders?
They are already not pushing catching deserters for fear that the news will give more active duty guys the idea they can go over the hill also. Third tours will jack that number up.
If they can’t make the 80,000 recruits goal now, how do they get volunteers to increase the size of the military? That, also, seems unlikely.
If as Billmon wrote the two Marine sniper teams killed in early August were actually killed by the Iraqi troops they were with (rumor, not confirmed), and if the militias have thoroughly infiltrated the police and troops in Basra and are conducting their won civil war using the weapons we bought for them (after the $1 billion was stolen), then there are no Iraqi troops we can trust to substitute for Americans.
If, in fact that rumor is untrue but believed by U.S. troops, then the guys we have training the Iraqi troops are going to start treating them like convict-soldiers, which is as bad as if it were true. Our guys will start going on patrol with Iraqis and aiming their weapons at the Iraqis troops they are accompanying instead of possible threats. Not good.
And that doesn’t count the possible loss of the House by the Republicans if we try. Or the question of where the money for Katrina and Iraq together will come from. Cut the Medicare drug benefit like McCain just proposed?
Elders VOTE! And staying in Iraq and cutting the drug benefit will bring the laggards out.
Does anyone really think it is even POSSIBLE for us to stay? I can’t see it. We will be reducing the number of troops in Iraq significantly by next Spring. Then, if there is such a drawdown, and the Iraqis can’t come on line to replace our troops as I suspect they won’t, then at some point reasonably soon we will cease to be able to do more than defend our own bases. After that we are out of there.
For which the Republicans will try to blame the Democrats and us.
C-posted at DailyKos.
I had read that the two undercover britains had a car full of bombs. The suspicion being that they were possibly acting as terrorists. I suppose the idea would be to blow something or someone up and then blame it on real terrorists.
Two things are accomplished:
1). Whatever you blow up you wanted to destroy in the first place.as in the case of a group or individual who is opposing something you want to do. THis is just plain murder. It would cause problems to do it with the military,
2). You can blame whoever you want by making a claim of responsibility and then act against them too…or have the IRaqis act against them.
Undercover CIA British as well are really dumb people. I mean these are the lowest forms of life on the planet who make institutionalize paranoia.
They create paranoia to justify their own paranoia. These people are the dregs of humanity. And they are really, really stupid. I mean intellectually, and just not world wise or saavy about anything. They are Nut Jobs. You have to be nuts to want to be a part of the CIA. And that goes for Joe Wilsons wife too.
The CIA is scum. They have done nothing but create chaos everywhere for absolutely no good reason. They are simply crazy.
to children in the vicinity where the arrests were made?
Someone posted that story at DKos, and it inexplicably got promoted to the Recommended list even though it’s just a smattering of quotes and a link
… it’s only from a Chinese newspaper — Xinhuanet — so far.
Maybe that’s where I read it. I don’t know if it’s true, but it doesn’t sound unreasonalble to me…nothing does anymore. I can’t get on KOS so I haven’t posted there…to much trouble to go through to get on…
We are not hearing anything but the US/British side. of the story. It could be they were undercover who know’s what non-sense they were up to …..Maybe they just didn’t feel like being questioned and one thing led to another and they got arrested.
Everytime I hear about these spies I just think they are little children (only filled wih Steriods) dressing up and playing a childrens game. I mean they must think of what they do as really important and exciting like stuff “real grownups do in the movies.” They are just pretending, reliving some silly childhood fantasy. They accomplish nothing and get themselves killed and other people killed.
The “intellligence” community or whatever it is called is a bunch of dumbells with a lot of high tech equipment provided to them by scientists who not affiliated with the intelligence community.
A few points of clarification about this “rescue operation”.
First, there is no sovereign Iraqi nation. Iraqi is a colony and its “government” is allowed to “govern” so long as it doesn’t cross its Anglo-American masters.
Second, the reason these commandos were “rescued” is because they could be interrogated/tortured to obtain information on British operations (as well as American operations). Not only that, but it’s bad for troop morale if their brothers in arms are thrown to the wolves.
Third, I am almost certain that this “rescue operation” was approved at the highest levels of command. That means MoD (Ministry of Defence, which is a cabinet level position in the British government)–the field commanders didn’t decide to do this on their own. If approval wasn’t given for the specific operation, then MoD issued rules of engagement that permitted this “rescue”. This means that Blair and his government cannot credibly blame this inflammatory action on rogue troops or “loose cannon” commanders (and, indeed, they don’t seem to be doing so).
