British Forces Flee Basra
September 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm | In Basra, Britain, Iraq | 7 CommentsBritish forces are at present withdrawing from Saddam’s place, or more accruately, they are fleeing Basra; a city that they could no longer hold.
The troops stationed in the airport are, to use the military parlance, marking time. There can no longer be any military justification for their continued presence, since they are doing little more than defending themselves.
7 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
I’ve blogged about this too. It couldn’t be a more resounding defeat but according to the MoD it what they intended all along – to be chased out of Basra with their tail between their legs, having achieved nothing.
Comment by steph — September 3, 2007 #
Wrong.
Comment by stephen kutis — September 7, 2007 #
Indeed. The British armed forces, like the U.S. armed forces in Vietnam were not trying to win. In fact, they could have won had they so desired but the politicians back home had lost heart. Beset by pangs on conscience, these very same politicians engineered a strategy to bring about the ‘ignominious defeat’ of their own armed forces.
Defeat is victory; war is peace; and the United States is the zenith of civilisation. Quite so Stephen.
Comment by zadehamin — September 8, 2007 #
Zade .. I agree. To win or not to win. They couldn’t care for it doesn’t matter. They can go home. Point made. This seems to mean very little about defeat and more about this comic book idea called the “War on Terror”. We did our (some)thang. To the people on the ground I think peace and harmony as a society are all that matter. Call it what you will. …”victory” or “defeat” are terms for the West….and we can glory in either. The people over there are left with the mess. Thank god Bush is off soon. Is Brown going to be any better. What’s the thinking over there ?
Comment by Paul Travers — September 10, 2007 #
Paul, to quote Kipling “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster, And treat those two impostors just the same”. For those of a certain mindset, this is impossible; presentation is more important than reality. Yet the consequences of such adventurism are paid in the blood of others.
Comment by zadehamin — September 12, 2007 #
So true Zade …. the message wasn’t that we “fled” but that the job was “done”… Is it too early to comment on Brown…? We have someone here called Kevin Rudd, leader of the Aust Labor (sic) Party. Apparently he didn’t roll over for Bush at the recent APEC meeting and is likely to get voted in to replace the dreadful John Howard. The problem is “Bring the boyz home” (they should never have been there) is a little late in the day now that the messs has been created. Or, should that not matter. In my heart, I don’t think I can say “it’s an Iraqi problem, they should sort it” out given that we created this dealy environment. We need to help them do it perhaps? Question is how.
Comment by Paul Travers — September 16, 2007 #
Paul, my apologise for missing your question about Brown. He is not considered at all in Basra. Now the British presence is but a token force; either Sayyed al-Hakim or Sayyed al-Sadr will take control of Basra. If this leads to civil war; so be it: Basrawi yearn for a conclusion to this fratricide. What is unspeakable in the seminaries of Qom and Najaf is reality upon the streets of Basra. Sayyed al-Hakim or Sayyed al-Sadr will go to war.
Thus, I take the opposite view to you: I believe very much that Iraq is a problem that can only be resolved by Iraqis. Iran’s influence has been productive in so far as it has brokered temporary and not fully observed truce between the two Saadah; yet this truce will not survive Ayatullah al-Uzma Sayyed Ali al-Sistani’s passing. Only Iraqis can decide their fate.
Comment by zadehamin — September 19, 2007 #