Saturday
20Sep2008
From Iraq The Model
Saturday, September 20, 2008 at 01:06AM
British Deal With al-Sadr Betrayed Iraqi People
|
The news about a secret deal between the British and anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr did not come as a surprise to us. Britain’s war policy has been clear for the past several years: the country demonstrated no readiness to make sustained efforts in a prolonged war, nor did it act as a serious partner determined to win the conflict. There are three aspects in this British betrayal. First, striking a deal with the enemy; second, selling an Iraqi city to the enemy of their Iraqi hosts and partners; and third, by not informing their American partners of their plans, enabling the U.S. military’s reliance on an untrustworthy partner — something the British military leadership turned out to be. What’s worse — even assuming the “accommodation” was a thoughtful plan with good intentions — is that Britain upheld the deal even when the militias violated it. The militias did not renounce violence (attacks continued), and they did not switch to civil political activity. Still, the British didn’t take action. Source: Read the Rest |
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (42)
The deal and the conduct around it was wholly to do with our government for political reasons. The military had to dishonour itself because it was ordered to do so.
isn't that always the way....
enabling the U.S. military’s reliance on an untrustworthy partner — something the British military leadership turned out to be.
This trashes what you say Pete. This is definitely a condemnation of the British military. A whinge against the brits, if this was a link to a shinner blog putting down the british military you'd be throwing your dummy out the pram.
The message is clear, the Brits failed the americans and were unworthy partners...
I hope the families of the dead don't read this, or the old guys selling stuff in the foyer of Tescos in Belfast today to raise money for old soldiers.
Sad.
Defence Secretary Des Browne emphatically denied the claims last night, saying: 'Our forces were not prevented from going into Basra by any deal of any sort.'
The Ministry of Defence insisted that the British role had been limited only by Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
An MoD spokesman added: 'When the action was launched, British forces provided a raft of military support including armour, artillery, air power, medical and logistic support.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041690/Secret-deal-Iraqi-militia-kept-British-troops-battle-Basra.html
.
A report in The Times newspaper yesterday quoted a Colonel Imad, who heads the 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division, and two U.S. marines - Lieutenant-Colonel Chuck Western and Captain Eric Whyne.
Colonel Imad said: 'Without the support of the Americans we would not have accomplished the mission because the British forces had done nothing there.'
Lieutenant-Colonel Western added: 'Everybody just assumed that because this deal was cut nobody was going in.'
Captain Whyne said he was astounded that 'a coalition force would make a pact with essentially their enemy and promise not to go into their area so as not to get attacked'.
Whitehall sources confirmed that a 'dialogue' had taken place with al-Sadr's henchmen as part of the reconciliation process to encourage the militia to renounce violence and enter the political process.
Gosh -
That's a blogger comment which simply contradicts what I say, and it's still wrong.
Government ordered the military to cut a deal to cut the number of bodybags coming home from Iraq.
Read the final sentence from Troll's comment one up. If government had no part in it, why is Whitehall confirming it?
They've been ordered to do the same in Afghanistan, but the Taliban aren't playing the game so the fighting continues.
Good. Anyone who thinks that place was and is worth it or that those people won't screw you over years down the line is beyond stupid. They will not always dance to the tune you insist on as their support for this proto government Iraqi man and leader has demonstrated as they set about killing your troops. They are still Iraqis at the end of the day.
Nevertheless the mere fact that he says "country" and not government shows his disinterest and anglophobic nature from the get go.
He only acknowledges the "betrayal" to Iraqis and ignores any "betrayal" to the brave men who fought hard and died there. Ones Michael Yon has bothered to document in enormous detail at Basra and to some degree greatly contradict ITM's points on the attitude of the Basra people towards our forces.
No surprise to read this in Iraq the Model though. A blog which has consistently ignored the sacrifice of British troops the last few years as though they were never even there - or over there doing handstands. (Though to be fair a scroll down the comments highlights Iraqi comments that contradict the poster and acknowledge our efforts)
And the post fails to even mention Blair and his going in its general whitewash overview such is it's weak argument and threadbare mention of our entire participation.
We would have been better off making like the French. Same contempt at the end of the day from all sides (who's opinions only count of course) but a whole lot less British men and women's lives lost.
I totally agree with Alison. Pete, far be it from me to defend the reputation of the british army after what they did in Northern Ireland, but for this criticism to come from the Americans for their best ally is a stab in the back to all who did fight and fall on the British side in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you honestly think the US government would never do a deal.......
Theres no proof that any deal exsisted between the Brits and this scum, only those within Britain and its media (and their hangers on, on dodgy blogs) who latch on to any criticism of Britain that is bad in any way.
Note to Brit politicians lets the f*ckers fight their own dirty war next time, and pull out now and leave the effers to it.
A nasty grubby self centred attack on the serving men and women of the one nation that supported the US to a greater extent than any other,
Gosh -
If you're too weak and cowardly to acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice that stood between you and psychopathic killers, that's between you and your shrivelled conscience.
