EU Referendum

After the bomb attack in Basra last week, in which four British service personnel and their translator were murdered while travelling in their Warrior infantry combat vehicle, another major incident in Basra has been reported – mercifully with no loss of life amongst coalition forces.

This was a street battle in Basra's southwestern Qibla district yesterday where, according to Reuters, British troops were engaged in a major gun battle after coming under fire during a routine search operation.

Army spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Stratford-Wright confirmed the action, saying that "ten of the enemy were hit", although he did not know whether they had been wounded or killed. "There was a substantial exchange of gunfire," he added.

According to his account, gunmen had opened fire on the British force from alleyways and rooftops with machinegun fire and several rocket-propelled grenades. The soldiers returned fire from machineguns mounted on armoured personnel carriers.

There have been very few such reports of fighting on this scale – where the fighting has been initiated by the insurgents - and, although there have been concerns about the growing intensity of attacks on British forces, this appears to be a significant escalation.

Coming so soon after the release of the fifteen naval hostages from Iran, in a display of weakness that has repeatedly been aired on Arab television throughout the region, one can only ask if the hostage-taking is in some way linked to what appears to be the growing confidence of the largely Iranian-backed insurgents.

It is perhaps too early to tell and, with the paucity of western journalists in the city, the flow of news may not be sufficiently reliable to judge from future reports.

However, no one can say that the compliant behaviour of the navy hostages in Iranian hands and the ease with which they were captured has actually enhanced Britain's reputation abroad. Therefore, the possibility that the yesterday's attack on British troops is related cannot be dismissed.

The MoD will, of course, deny any linkage but it will be tragic if it is the Army which pays the price for the Navy's carelessness.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Army, basra, Royal Navy

It was only yesterday morning that BBC correspondent Paul Wood, embedded with the Second Rifles in Basra, was confidently chirping over the airwaves that, "the British Army believes it is winning here".

This was in the same week that the Army had pulled out of its base in the Old State Building in central Basra, an event barely recorded by the BBC and almost entirely ignored by the MSM.

Yet, a mere two days later, fighting had erupted in the centre of the city, again given little attention by the BBC but recorded in depth by Sam Dagher of the Christian Science Monitor, his piece headed: "British leave, battle erupts over Basra".

The fighting, it appears, broke out between rival Shiite groups - those loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr and the Fadeela faction - and spilled out onto the streets. The CSM report (based in part on Reuters copy) records eyewitness claiming that masked gunmen had swept through the centre of the city carrying AK-47s and rocket launchers.

In scenes that appear to be redolent of the hand-over at al Amarah where the British Abu Naji camp was stripped bare by the militias, some of the fighting was reported to be over control of the vacated Old State Building.

A source from the Fadeela Party in Basra also said the party headquarters had been completely burned down in the clashes, and the fighting had then moved to the house of Basra's governor, Mohammad Musbih al-Waeli, a leader from Fadeela, which came under siege as gunmen tried to storm his residence.

Dagher argues that the turmoil signals the beginning of the kind of battles that could erupt in Iraq as outside forces depart, citing Martin Navias, an analyst at the Centre for Defence Studies at London's King's College. "There will be a power vacuum in Basra," he says. "As the British begin to extricate themselves from Basra, there will be fighting among these groups." Dagher' piece continues:

Fadeela officials said that "neighboring" countries, in a veiled reference to Iran, were backing certain factions in Basra including an individual they named who has known links to Mr. Sadr. "Iranian influence in southern Iraq is very strong and there are loads of Iranian personnel running around Basra, but which faction they are coming down for is unclear," says Mr. Navias.

"The British adopted a policy of live and let live. They never confronted the Shiite militias unless they were pushed in certain situations .... This allowed the different factions to assume power in the governing council, police and other institutions."

Reuters reports that hospital sources said seven people had been wounded in the clashes which seemed to have died down shortly after midday yesterday, when the intense gunfire dwindled to sporadic shooting.

A curfew was imposed for several hours as Iraqi police, soldiers, and British troops deployed in the area. However, British military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Kevin Stratford-Wright could only say that by the time British troops got into the city, "there wasn't much to see."

Curiously, few other media outlets have given the events much coverage either, one exception (at the time of writing) being The Times, which relies on correspondent James Hider, filing from Baghdad.

