USA TODAY, May 30, 2003
British postwar approach provides model for U.S.
Our view: Chaos and hostility are less prevalent in area controlled by ally.
NY Times, June 24, 2003 6 British Soldiers Are Killed in Southern Iraq By KIRK SEMPLE
Six British military personnel in Iraq were killed and eight were wounded today in two separate attacks near the southeastern city of Amara, a spokeswoman for Britain's Ministry of Defense said. The deaths were the first among British troops by hostile fire since April 6.
More than fair comment.
On Newsnight tonight, the penetrating military reporter Mark Urban emphasised that although Amarah is at the northern end of the British zone of occupation, it was regarded as a relatively "benign" environment. The incident occurred at Al Majarr. For some reason at the same time as 6 military policemen were arriving to train Iraqi police, a British force of paratroopers was arriving just to the east. They came under fire. A helicopter was flown in to help them and it too came under fire. British sources refer to "large numbers" of attackers. As of this evening London time, the authorities are reporting little of the deaths of all six military policemen, on the grounds that none survived and therefore there is little information. Obviously this story could be even worse if friendly Iraqi forces are unable to get out authoritative information. Could one of the Iraqi trainees have had a loaded machine gun ready for his lesson, I wonder.
Urban noted that initial comments had been superficial about whether British troops would need to resume body armour and helmets. However he suggested what is known already suggests quite a high level of coordination among quite a large number of resistance fighters. Up to now allied deaths, usually of US troops have been done by individuals or pairs of attackers.
The BBC's report on this worst day for the occupiers, quotes a US defense spokesperson saying there were 25 attacks on allied troops on Monday and Tuesday alone. There is no suggestion that this is a desperate last push by the Iraqi resistance, rather it seems to me that they are getting organised.
The British may still hope they have secured Basra in a way the US has not secured Baghdad, and they are aided by the overwhelming Shia nature of the former city and the relatively recent memory of draconian punishment by the Iraqi regime as it was of strategic importance in the war of Desert Storm and in the war with Iran.
Until today one might have wondered if the emerging pattern of Iraqi resistance would concentrate in the Sunni central region and on US forces.
However if they wish to mount co-ordinated attacks in the British zone at this stage it could have considerable strategic significance. Tonight on Newsnight the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson commented that quite clearly the British and American forces cannot do this on their own, and that it is essential to give a much greater role for the United Nations. The government Defence Minister Adam Ingrams, grimly refused to give any more detail about the losses but emphasised that internationalising the occupying forces is what they are working on. He declined to say they would increase the number of British troops.
But depending on the degree of sophistication of the Iraqi resistance such an attack on nice British troops, in the south is not likely to inspire Poles, or Pakistanis to put themselves in a similar vulnerable position, without a much clearer endorsement by the local population. And if British trainers have to have a much higher level of defence for themselves, this is going to slow down the pace of the urgently needed political solution.
Meanwhile the stage is set for a showdown in the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee tomorrow. Jack Straw today described to it the "dodgy dossier" as a very great embarrassment and a "complete Horlicks" [I am sorry but I have never heard this expression before. It may be a demure expression for horseshit, Horlicks being an antiquated British malt drink - does anyone better educated than me know?] But less picturesquely, Jack Straw identified the dodgy dossier as having been commissioned by Alastair Campbell, and going back to Alastair Campbell prior to publication on the internet. Campbell is due to appear before the committee tomorrow. All they have to do is to present to him Jack Straw's testimony and invite him to comment. That will be an exercise in public "processology". Blair may be within sight of losing another key architect of New Labour.
The personal and the military contradictions are opening up.
Chris Burford London