Of course there's no public evidence for the deal, do you expect No.10 to post a notice in the Times? It was a grubby, political deal imposed on our military.
If you think the British Army wants to sit in a sandpit outside Basra scratching their backsides, your brain is as great as your conscience.
Do you honestly think the US government would never do a deal.......
I didn't mention Washington, but since you ask, of course it would. The US has been cutting deals since the French won them their independence.
Can noone else see the irony of Americans criticizing alleged British negotiations to draw down the violence at the tail end of a campaign and in this complex foreign mess?
The whole arrangement is exactly like that of various Euro governments who had "deals" with Palestinian terrorists over the years. If you don't set off bombs in our country, we won't arrest you. That's why the Italians let the Achille Lauro hijackers go after the US forced their plane to land in Italy.
The British plan worked about as well as those "I won't if you won't" arrangements.
My feelings are with the poor Tommies. They had to sit there in their compound, day after day, knowing what the situation was in Basra--and at the same time, the arsehats were lobbing mortar shells into the compound.
No one mentions (well apart from maybe Alison) that it was the US military and politicians who created the long term situation that noone needed nor bargained for in the first place and who indeed created this man that Iraqis flocked to. Himself an Iraqi who will be play a part in their future whether the Americans like it or not.
The war needed to be drawn down and sense needed to come into play.
It is a pity Iraq the Model failed to take a lot into account. But then again the British were always going to be made the scapegoats by both the Iraqis and the Americans. I would agree the French muct be laughing their lucky socks off.
And it goes without saying that Washington is not averse to negotiating in various situations and probably has here also.
Of course there's no public evidence for the deal, do you expect No.10 to post a notice in the Times? It was a grubby, political deal imposed on our military.
Then I guess who you believe depends upon where your loyalties lie.....
first of all you all need to learn to read this post was an Iraqi point of view from an Iraqi blog.
Not an American blog or set of opinions
Troll
By posting it here without criticising it you are effectively endorsing those opinions.
Colm took the words out of my mouth :)
Mama/Troll , It is not British betrayal , it is Blair / Brown betrayal , I firmly believe that Brown secretly hates America and does all he can to torpedo the "special relationship" . Let us hope the Dave Cameroon will be able to restore it with President McCain .
Upon further reflection on this grotesque white wash...it occurred to me to point out the obvious.
You know that you Yanks have been doing the same with the Mahdi army don't you Mama Troll eg negotiating and trade offs for stability? Exactly the same. Except your media view it differently.
I think Iraq the Model needs to look first at his own people if he wants to use the word betrayal.
>>first of all you all need to learn to read this post was an Iraqi point of view from an Iraqi blog.<<
Where does it say it is an Iraqi point of view?
You have to learn to write for yourself, and before that you have to learn to think.
Quoting from Iraq The Minion, says it all really.
now I'm guilty of a non-denial denial... LOL
Sadir should have been killed the second week of the war by US troops, it would have saved a lot of blood shed on both sides.
I will now accept it as a challenge from all of you to hold you to the opinions of all those you quote!
I found the story interesting and knew it rile certain groups on this site. The contradictory info out of your government makes it hard to know whether the story is trur or not.
The Iraqi's however feel you betrayed them. I however would stand shoulder to shoulder with one of her majesties finest and feel I couldn't ask for better company, and the majority of you know that.
The Iraqis do not feel that. Read Micahel Yon. Your one Iraqi does and he's a jerk who ignores that this has happened all along with all sides. I agree with James, he should look at home before at anyone else.
Troll
let's say the US generously and selflessly agreed to support a military operation concieved and led by the UK , and many US soldiers died in the service of that British led war , you would be melting the blogosphere with white hot fury if a British blogger then posted a scurrilous and ungrateful attack on your military's contribution to that effort.
Did the US ever join in with the UK when it decided to go to war?
1939? 1956? 1982?
Where were all those stout shoulders jammed in alongside those of Her Majesty's finest?
I will now accept it as a challenge from all of you to hold you to the opinions of all those you quote!
Look at the sources you quote at 11.52am on Saturday! Your quotes back the dodgy blog you linked to.
Noel is right, you posted this without thinking and when you didn't get the response you thought you would you backtracked.....
It's plain for all to see....
The linking of the blog was offensive to many brits, you simply did not think.
Noel
1939 - Stayed on the fence, albeit tacitly supporting the UK until attacked by the Japs
1956 - Openly opposed the Brits over Suez (though the Brits deserved that).
1982 - Tried to be neutral but were eventually persuaded to back the UK over the Falklands.
Falklands? Surely you mean Las Malvinas or Iles Malouines.
Colm
As I said I posted the post because it does generally disagree with the sentiments felt by the majority of us here at ATW.
It sparked some heated conversation which it was intended to. As for your other comment I could find dozens of articles on British blogs and British papaers that do attack the American military on a daily basis.
You forget I read your papers and when I can listen to the beeb, The daily attacks on the US and the US military could make it quite easy to forget we are allies.
even comments here have painted the american army as worse than nazi's
as for Yon I am a big fan you should read his book Moment of Truth in Iraq
Gosh
Screw you! The list of things said by you and others are very offensive to Americans, but unlike you we can take the critisism.