Hider cites Abdul-Qader Mohammed Jassim, the Iraqi defence minister, who just happened to be in London, saying that his troops were capable of tackling outbursts of violence and that he had brought forward the deployment of an extra 5,000 Iraqi soldiers to the city. For the time being, therefore, the line is holding.

Nevertheless, in a separate report, Reuters claims that the Mehdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with up to 3000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. This, says the agency, is seen potentially as adding an even more deadly element to Iraq's violent mix.

Whether we saw some of that yesterday is a moot point, but it seems entirely compatible with the developments Reuters is reporting. One thing must be certain though: while the media spend most of its time and effort on watching the US activities in Baghdad and elsewhere – this being the main focus of BBC reports yesterday – the situation in Basra is far from settled. We could possibly be looking at a sharp deterioration in the security situation over the next few weeks and months.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra

We learn today from The Sunday Telegraph that British Commanders in Iraq have ordered artillery to be used against insurgents for the first time since the end of the war.

The move follows a sharp increase in mortar and rocket attacks on military bases in the city. Military officials confirmed that troops at five bases are being shelled daily with mortars or rockets.

It is understood that Maj Gen Jonathan Shaw, the commander of the multinational division in southern Iraq, asked for a battery of six 105 mm guns from 40 Regiment Royal Artillery to return to Iraq to counter long-range attacks by insurgents. This will be the first time that British forces have used artillery in Iraq since 2003, when it was used during the war against Saddam Hussein's forces.

Says The Telegraph, for several months, insurgents have been attacking British bases with 120 mm mortars and rockets that can be fired from several miles away. Both weapons are notoriously inaccurate in untrained hands and many of the rounds fired at British bases land in residential areas, killing and injuring civilians. Commanders hope that the insurgents will be discouraged if they are met with an artillery barrage from the British 105 mm weapons every time they open fire.

Good though this news is that we are taking active counter-measures, I have been hearing from a variety of sources that, unlike the "gung ho" US, the British will not use artillery because of the risk of civilian casualties. Now it seems we too are to join the ranks of the "gung ho", returning fire when attacked.

But the fact that we learn of this from a newspaper can only be a deliberate snub to MPs – and Parliament in general. For some months now, several MPs have been asking the secretary of state for defence for details of measures which the MoD is taking to protect our troops, only for the questions - one as recent as last last Wednesday - to be dead-batted on security grounds.

What MPs cannot be told, however, can be released to a national newspaper and thence into the public domain. That, by any measure, is contempt of Parliament.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, mortar attacks

There can be few readers of this blog who have not, in their own ways, come to the conclusion that governments are intrinsically untrustworthy – which means that the material they produce is also, necessarily, suspect.

It is in this context that one can make clinical judgements of a piece posted yesterday on the MoD website, headed, "Keeping Kandahar Air Base Safe". As an example of the way the propaganda machine works, it is an absolute classic and perhaps should be studied for years to come, typical of the way governments keep the "good news" flowing and suppress the bad.

By way of background, readers will be fully aware of our concern – and to be fair to them, the concern of a number of MPs – about the vulnerability of our bases in Iraq to mortar and rocket fire (see here and here). However, when questioned about the protection afforded to our troops, the secretary of state for defence, Des Browne, refuses to discuss the issue in public, simply offering MPs private briefings.

Now, by contrast, when we get a situation in Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan where the protection is adequate, the MoD website rushes out information on the systems used at a level of detail that has been entirely denied to us in respect of the badly protected raqi bases.

And, although not all the protection strategies have been adopted, we note that – in addition to the perimeter guardposts, manned by Romanian infantry, which have the latest surveillance and CCTV equipment - there is a battery of Danish weapon-locating radars (similar to our Mamba sets) and elements of an American airborne forces unit.

But with the base being regularly targeted by Taliban rocket attacks, launched from over five miles away, the Force Protection unit also put into effect a strategy that sees them not just guarding the perimeter wire, but going outside the base to win over the support of local villagers, amongst which the Taliban were launching their attacks.

The effort is run by Wing Commander Andy Knowles, Commanding Officer of 3 Force Protection (FP) Wing, a 20 man unit from RAF Marham. But that is supplemented by an extra 700 troops at Kandahar made up of personnel from various countries, including members of the UK's RAF Regiment.

