Tue - April 1, 2008The Brits Stay in IraqI heard on the radio today that the Brits have
changed their minds because of the recent violence in Basra and decided to not
withdraw from Iraq. Good for them, I'm glad they're showing some sense. I've
been very concerned about them.
In 2005 when my battalion, 3/25, was training for Iraq we had a couple of British soldiers and officers as instructors. They insisted that they were the masters of counter-insurgency based on their experiences in Ireland. They told us that we should avoid wearing armor or helmets and we should be sure to patrol the cities as though we were not afraid of the people. They were sure that all of our problems were a result of our treating the Iraqis as potential enemies rather than as trusted friends. Nice guys, but completely clueless on that issue. Since then I've been watching the Brits' results
down in southern Iraq. They've done pretty well in some ways, but for the most
part they've been struggling in Basra. Of course, we've been struggling too,
I'm not aiming to sound superior. But in one major way there's been a critical
difference. While the Marines marched into towns and cities and kicked the
stuffing out of the enemy, killing them quite liberally, the Brits tried their
no helmets approach. Since about 2005, if I'm not mistaken, the result of their
policy of not angering the Iraqis is that they've essentially been kicked out of
Basra and it has been controlled by Shiite gangs, who are likely controlled by
Iranian agents.
Americans haven't been immune to this preposterous policy. A battalion following our battalion's permanent occupation of the city of Hit publicly complained to journalists that Hit would be peaceful if they could just withdraw and leave its citizens alone. Hit was pretty violent while they were there. From first hand accounts relayed to me, as soon as that battalion left and was replaced by one with a more sensible policy of getting in the city and dealing harshly with the enemy, the place was quickly pacified. Nothing in Iraq is so simple and straightforward as to be able to be reduced to simple rules. It's not one thing that causes cities to be civilized. It's not one thing that makes them support murderers. But I will say that some methods don't work at all. Insisting on not wearing helmets or armor, and then using that as an excuse to pull out of a city for fear that unarmored soldiers will be hurt is not a successful tactic. There was a powerpoint slide that circulated around the internet for most of last year that purported to have the secret for success in Al Anbar. Basically it said that we have to use locally recruited police, we have to use the influence of the sheiks, we have to socialize with the Iraqis and then we will succeed. This is all nice and it's hard to argue with it. Except that two years earlier the exact same approach was tried and failed miserably. Locally recruited police were more likely to be corrupt, we learned that only police recruited from outside the city were able to act without being influenced by the local strongman or sheik. The sheiks were appealed to, but they tended to support the terrorists and actively used our attempts to cooperate as a way to betray us to the insurgents. We had to be very aggressive to kill the enemy and do our best to make the sheiks fear crossing us. After seeing their erstwhile allies slaughter their families and constituents in the most hideous ways, the sheiks learned that they were safer siding with us than with the insurgents. We witnessed several pitched battles between insurgents and sheiks. So the Brits are sticking around. They have courage as a nation after all. Let's hope they continue working side by side with us as long as it's necessary. Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents | |