6 British Soldiers killed in Iraq

Agathon · June 24, 2003, 11:13

On CNN just now. No links available yet. Apparently the 6 "injured" in Basra were actually killed according to MoD.

Well I guess those Iraquis are sick of being "liberated".

The resistance to occupation seems to be increasing quite rapidly which is worrying on several fronts. The longer the occupation goes the more resentment will build up and more resistance will occur. More resistance will mean the occupation lasts longer.

And this incident was in Basra, against the Brits, whom everyone thought were the "nice" face of the invasion.

Of course it's not yet time to run screaming, but it definitely is getting interesting.

GePap · June 24, 2003, 11:16

The majority aren't. But a significant enough minority is to cause problems.

What type of incident was it?

alva · June 24, 2003, 11:17

Agathon · June 24, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
The majority aren't. But a significant enough minority is to cause problems.

What type of incident was it?

Don't know - details are still hazy - that's all they said.

I thought the majority consensus in Iraq was "Great Saddam's gone, now leave us the **** alone."

GePap · June 24, 2003, 11:32

Only if "eave us alone" doesn't mean: hey, look, Saddam's back! Plus there is that fact that certainly the Kurds aren;t really that happy to stuck with the whole "Iraq" bit, but they play nice cause the US is there.

Politically, I think this adds to Balir problems. He is shakky on the weapons, and I don't think the Brti public is that gun-ho about being part of an occupation when thier boys might be getting killed,if they doubt the veracity of having one in in the first place.

PLATO · June 24, 2003, 11:55

Did anybody really expect something different than this? We have been told over and over that it will take at least a year to get things in some semblance of order in Iraq. Everybody seems to want everything to be just perfect two months after the US took over a country? This simply isn't realistic. Given the climate in the ME, Iraq may be years away from being without some sort of terrorism. The goal here is to try to create an environment that is stable enough for the Iraqi people to be able to govern themselves. With the fact that all relevant opposition to the Baath party was eliminated by the previous regime, I believe that a year is ambitious. I would expect this kind of thing to continue for several months at the least.

Bereta_Eder · June 24, 2003, 12:14

mess with the seeds, the chickens eat you

Jac de Molay · June 24, 2003, 12:21

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Did anybody really expect something different than this? We have been told over and over that it will take at least a year to get things in some semblance of order in Iraq. Everybody seems to want everything to be just perfect two months after the US took over a country? This simply isn't realistic. Given the climate in the ME, Iraq may be years away from being without some sort of terrorism. The goal here is to try to create an environment that is stable enough for the Iraqi people to be able to govern themselves. With the fact that all relevant opposition to the Baath party was eliminated by the previous regime, I believe that a year is ambitious. I would expect this kind of thing to continue for several months at the least.

The thing that wasn't expected was the amount of baath loyalty remaining, not to mention the amount of looting that is still happening. Plus the amount of Republican guard that "faded" back into the populace.

I'm starting to think 2-3 years is ambitious. Consider that Afghanistan is supposed to be less than a year away from holding general elections, and how close to a stable environment that is.

DanS · June 24, 2003, 12:47

I am surprised, since this happened in a Shiite area. You don't hear much about the South, because there hasn't been any hostility there.

Overall, I would guess this is not an indication of the future unrest in the South. Probably imported from the Sunni areas.

lord of the mark · June 24, 2003, 12:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Jac de Molay

The thing that wasn't expected was the amount of baath loyalty remaining, not to mention the amount of looting that is still happening. Plus the amount of Republican guard that "faded" back into the populace.

I'm starting to think 2-3 years is ambitious. Consider that Afghanistan is supposed to be less than a year away from holding general elections, and how close to a stable environment that is.

depends who was doing the expecting.

there were people here saying that due to iraqi nationalism, basically everyone other than the Kurds would be resisting. Instead the resistance is mainly in the Sunni belt, and seems to be largely the hardcore - baathist-fedayeen-SRG. There may have been some who thought there would be less resistance, but this is within the range of what many expected.

lord of the mark · June 24, 2003, 12:49

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
The majority aren't. But a significant enough minority is to cause problems.

What type of incident was it?

Chopper taken down - not rioting in the street.

Q Classic · June 24, 2003, 12:54

one is almost tempted to say that if they don't like us there, and don't want us there, for us to just leave them on their own devices.

of course, that'll only breed resentment. occupation of this nature leads to a situation where all options lead to hate, it's just a question of which ones lead to less hate.

MichaeltheGreat · June 24, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Did anybody really expect something different than this? We have been told over and over that it will take at least a year to get things in some semblance of order in Iraq. Everybody seems to want everything to be just perfect two months after the US took over a country? This simply isn't realistic. Given the climate in the ME, Iraq may be years away from being without some sort of terrorism. The goal here is to try to create an environment that is stable enough for the Iraqi people to be able to govern themselves. With the fact that all relevant opposition to the Baath party was eliminated by the previous regime, I believe that a year is ambitious. I would expect this kind of thing to continue for several months at the least.