But now we get to the essential difference. The Air Base is run by the US and the force protection effort benefits from American money. The result is that, while in the past it was usual for the base to come under sustained rocket attack two or three times every night, with the additional force protection, the airbase has suffered no casualties and no significant damage since June 2006.

Thus, as Squadron Leader Steve Carter - Second-in-Command of 3 Force Protection Wing at Kandahar – says, "Instead of reacting to constant rocket attacks … troops can now sleep at night."

What an appalling contrast this makes with the situation in Iraq where, as we saw from the photographs, the physical protection is a layer of canvas and a mattress, while troops are mortared or rocketed daily.

And what an indictment of the way the government publicity machine works - silent on the problems yet full of glowing self-congratulation when the system works. But I think the secretary of state owes us an explanation as to why troops in Afghanistan can be protected, while those unfortunate enough to be posted to Iraq are offered no equivalent protection.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: afghanistan, basra, defence

At last, one of the national dailies is waking up to the peril which our troops are facing in their bases in and around Basra, as they are rocketed and mortared daily, with a steadily increasing number of casualties.

That this newspaper is The Sun is probably helpful, as it is the largest-circulation paper, and has a strong impact on politicians, who believe (probably rightly) that it has the power to influence voting intentions.

Certainly, now that the paper has raised the issue, if there is the disaster in one of the bases that we expect and fear – where a bomb strikes a tent full of sleeping soldiers, or a crowded mess – then it will return to the issue with a strident "we told you so", which will be politically highly damaging.

Unfortunately, it does not look as if we are quite there yet as defence editor, Tom Newton Dunn, on a visit to Basra Palace, is obviously very much in the thrall of the British propaganda machine, highlighting the Iranian threat, which was done some time ago, rather than the lack of resources to deal with the threat.

Thus, we have Tom Newton Dunn repeat the Army's defeatist mantra that, "Most of the firing is from gardens or trucks in built-up areas so troops can't fire back." There is no sense that there are other countermeasures available or that the lack of resources represents serial incompetence on the part of successive governments, and their military advisors.

Still, Dunn's piece, highlighting the peril that our troops face, is at least a welcome contrast to the media silence on this issue. Perhaps while he is there, he might develop a better understanding of the lack of protection and political inertia.

That is not to say, however, that the Army is being entirely inert, given its successful action at the end of January and the raid over the weekend, but this is clearly not enough.

And, on that last raid, while the MoD website was quick to announce the success (and rightly so), it has been rather remiss in not announcing that a soldier was seriously injured by an "unknown gunman" who opened fire on him. We should not have to find this out from a press agency, what the MoD is leaving out.

Anyhow, if The Sun can do the mortar story, maybe some of the other media might be shamed into following and our glimmer of hope might blossom into reality.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, mortar attacks

British troops, we are told by the MoD have conducted a reactive strike operation after an indirect fire attack on Basra Palace.

Those involved in the attack, says the MoD, were observed and tracked to a building west of the Al Jameat district of Basra City. How they were observed, and by what means they were tracked, is not stated. But it appears to have worked.

Thus, an operation to secure this location was quickly launched. On their way to carrying out the raid the soldiers, from the 1 Staffords Battlegroup, came under attack from small arms fire and Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPG) but the patrol continued to its target.

At just after midnight local time, UK troops launched the operation on the property, where it was believed illegal weapons and ammunition were being stored. The raid uncovered a significant arsenal of ammunition, weapons and bomb-making equipment, hidden in a vehicle at the property. These included a 107mm rocket, 6 Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), some of which were still in their primary packaging (pictured), a mortar launcher and a number of 60mm mortars.

Says Major David Gell, the UK military spokesman in southern Iraq, "I believe the operation demonstrates the ability of UK forces to deal with the threat of Indirect Fire on its bases robustly and swiftly. These people now know that if they attack us we can strike back quickly and effectively."

All we can say is it is good to know that, finally, the British Army is responding, instead of adopting the "sitting duck" position. What took them so long?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, mortar attacks

According to the BBC website (and news bulletins) an "indirect attack" – i.e., mortar or missile fire - caused a large fire at a British military base in Basra.