Things are out of control in Iraq, and about to get much worse. British military intelligence indicate that it is only a matter of time until there is a Shiite uprising that will make the Sunni uprising against the occupation forces look like a picnic in the park.
Of course these renewed troubles will–the neocons believe–give them the excuse they need to prolong the occupation to “stabilise” Iraq. But what they don’t realise is that British intelligence also indicate that American and British forces will have to slaughter thousands to tamp down the anticipated uprisings…and that there is a “possibility” that American and British forces will find themselves encircled and besieged in certain areas.
The Iraqis, even in a mass uprising, do not possess the ability to dislodge the Anglo-American occupation forces in ANY scenario. However, to prevent being run out of the country, the Americans and Brits will have to kill thousands of (armed) civilians.
The distinction between the British/American forces occupying their country, and Saddam’s murderous regime, must be quite fuzzy in the minds of the Iraqis now.
Fasten your safety belts. The ride is about to become a whole lot bumpier.
The Iraqi government is no longer a puppet government. The truth is they are plotting to get US troops out of IRaq with Iranian support. That’s where the nexus of energy lies in this conflict. The current government of Jaafari and to a lesser extent Talabani are now mortal enemies of the US. It is not being declared because a confrontation is not in anyoine’s best interests now. Jaafari, like Karzai want the US OUT! THe US presence is fueling the insurgency. They feel with Iraninian support they can contain the insurgency and the insurgency surely will dwindle to a manageable level when the US leaves. THe vexing problem is how to get them out.
I don’t think the Neo Cons want the Shittes to rise up. But that is what the IRaqi government can and ought to do, I suppose to get the US out.
If the Shiites took to arms they would overwhelm US forces. So I don’t agree with you that they can be contained by mass killing.
THe US would rather than kill Iraqi Shiites, kill Iranian Shiites through bombing. That’s is the only way to level the playing field. In other words the Shiites in Iraq get their support from Iran. With the Iranian infrastructure damaged, Iran would not be able or interested in fueling the Iraqi insurgency against the US.
Of course if the US bombs IRan it will probably backfire and all hell will break loose. But I think that’s who they would kill, not the IIraqi Shiites.
I strongly disagree with your analysis that a mass “people power” uprising by the Shiites would force out the Anglo-American forces. I hate to cite my experience as authority, but I was a commander in the British Army, served in combat in Gulf War I, and you did not. I therefore ask you to trust my judgment, experience, and training in these matters, or at least to take them into consideration when weighing my argument.
The American and British armies are far better-equipped and trained than Saddam’s military–and Saddam successfully tromped down many rebellions. The Shiite leaders know that the streets will run with blood if they rise up en masse against the foreign occupation, but those counseling moderation may not be able to hold back the hotheads indefinitely.
IF–notice the cautionary “if”–the American and British forces are willing to slaughter thousands of Iraqis, they can tromp down any attempt to dislodge them. If you doubt what will happen, I refer you to the scourging of Fallujah, in which the city was isolated from the outside world by American forces and then purged by fire. Americans in particular have the will and the means to impose great suffering on the Iraqis–and, unlike we Brits, have not signed treaties that would make their soldiers subject to the jurisdiction of the war crimes tribunal in the Hague if they slaughter civilians. The desire to remove British troops from the scene of the coming bloodbath is one reason–besides the need for fresh troops in Afghanistan–why so many British troops have been redeployed from the Iraqi to Afghani theatre. British troops will find themselves in a sticky situation indeed if they exercise the degree of ruthlessness required to put down the eventual Shiite uprising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah
I would remind you, as an example, that the Indians–who were far more numerous–were unable to force out the British colonial authority. What eventually ended British rule in India was the breaking of Britain’s power during the Second World War, after which Britain was forced to surrender the “jewel in the crown” (India) to self-determination. The Germans, in other words, freed the Indians–not the Indians themselves.
World War II fatally undermined Britain’s already weakened commercial and financial leadership and heightened the importance of the Dominions and the United States as a source of military assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Post_World_War_II_Extent
But the American forces are already overwhelmed. They control nothing and barely the green zone. The war is over and has been over from a military point of view…don’t you think? I mean that.
