# Shades of things to come in Afghanistan?



## GAP (27 Aug 2007)

As British leave Basra, militias dig in
An Iraqi official says a deal was struck with the Mahdi Army to ensure a safe departure.
By Sam Dagher | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor August 28, 2007 edition
Article Link

Basra, Iraq
The last contingent of British soldiers based in the center of this southern city will leave by Friday, says a senior Iraqi security official, adding that a deal has been struck with leaders of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army to ensure their safe departure. 

As they pull back to a base outside Basra, the British will leave a vital provincial capital in the throes of a turf battle between Shiite factions – one that Mr. Sadr's militia appears to be winning. 

"By the end of August, there will be no presence for British forces at the palace or at the joint coordination center. Both will be in the hands of the Iraqi government," says the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the matter. "I think it's best if they leave, because they did nothing to stop the militias, which were formed in the womb of their occupation." A spokesman for the British military in Basra confirmed that a small force left the Provincial Joint Coordination Center (PJCC), site of a British-Iraqi security task force, Saturday. He declined comment on the timing of the pullout of 500 soldiers from a compound of four Saddam Hussein-era palaces that are located on the strategic Shatt al-Arab River. The buildings have been occupied by coalition troops since the start of the war in 2003. 

Ahead of the pullout, an agreement between British and Iraqi authorities resulted in the transfer of more than two dozen Mahdi Army prisoners from British to Iraqi custody, according to the security official. They were then released by an Iraqi court in an attempt to pacify the militias during the highly symbolic handover of the palaces to Iraqis, he said. The British did not comment on any arrangements


----------



## KevinB (28 Aug 2007)

The British activity in Basra was revolting -- halfway thru the mission they decided they wanted out and decided to stop doing the mission.

I shake my head at the mindset of a lot of the people who decried the Iraq and Afghan missions -- for regardless how one felt about initial invasions - both are now into support of the elected gov't's and supporting of Peace Enforcement missions (regardless of the fact they are a rather nasty counter insurgency) - and that is in fact a noble mission.  


I would not piss on the anti war crowd if they were on fire --


----------



## Donut (28 Aug 2007)

I 6, is some of that due to the fact that they'd lost the moral high ground, and were unable to accomplish the mission?

I recall several "abu graib" type videos coming out before the withdrawal was announced.  having lost the moral right to govern, was withdrawing perhaps a legit act?

NOT arguing in favor of a Brit withdrawal, just trying to understand why they decided the way they did.

As to the second part, I agree wholeheartedly.  Regardless of why The West went in in the first place, "we" are there now, in support of a legit government, with the soldiers, airmen and Marines doing the best they can with the tools provided and ROE allowed, which is, as you put it, a noble mission.


----------



## KevinB (28 Aug 2007)

I don't think so -- it seemed that the Brit gov't just told the MOD to shut'er down...
 I think that the British decided that since their populace was against Iraq - that they would declare victory and withdraw - chosing to save British lives and thru countless Iraqi lives away.

  As for the Moral High Ground - well it does not win wars.  Despite that - we have no worries about EVER losing it - if you see the stuff that the JAM and others do.
Our troops may make poor choices - and we are not infallable, but as far as commiting atorcities - we have a good record in keep those to a minimun and they are not corporate policy, unlike or enemies.  Moral High Ground also mean following thru on a rebuilding process once your removed the old system of gov't.  Cutting and running is a extreme display of not just cowardess but the lack of moral fibre to finish what one started, and it will cause a great deal of death -- vastly large number than continuing the mission would.

 The JAM (Jaysh Al Mahdi) are under a loose control of al-Sadr.  I won't get into the theological debate that Sadr can't really be the Mahdi - thus his army can't really be the vandguard of the Mahdi.

 However there is a large parallel to the breakup of the FRY in this one - as religious/political leaders are mobilizing forces against their opponents, and the best way to keep your people occupied and not notice youd ont really have a platform that will help them is to get them good and riled up and kill their fellow man.  The forces of chaos, fear and eath won a battle in Basra - as the JAM will now turn north.


----------



## Donut (28 Aug 2007)

Holding the moral high ground may not win wars, but losing it, I suspect, can lose them, and our withdrawal from A'Stan is ceding it to the enemy.

I can see the parallel to the breakup of the FRY, and other "failing states" decay.  When in BiH, I was truly shocked at what hadn't made the news (not that it didn't make the news, but what had transpired), and degree of savageness that resulted from the mobilization.

I can't speak to what the JAM has, or will, do, but I'm sure no good will come of it.


----------



## KevinB (28 Aug 2007)

I live, and work, in an area surrounded by the JAM - FWIW.
   

The problem is while our militaries are focused individuals - the same can be said about our enemies, and they have the power of the conviction of their beleifs behind them - that give them the "right" to commit attorcities in the name of god.

The same 9-5 Soccer Mom drinking her Starbucks White Choclate Mocha is as a legitimate target to them - as someone in uniform and carrying a gun -- and the unfortunate thing is that IF we fail in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same leaders that came to power - will need to push the war off their shore to ours - since they NEED the conflict to govern - or their populace will wake up and realise that the governing body has done nothign for them - nor with it - since its based on hate and killing and their focus is making their version of Islam the dominate religion on the planet.
  Sunni and Shia death squads now -- where later?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Aug 2007)

The Brit's chickens are coming home to roost. The will try to hunker down at Basra airfield, which today was hit by 7 rockets. While the Mahdi Army is on the run outside of Basra they are very secure in Basra and are on the verge of forcing the Brits out completely, which is militarily unacceptable to the US Army.
The Mahdi Army from Basra can shut off the MSR from Kuwait. As a result we will have to shift forces to Basra to crush the Mahdi Army. I think an operation will be required by next month but certainly by October. The Brits have tried their "Basra" strategy in Afghanistan by buying off the enemy. We stopped that which is why they want us out of Helmand.


----------



## GAP (29 Aug 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Brits have tried their "Basra" strategy in Afghanistan by buying off the enemy. We stopped that which is why they want us out of Helmand.



Which is precisely why the CF should stay in Kandahar. There has to be at least one strong partner for the US and others to depend on. 

In many of the articles I have posted over the last year there have been comments about the Brits making concessions/deals that they just had to know would come back and bite them in the arse. I never put to much stock in it, thinking it was a lot of journalism flair, but maybe not.


----------



## KevinB (29 Aug 2007)

With the Brits - its seems very dependant upon the unit.   Some formations are very agressive - and some appear to be riding out the tour with the objective of minial work and loss of life - damn the mission.


----------