This was a petrol storage area at the Shatt al-Arab Hotel base and the strike occurred at 1800 local time (1500 GMT) on Thursday. However, there were no casualties and "no impact whatsoever on operations", a spokesman said.

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the MoD in London said "Commanders at the base decided, because no-one was at direct risk at the time, that they would let the fire burn out". Some petrol and diesel stores were lost, but there was no structural damage to buildings, he added.

So… "no impact whatsoever on operations". And who are they kidding, apart from themselves?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra

Following our piece on the protection afforded to our troops from mortar attacks, I was sent a series of photographs taken by a serving soldier, of accommodation in the Shaiba logistics base, just outside Basra.

The top picture shows the basic 12-man tents, and the "protection" of a low, block wall around each tent. No more than three feet high, and not even cement bonded, this was the main "defence" against mortar attack.

The second photograph shows the scene inside one of the tents. When the mortar attack siren goes (after the first bomb has hit, without warning), soldiers on the top bunks are supposed to climb down and hide under the lower bunk. This is what you call "layered defence".

Virtually every day, British bases come under attack and, once our troops retreat to the one base at Basra Air Station, no one is under any illusions about what that will do to the intensity of attacks – they will increase. Of the current situation, one soldier said, "Going to bed was a lottery – you never knew if you would wake up". This is a lottery you do not want to win, but the odds are "improving" all the time.

That is the reality of service in Iraq. The use of the Hesco barriers provides only the illusion of protection as, in their final flight path, mortar bombs descend nearly vertically. All that lies between soldiers and death or disfigurement are thin layers of canvas and the thickness of a mattress

As we observed earlier, imagine how quickly action would be taken if the Houses of Parliament were being mortared each day and the MPs had to sleep in unprotected tents in Palace Yard.

Yet these self-same MPs - and their staffs - who ritually applaud the bravery of our troops, skulk behind their barriers and armed guards while – with a few honourable exceptions – they permit without comment our soldiers to be exposed to quite unnecessary risks. And the secretary of state hides behind honeyed generalities and vague assurances, while the media sleeps.

This is moral cowardice. It simply is not good enough.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, mortar attacks

Defence questions yielded considerable treasure yesterday, and it keeps coming. One such was interesting enough for the Daily Mail to pick up, heading its piece, "Basra tent troops 'sitting targets' warns MP".

Actually, they have been siting targets for months, if not years, but it is nice to have an additional warning from Labour's Chris Bryant, who recently visited tented accommodation for troops at the Basra Air Station (pictured top left). In Parliament, this is what he asked:

Four weeks ago, four hon. Members were in Basra with British troops as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. We saw the tented accommodation at the Shatt al-Arab hotel, which British forces were in until Christmas. It has been heavily bombed, and that is where several British troops have died. We also saw the new accommodation that the troops are now in, in the more secure circumstances inside the Shatt al-Arab hotel, but they will now all be withdrawn from the hotel to the British airbase. Does the Secretary of State worry that British troops will now effectively be a sitting target for insurgents? What is to be done to ensure that we have better ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—support and that we have more secure accommodation, not just tented accommodation, for British troops?

This, of course, is something we have raised many times - and we did not even have to go to Basra at the taxpayers' expense to find out - such as here and here. The issue was also raised last month by Ann Winterton, and she has not been to Basra either. This time, however, The Mail followed it, not that Bryant got anything from the secretary of state that we had not already heard:

Des Browne: All the issues that my hon. Friend identifies are being actively pursued as we speak. The military advice that I have received is that, as we concentrate our forces back into the Basra air stations, it will easier, and we will be better placed, to defend our troops. There are a number of reasons why that is the case. I do not want to go into them in detail. I am constantly torn when it comes to giving details in the House of the steps that we take to protect our troops, because I do not want to undermine their security.

I make my hon. Friend the same offer that I have made to other hon. Members: if he wants a private briefing in relation to this matter, I would be happy to give it to him. I am not prepared to discuss in public the steps that we are taking, but he can rest assured that all the observations that he makes I have made myself on my visits. My top priority for our troops is their safety. Daily, I am involved with the chiefs of staff and others to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to enhance the troops' protection.

From what we can see, all that is being done is limited protection using Hesco barriers as blast containment walls, to limit the casualties in the event of a mortar bomb hitting a tent or building. The second photograph shows a "welfare village" opened only in January at Basra Air Station, and the principle can be seen clearly there. The building itself is unprotected, but the Hesco prevents shrapnel from mortars or rockets spreading.