If the proper amount of troops had been committed, and some pre-planning for fixing infrastructure, paying people in the absense of a functioning economy, etc., then a majority of this stuff is completely avoidable. Unfortunately, Bush and Wolfie want to prove they know more than Shinseki and other professionals, and prove their manhood by how few troops they can use to occupy Iraq.

You can't have large counterinsurgent operations without taking those troops out of routine security duty, and the allied forces are spread pretty damned thin when you figure they have to be in a security posture 7/24 across the whole country. They can't, so they concentrate in some areas, and give the Iraqis a lot of ability to do **** in the shadows, where allied forces aren't covering at the moment.

This is going to be a slow, lingering FUBAR at this rate.

MichaeltheGreat · June 24, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Chopper taken down - not rioting in the street.

Occupying troops dead = occupying troops dead. It doesn't really matter how they do it.

Cruddy · June 24, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Agathon

...And this incident was in Basra, against the Brits, whom everyone thought were the "nice" face of the invasion.

Of course it's not yet time to run screaming, but it definitely is getting interesting.

It wasn't in Basra. Try Al Hamann province north of Basra. Resistance forces generally don't operate in cities at the start of hostilities.

Apparently 2 separate attacks with other injuries apart from the dead.

Not good news - but I'm not surprised in the least.

Agathon · June 24, 2003, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy

Resistance forces generally don't operate in cities at the start of hostilities.

Never a truer word was spoken.

Wait until the resistance has a name and then you'll know that the trouble is really starting.

Any candidate names? Here's mine:

"The George W Bush Appreciation Society"

"The Committee to de-Elect the President"

DanS · June 24, 2003, 14:26

Unfortunately, Bush and Wolfie want to prove they know more than Shinseki and other professionals

Hey, since when did you like Shinseki?

Cruddy · June 24, 2003, 14:30

Agathon, total number Brit casualties lost to Iraqi fire up to capture of Baghdad = 8.

Add six more to that and you can see we're not exactly in the throes of panic over them.

They are doing what they are paid to do. Getting shot at and returning it 10 fold. They're not conscripts, they're volunteers - and the few (5?) who had weren't happy about the Iraq War were lifted out before it kicked offf.

Agathon · June 24, 2003, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
Agathon, total number Brit casualties lost to Iraqi fire up to capture of Baghdad = 8.

Add six more to that and you can see we're not exactly in the throes of panic over them.

They are doing what they are paid to do. Getting shot at and returning it 10 fold. They're not conscripts, they're volunteers - and the few (5?) who had weren't happy about the Iraq War were lifted out before it kicked offf.

That's not what worries me. If this is indeed the beginning of a lengthy and popular resistance then there will be more deaths (I don't care whose) and that may make the overall situation worse.

PLATO · June 24, 2003, 15:01

A resistance significant enough to pose a large threat would almost have to be state sponsored. Undoubtedly this sponsorship would be exposed. Given GW's trigger finger, the results could be disastorous for the sponsor nation. More likely you will continue to see loosly organized groups conducting random attacks for some time. The establishment of self governance should lessen, but not eliminate them

Cruddy · June 24, 2003, 15:07

As I understand it, troops involved were 1st Para helping train Iraqis as police.

Maybe target wasn't the Brits but the "collaborators".

Yep, definitely 100 miles outside of Basra - out of the Sh'ia area entirely.

Dis · June 24, 2003, 15:29

turn Iraq over to the U.N. dammit!

this is out of control.

Lord Merciless · June 24, 2003, 15:30

The decision to disband the Iraqi army without severance pay definitely pushed many Iraqis over the edge. If only 1% out of the 400,000 decides to go extreme, we suddenly have to face 4,000 guerillas with lots of weapons and military trainings.

C0ckney · June 24, 2003, 15:43

yeah well we saw how well their weapons and military training served them in the war itself...

and gegap, i think you underestimate the british public, while loss to our forces is tragic, 6 deaths is hardly going to make people want to call the whole thing off.

Lord Merciless · June 24, 2003, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by C0ckney
yeah well we saw how well their weapons and military training served them in the war itself...

It's harder to kill Americans in wars.

Dis · June 24, 2003, 16:01

but easier to kill americans when not in war

Cruddy · June 24, 2003, 16:09

Only real cure to the problem is an economically viable Iraq which can mind it's own business.

Lord Merciless · June 24, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
Only real cure to the problem is an economically viable Iraq which can mind it's own business.

That means holding out until such thing becomes a reality.

Pulling out just because there are casualties is not an option.

Dis · June 24, 2003, 16:14

yes but a slow integration of U.N. peacekeepers is a viable option.

We could slowly, and I stress slowly, turn over control of Iraq to the U.N. peacekeepers.

C0ckney · June 24, 2003, 16:18

why would that make a difference, it would still be the foriegn troops in iraq, which is after all what the iraqis are objecting to. although the iraqis may find the UN a little more acceptable, do you honestly think that the hardliners wouldn't attack them as well?

the only difference would the fact that we'd be replacing the best armies there are in the world with a mish-mash of blue helmets tied up in red tape.