And I posted it with full knowledge of how it would be recieved. I post things that will provoke thought and conversation if you think I give two bits about half of your feelings think again.
Very few of you have ever considered my feelings and I don't whine about it.
In other words get some thicker skin and grow a set of balls
Noel proves he's an idiot: "Where does it say it is an Iraqi point of view?"
try the TITLE OF THE POST! and the link that leads to it.
as for who is right on the interpritation of whether the deal was real or not and the Iraqi's have the right to feel that way the two people to ask would be A) the author of the original story in The Mail Online (which I believe is a British paper) and B) The Iraqi over on Iraq the Model
but it is warming to see even those that usually post comments that rise the bile in most of us with this post have shown some national pride and support of your military
oh and Gosh my post at 1:52 was a couple of paragraphs out of the article from the british press. Your reporters words not mine.
My only post of my own opinions were these last ones especialy the one where I said I would stand shoulder to shoulder with her majesties finest and feel proud to do it.
Troll, many people here don't read a wide variety of blogs, especially the milblogs. Iraq The Model has been one of the most accurate and literate go-to blogs written by Iraqis about the Iraq War for several years now.
I can understand why some (maybe many) people would take issue or be offended by this blog's opinion of the U.K.'s actions in this circumstance, but Troll doesn't deserve to get keel hauled for giving you a highly respected Iraqi blogger's take on this matter.
I think most of you are offended because you feel ashamed of your government's actions and don't like to see it publicized, particularly by someone not British.
Beating up the messenger doesn't change the facts.
Iraq the Model is also respected enough to part of Pajamas Media the same as this blog is
Thanks for pointing out the obvious and the support Daphne
Anytime Troll.
>>Where does it say it is an Iraqi point of view?"
try the TITLE OF THE POST! and the link that leads to it.<<
Troll, if you think this is an "Iraqi point of view" you are an even bigger fool than I held you to be:
"the British leaders managed to do this either with exceptional stupidity or exceptional and deliberate carelessness.
In our opinion, although the deal was made last year, Britain made the decision to offer basically the same deal unilaterally years before that by watching the monster grow under their noses without doing anything serious to stop it.
If the British truly don’t see themselves as part of the war, it would’ve been better for everyone to have the British admit it and tell the Americans and Iraqis that they wanted out. Then we would’ve thanked them for what they did, gave them a nice send-off, and struck them off the list of reliable allies, just like Spain."
This is an American perspective through and through. The Iraqi disguise is only meant to fool people like Troll.
Iraq the Model had it been accurate at all these last few years would have acknowledged the British presence in Iraq. It has not. It does not speak for all Iraqis else it would acknowledge it's own people's absolute sell out also and the endless issues and faults with the strategy in this war. But it is clear from its perspectve that it is an American pro war at any cost mouthpiece only. This is a dispicable piece and does not even attempt to mask it's Brit hatred. That the Mail wants to haul the Labour government's ass through the mire is one thing and no enormous surprise. Any fool would know why. But given the Americans have been using the same negotiating tactics to save soldiers lives and this has been blithely ignored here in attempt to chalk this up uniquely to the British smacks of ignorance. As does endorsing a piece which uses the harsh and emotive word betrayal. It is a disgusting piece of wholesale whitewashing and it was foolish to have endorsed it without the smallest piece of critique or honesty.
Daphne
Troll does deserve every bit of criticism he has recieved here. He posted this article here as a deliberate message - The Brits are second rate duplicitous bastards , just like all the other Europeans,only us Americans can be relied on to do the job properly - . Troll read that article, loved it, and wanted to gloat over it by sticking it on here . He wasn't just the messenger he was the willing promoter. In doing so he puts himself on the same level as those British bloggers he mentions who trash the American military.
yes yes the troll crawled out from under his bridge to bludgeon the poor always supportive of america brits...lol
you have people on here that have said repeatedly that the American Army targets civilians, and you don't see this kind of outrage.
Your being very hypocritical
I have stated in this post and in posts over the years that the British Military is amongst the finest in the world. Yet I post an opinion from an award winning blog that is written by two Iraqi Dentists and I am anti-british
I think you all have spent to much time in the pub.
Troll
I can't speak for others, but I for one have never attacked the military,either American or British. I would never presume to have the knowledge to do so, and I feel humble at the risks all soldiers take in the theatre of war. They volunteer knowing they may lose their lives. They are braver than I would ever be and that sentiment is what lies behind my dislike of the article you posted. I will admit however, in a calmer mood that I was too harsh towards you in my previous comment. I know you have great and genuine respect for serving soldiers, albeit from an understandeably very pro-American military persepctive and while I still think the article was not justified I do accept that you didn't post it to deliberately trash the British Armed forces. I'm sorry for suggesting that you did.
Thank you Colms , the criticism from you out of those above was the only one that got to me.
You know my respect for both our militaries and my disrespect for both of our governments when they dictate tactics from home on what our soldiers should or should not do