The Americans and Brits are really not occupying anything…they are hanging around in fixed locations and can’t go anywere without risking being shot. (I know it’s better for the Brits in the South) So they don’t have CONTROL and they dont OCCUPY MUCH LAND. They are their by virtue of their armor, their machinery.
I am not saying that the Iraqi Shiites could overwhelm the US in a pure military sense. But they can make them inoperable. I think the US could retreat to bases and stay there, but they would not be able to patrol the cities…which is all they do now so they can get shot at. I think they go on patrol for arcane political reasons that have more to do with people in Washington than in Iraq.
I don’t diasgree with you that the US could unleash massive killing as they did in Fallujah. That would be awful It’s not easy to think about. I would hope the American Public might get pissed at the cost of the war at somepoint. The twin hurricanes may do more to end the war than anything.
I think A shiite uprising at the right time…just before the elections in this coming November and or the following two years in Noverber for American elections would result in heavy pressure for the US to withdraw almost entirely. And or result in more moderate….or perhaps…more hawkish leaders in the form of Democrats. Some Democratic leader might come in who wants to send in more troops. Then I think it would be bloody. But it would never end. I don’t think the Iraqi people who stand for total occupation. Sadaam was an Iraqi, he knew how to communicate, the mind of the people. Americans don’t have the language skills to control the Iraqi people. They will always fight the occupation.
But why would they attack Shittes in Iraq. It is the Shiites in Iran who weild the most influence on those in Iraq and givem them the courage and arms to resist. So I think they would bomb Iran before they began mass killings
You assume because of your position in the army and becasue of you assumption about my position that your point of view holds more water.
I never pay attentiion to people who claim to know something because of their experience. I just listen to what they have to say.
But, I just wish that they would leave those people alone in Iraq. What a mess, huh?
.
Video grab shows weapons Iraqi police say were confiscated from undercover British soldiers (SAS) arrested in Basra.
«« click on pic to enlarge »»
▼ ▼ ▼ Did You Read My Diary ▼ ▼ ▼
Shall we actually address what appear to be the facts rather than what our prejudices have made us imagine.
These were almost certainly SAS soldiers on reconnasance duties following the weekend’s events. In case you had not noticed, the Iraqi police had an operation to arrest those suspected of planting explosives. They failed to arrest three leading members of Al Sadr’s militia in the Basra area who were suspected of the attacks.
In order to defuse any protests, the British had withdrawn to barracks so that ordinary patrols did not inflame riots over the arrests of those three. The two SAS were sent out to get intelligence on what was happening in the city. As part of their patrol they encountered a police road block. As they were under orders not to stop at these because various militia were staging false ones, the fire fight ensued. It is unclear whether a policeman was injurd or killed during these clashes as the reports vary.What is clear from the photographs and the up to date reporting is that they were not, repeat not, carrying explosives.
They were apparently arrested and taken to a <police station</b> not a jail. In accordance with the UN resolution, the central government in Baghdad orded that they be released. The local authorities refused that order.
When an escort arrived to take them back to safety, the police refused to release them and the molotov cocktail throwing crowd appeared. In some videos they are clearly shown with automatic weapons. During that, the two SAS men were removed to a house controlled by the militia. In all likelihood this was an attempt to hold hostages for the release of the three Al Sadr seniors.
This is not to say that the whole weekend’s events are not very worrying. Clearly the police have been infiltrated by the various factions’ militia or at least sympathisers with them. If this is also thecase with the iraqi Army (as seems very likely), the assumptions behind the outcomes of the four options on the front page of Wednesday’s Independent (UK) are undermined. It seems that whatever option is taken the final result will be a long and bloody civil war in Iraq.
A young, pretty blonde crusadette had been seized by a gang of evil swarthy anti-American Muslims.
Because the UK is America’s staunchest ally in the Crusade Against Evil Swarthy Anti-American Muslims who hate America for Halliburton’s freedom to enjoy really impressive quarterly statements, a rescue mission was planned, with the help of Crusadecom, and of course the trusted old family Collaborators over in Baghdad.