Nowhere do we see the layered measures that would constitute effective protection so, on the face of it, this is very far from "doing everything that we can to enhance the troops' protection".

Browne has been personally warned, in Parliament, three times now, - if one includes Gerald Howarth - so he cannot hide behind his generals and say he did not know. If it were Churchill at the helm, I am sure we would be seeing an "action this day" memorandum. Churchill, Browne clearly is not, but he is going to have to do a great deal more if he is to avoid having blood on his hands.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, mortar attacks

Loathsome though the newspaper is, it is very hard to disagree with the general thrust of the front-page headline in the Independent today, or the tenor of their story, which begins:

It is an admission of defeat. Iraq is turning into one of the world's bloodiest battlefields in which nobody is safe. Blind to this reality, Tony Blair said yesterday that Britain could safely cut its forces in Iraq because the apparatus of the Iraqi government is growing stronger. In fact the civil war is getting worse by the day…

And, while withdrawing troops seems to be in accord with the majority sentiment, according to a BBC online poll, which records 72 percent in favour – there is still a sizeable minority which agues that we should stay until the job is done, if necessary, increasing the number of troops deployed.

On reflection, though, what is actually happening is neither one thing nor the other. We are not retreating entirely. In fact, what is emerging is that the troop cuts were not as large as were expected – or the Army had planned-for – and the rate at which the garrison will be cut, over term, is not as fast as predicted. Some sources are suggesting that at least 4,000 troops will be kept in Iraq until at least 2012.

Furthermore, since the Shaiba logistics base is being shut down and operations from the other three bases in central Basra are being transferred to Basra Air Station (pictured), five miles to the west, a goodly proportion of the 1,600 cut-back will comprise the logistic and administrative "tail". The effective combat force need not be proportionately reduced.

Nevertheless, the force is not to be increased and, while Blair confidently asserts that it will be available to support the Iraqi security services "in an emergency", this might not be as easy as he appears to make out. Stuck out of town in a single location, with a very limited road network, British forces intent on intervention will be prey to ambushes and, given their distance from any action, their ability to react swiftly to events will be severely circumscribed.

We are thus in exactly that situation which we highlighted in May last year, when we published a piece entitled "Shape up or get out". I wrote, of the situation in Iraq:

As it stands, with too few troops on the ground to make a difference, in a hostile environment with no clear mandate, and with inadequate equipment that makes them extremely vulnerable targets, we cannot see what Mr Blair thinks he is achieving by having them there.

If this is just gesture politics, and there is no intention to send reinforcements and new equipment – and it is hard to see how this could be done - then our soldiers' lives are worth more than that. They should be withdrawn. In other words, Mr Blair, shape up or get out.

What is particularly troubling though is that, while Blair presents a glowing account of the success of British operations in southern Iraq, claiming also that Iraq has made "remarkable" progress, an article in The Times confirms that which our own observations already tell us, that security in Basra is worse now than it was three years ago. The report states:

On military charts, significant swaths of the southern city are security coded scarlet, for unsatisfactory. Other zones are marked green, satisfactory, or amber, between the two. Levels of violence and anti-coalition attacks are far lower in the Shia-dominated south than the Sunni triangle around Baghdad. But British casualties have been increasing over the last year, with more than ten soldiers killed and 60 injured since November.

It then falls to The Daily Telegraph to tell us that "violence will intensify" in the battle for Basra as Shia insurgent groups try to kill more soldiers than their rivals to show who is strongest. For the coming months, the soldiers in the three barracks in Basra will continue to present rogue militias with one potential target after another.

This is by Thomas Harding who has at least the value of faithfully echoing the Army establishment view.

Thus it is he who conveys the particularly noxious view that the Army's continued presence has now become part of the problem, inviting the obvious and intended conclusion that, if only all the troops ran away, the "nasties" would stop doing nasty things like shooting at them, mortaring them and blowing them up with concealed roadside bombs.