To foil the Evil Uppities, the Brits would need to rescue the fair damsel disguised as swarthies themselves. Because these are such simple and childlike swarthies, not much disguise was needed, a wig here, a flowing fabric there, CNN was of course notified so that the rescue could be properly covered to strengthen American Resolve, but unfortunately they were all either in New Orleans or afraid to leave the Baghdad Sheraton, so post-rescue interviews were scheduled with the Brave Englanders, and they stealthily slipped into the lair but at the last minute were foiled by a swarthy who had attended school in the UK and learned to recognize Caucasians even at great distances, but the scoundrel had failed to report this to Crusade authorities, for which of course, his wives and daughters will be dispatched to the Ghraib, to make an example. (They need a firm hand, these fellows, and they know it.)
On closer examination the damsel proved to be a somewhat eccentric young Kurd who had come (probably dishonestly) by a bottle of Clairol, but since the local commander had not gone to school in Kurdistan, he was naturally caught by surprise, and believed the rather ethereal young man to be a bona fide Jessica Lynch redux.
So the whole thing was just a mix-up, but fortunately England’s best were gotten to safety, plans to reduce the population of Basra proceed apace, and all’s well that ends well.
Like most people you obviously believe that the version fed to AP and reported by them at first is the absolute truth. The facts suggest otherwise as the position is much”gyerer” than so-called “eye witness” reports first suggest. Should we accept the versions given by those with vested interests on one side just because we disagree ith the presence of the othe side? Surely relying on the information given by the Shia miliants when interviewed is just as flawed as relying on the Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter describing Iraqi army soldiers throwing babies from incubators? Or taking Chalabi’s version of Saddam as gospel truth?
If there is any factual information you have that challenges the sequence of evens I gave, please do so but ensure these are from independent sources. As I pointed out, the later information discredits the earlier reports that the SAS men had explosives. There are simple fatual errors in the earlier reporting and a certain degree of exaggeration. Do heavy scarves and wigs, though disguise, count as “arab dress” for example? How did a police station become “the main jail”as it was described in some reports? Have those reporters making the inital judgements corrected them in the light of the orders from the Iraqi ministry that the soldiers should be released?
And in another thread, I acknowledge that AFP has on occasion failed to have their stories vetted by Crusadecom.
I don’t see why crusade champions have any problem with this type of covert operation. It is hardly original, in fact, it is something of a proud tradition, it reduces the population, and it does not reduce revenues generated for the intended beneficiaries.
Imperialism means never having to say, “oh no, we wouldn’t do that.”
As far as this particular operation by the SAS team of two, there is nothing to suggest that this was anything other than a reconnaisance operation to assess the position on the ground after the withdrwal of uniform patrols. While reports of the car being filled with explosives suggest otherwise, these were shown to be false.
One other thing you might want to consider in regard the the British soldiers’ approach to the following incident is the fairly restrained way in which the fire-bombing of the Warrior was handled. If you look at the footage, you will see that the rest had riot control equipment like shields. I believe there are reports of two being killed but surely the death toll would have been far higher (on both sides) if a similar incident happened in the US controlled sector?
It would be neither fair nor balanced to allow you to waste your time attempting to convince me of the superior way in which this or that gaggle of slavesoldiers murder Iraqis.
I must confess I am not a fan of the crusade, nor crimes against humanity in general, and thus am unable to appreciate the finer points of efficiency and zeal with which these popular activities are committed.
“Slavesoldiers”? Well, I’m glad you approach the topic with an open mind and are able to analyse it unencumbered by personal prejudice.
against mass murder, torture, sexual predation, and all manner of atrocities, crimes against humanity and brutality in general.
I recommend that everyone adopt this prejudice and teach their children to have it.
Good job, Londonbear … I’ve kept checking today, and the British were not exploding cars, etc. (Thank god that goofy Chinese news story had no legs here, even if it somehow made it to the recommended list at DKos.)
Thanks – there have been developments in which (I believe) the Interior Minister is suggesting that the two were identified while observing a demonstration rather than being stopped at a road block. On the other hand, it could be that they tried to flee once their cover was blown and were then caught in a road block. As with many stories, I suspect we will get dribs and drabs of information to build up a more accurate picture over time. Even today for example we have reports that the Interior Minister claimes the two were in the police station/jail and the local Governor stating that they were being held by militia. Those two statements may not be mutually exclusive though the British Army are claiming they were held in a private house nearby. I also think it is important to recognise the fairly limited extent of the protests while realising that they could be evidence of a more worrying undetlying trend.