Thus does Harding quote, with not a hint of disapproval, how, under the recent leadership of Major Gen Richard Shirreff, some bold moves have been made that allowed the Prime Minister to announce yesterday's withdrawals. And one of those "bold moves" has been to desert the town of al Amarah, a stunning success that – as Harding acknowledges – has almost certainly left the town under the sway of the militia loyal to Moqtada al Sadr, with the Americans fearing it is harbouring insurgents.

Nevertheless, Harding faithfully repeats the establishment line, declaring, "…without thousands of extra troops there is little else the British could have done."

Therein lies a very part of the problem for, from being a "can do" organisation which had no problem bullying worried farmers at the height of the 2001 Foot & Mouth epidemic, the Army - in the face of an enemy that can shoot back - seems to have acquired the aura of a defeated force, exuding negativity. Thus, despite the technology and the tactics being well established (and successful), the Army is acting as if it has lost the will to win and is simply serving out its time, waiting to go home, where it can play with its new toys in peace and safety.

And bless us, it was Shirreff who briefed Cameron on his one and only visit to the theatre, which enables the Boy – with not enough experience of knowledge to know any better - to trot out the preferred party line, that the Army has done all it can usefully do. Such is the current definition of failure.

Thus it is that The Telegraph leader churns out its usual, Anglo-centric drivel, this time calling in aid Richard Dannatt who, we are reminded, has called for an early withdrawal "on the grounds that our military presence is exacerbating the security situation".

One wonders how Monty would have dealt with this fine piece of military logic on the eve of the final battle of el Alamein… "Withdraw your troops and those nasty Germans and Italians will stop shooting at you," the siren voices would have said. It is as well then that our forebears were made of sterner stuff. And, once upon a time, so was the Telegraph.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Army, basra, defeat

The Times must be congratulated for its report today on the two attacks on the British Army in Basra yesterday, one on an Army convoy and the other on the Basra Palace base (pictured).

By contrast, the Telegraph devoted the bulk of its time and space to picking at the wound of the US A-10 "friendly fire" incident and, a long "soft focus" piece on the death of Second Lt Jonathan Bracho-Cooke, the last but one soldier to die in Iraq. It gave short shrift to the attack on the Land Rover, not even bothering to report the second of the attacks.

Meanwhile, Richard Beeston and Michael Evans, defence editor of The Times, were exploring the possible effects of the attacks on the hopes of bringing home thousands of troops within the next few months.

Read more here.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, defence

The Times is reporting that several British troops "are believed to have been injured" in two near-simultaneous attacks which today struck in Basra today.

One incident is said to have involved a roadside bomb striking a British convoy south of Basra, causing a number of casualties. The BBC website is saying that one soldier has been killed and three others are injured. One is in a critical condition. All three have been airlifted by helicopter to the hospital at Basra air station.

The Associated Press calls the vehicle an "armoured personnel carrier" - as does The Daily Telegraph (nice one, really helpful, that) but a photograph (above left) of the scene shows a damaged "Snatch" Land Rover, the caption reporting four soldiers "injured". The BBC report on the fatality thus looks to be accurate, and it is confirmed by the MoD.

Other reports indicate that the attack took place around 1pm local time at an intersection about three miles south-east of Basra. An updated BBC report confirms that the men were all travelling in a "Snatch" Land Rover, which it describes as "lightly armoured vehicles".

The Times quotes "military sources" saying the target of the roadside bomb was an armoured Land Rover – "a vehicle considered vulnerable to attack, and subsequently being used less and less than the heavily armoured personnel carriers which provide more protection." However, as the picture (above right) - and the many others we have published recently on this blog - shows, these vehicles are still in widespread use.

As to the other attack, this was a mortar or rocket attack on the Basra Palace complex. A Times reporter in Basra witnessed a medical helicopter flying from the city centre to Basra airport, where the main military hospital is based. Usually, the paper says, military helicopters do not fly in Basra in daylight as it is too dangerous – a rule which is only broken in emergency situations.

In two areas, therefore, where British troops are known to be vulnerable, insurgents have again struck to cause death and injury. However, since this is clearly not "friendly fire" by the Americans, one expects it will get minimal media coverage. Nor do we expect the media to ask what happened to the Mastiff mine and blast protected vehicles, which were supposed to be in place by now.

Meanwhile, after this, Sue Smith, whose son Phillip Hewett was killed near Basra in July 2005, is according to The Independent, planning to take legal action against the Ministry of Defence over its failure to protect combat troops with the right equipment.