In terms of absolute numbers we are looking at perhaps a couple of hundred out of a city population of tens of thousands. With the reporters being killed, the main sources are “tainted”. We have the British Army on one side who obviously want to try to continue with a softly softly” approach with their militant wing, the US commanders in Baghdad and the Pentagon whose ideas of maintaining order seem to consists of sending in enough artillery and bombers to flatten a place into submission. I suspect that Pentagon spin to US broadcasters is talking up the extent of the violence to promote their agenda. Have a close look though at the footage of the Basra protests today. Despite having two large banners, the numbers on the ground are surprisingly few for a city in uproar – remember the Saddam statue toppling in Baghdad? Equally the UK governmnet is reticent about recognising that the infiltration of the Army and police by members of militia is setting up a dilema as to whether they are being trained to be loyal to the constitutionally elected government (for want of a better description) or as more effective members of the various militia.
Similaarly to some extent the central Baghdad interim administration is keen to give the impression of full control. Al Sadr in particular is more militant towards the continued presence of coalition forces and is likely encouraging some of the attacks against the UK forces in an attempt to get them to leave immediately. The militia with at least some loyalty to him is believed to be the target of the weekend arrests that led to the demonstrations. One protest today was apparently organised by police, not surprising in a society which still has deep traditions of revenge for grievances (ie the deaths of ther colleagues) even if the suspicion is that these are re-inforced by their political/religious affiliations. One should of course mention the natural grievance of all Iraqis over the continued occupation though also recognise that the British commanders on the ground are intelligent enough to take this into account (even if the Americans are not?) I believe one British Officer was criticised for comparing the levels of violence to a “busy night in Belfast”. Actually the comparison is not that bad. A religious separation with both sides working out their grievances against those poor mugs nominally charged with maintaining law and order. There were indeed more petrol bombs and small blast bombs thrown in one night of protest by a similar number of protestant “loyalists” after a recent Orange Order march was re-directed away from a catholic area.
One final point you may not be aware of. BBC Monitoring is a particular part of the BBC that, like the World Service, receives direct government funding. They listen in to public broadcasts from other countries and translate the programs if need be. They chose items that have broad intelligence or news value. BBC news services use the transcripts to build up the knowledge base about the country and pick out any possible developments or news stories. They provide a similar function for the Foreign Office. The UK’s intelligence services link these up to intercepted secret/private communications, so the differences between a foreign governments public statements and private intentions can be analysed. Some of the more interesting transcripts are listed on the BBC site for public consumption but this does not imply they have verified claims or agree with the editiorial line from the other broadcasters.
As I posted that I just caught the end of interviews with the soldiers involved in the demonstrations and fire bombing on Sky News. The sargeant looked a bit battered with a split lip but passed the injuries off. Those who were on fire appear uninjured and remarkably calm in the circumstances. One (I believe a private) explained that it looked worse than it was (apart from one petrol bomb that entered the turret) and when they got back in the Warrior to drive it off “it was a bit hot to the touch”!
Most importantly, they also had shots of today’s patrols in the Basra backstreets. The cover gunners in the exposed top of the land rovers have helmets but the ground foot patrol are in soft hats. Agreed this could have been the only one to be staged for the cameras but it is indicative of the intent to not come down on the population at general like Robocop.
The Americans are in no position to dictate anything–not in the political arena, and certainly not military tactics–in Basra.
Basra is the British theatre of operations. Certainly Brigadier Lorimer will attempt to continue the “softly, softly” approach to avoid inflaming matters further, and hope the situation dies down–but make no mistake, if it comes down to it, British troops are just as capable as Americans, if not moreso, of “cracking down” on troublemakers. Naturally, such a dire situation is to be avoided if at all possible.
The coolness of British troops under fire is partly cultural and partly institutional. British troops are trained much more intensively than American troops in my experience, with far more “real life” combat simulations (so that they don’t startle as much when actually under fire). Not only that, but as the British Army is much smaller, yet frequently deployed alongside our American cousins, virtually every British infantry soldier has chalked up far more combat experience than his American counterparts. Americans are taught HOW to fire but often not WHEN to fire; Brits are taught to RESTRAIN fire and how to AVOID doing so (especially in civilian crowd control situations). And yes, it’s partly cultural–Brits aren’t as in love with guns as Americans (thanks to national gun licensing laws)…and then there is the famed “British cool” (stiff upper lip and all that).
Which reminds me of the military black joke that is recycled according to whatever the current target is:
“Why do the Americans want the British to go with them to Iraq?”
“So they’ll have somebody to shoot at”