She says military commanders are exposing soldiers to unnecessary danger by continuing to use ageing "Snatch" Land Rovers instead of armoured vehicles. "I want them to accept that Snatch Land Rovers should not be used on patrol. These vehicles are death traps," she says.

The Army has refused to launch a board of inquiry into the circumstances of Hewett's death – in an incident where two of his colleagues also died – describing it as an unavoidable "accident".

Yet the inquest in Oxford heard that the three men were dispatched to al Amarah in a "Snatch" Land Rover, even though just weeks earlier a roadside bomb had killed two soldiers near the town.

Mrs Smith said the Army told her that the men were hit by a previously unseen kind of explosive which would have penetrated even a heavily armoured Warrior vehicle. But photographs submitted to the inquest showed that the bomb entered the Land Rover through a window protected by nothing more than a steel mesh.
Said Mrs Smith, "There has been no proper investigation and the truth still hasn't come out. It took 19 months to get the inquest, and all I have to show for it is a three-page report and a patronising letter from the Army saying it was an accident."

According to Mrs Smith at least 20 servicemen have been killed in "Snatch" Land Rovers by roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan since her son's death. She said: "I just want the Army to stop using these bloody vehicles. How many more people will have to die for them to change their minds?"

Quite.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, land rover, mastiff

Reports are coming in of a British dawn raid on properties in Az Zubayr, near Basra, where ammunition, light rockets, bomb-making paraphernalia, radio equipment and timer units were discovered in a house.

The raid was hastily organised and carried out by 250 soldiers from 1 Yorkshire Battlegroup, "acting on intelligence". After the raid on the house, 500 mortar rounds were seized from a compound where troops had earlier spotted men transferring weapons into two vehicles. A number of men were also detained.

Without doubt, this is a significant action, not least because it suggests that the British Army is not entirely without friends in the area. While, on this blog, we have tended to emphasise the hardware aspect of fighting an insurgency, the acquisition of local intelligence is just as important as having well-equipped troops.

Speaking of which, in the background to this photograph (right) – unless I am very much mistaken – is a Saxon APC, fitted out with slatted armour. This is definitely one we missed as we were under the distinct impression that the vehicle had been withdrawn from Iraq, largely because the thing is perilously instable.

However, this, it seems, is one of a batch of 22 upgraded Saxons, an event not entirely applauded by their users. The addition of more armour and other equipment cannot have helped its stability.

Once again, the contrast with US aspirations is extreme.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, defence

According to the MoD website another British soldier has been killed in Basra, succumbing to a roadside bomb. Four other soldiers were injured, during the incident, one of them very seriously.

We are informed that the soldiers were attacked while taking part in a routine patrol on the outskirts of the northern part of Basrah City, near the districts of Al Hadi and Al Jezaizah, when a suspected roadside bomb detonated.

We may be mistaken but, from the photograph, the type of ambush location looks rather familiar - this photograph (right) showing the site of an attack on a Land Rover patrol in May 2006.

This time, however, the casualties were part of a Warrior armoured personnel carrier patrol but, says the MoD, it is unclear whether they were dismounted at the time of the attack.

This brings the number of service personnel killed in Iraq since the beginning of the invasion in 2003 to 130 – considerably less than the 3,000 plus lost by the US forces – who lost another 20 troops yesterday, including 13 lost when a Black Hawk helicopter crashed, killing all 13 on board. If it seems excessive to give equal or greater prominence to the single loss sustained by the British (and those injured), in the grisly arithmetic of war where the US has more than 20 times more troops deployed than the British, proportionately, the loss rates are roughly equivalent.

But, as we have remarked before, southern Iraq is supposed to be a quiet sector, without the sectarian fighting which is so damaging the central provinces. That the British casualty rate should be so high, therefore, is somewhat remarkable.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra

Six British soldiers have been wounded in a series of attacks against Basra Palace camp (pictured), which came under fire last night three times from a mixture of mortars, rockets and small arms. One soldier was said to have been seriously injured in the attacks last night. Five others received lesser injuries.

This is according to The Times and agencies . It comes nearly three months after the Foreign Office was forced to take the humiliating step of evacuating civilian staff from the Consulate, reflecting the inability of the Army to defend a site that includes its main headquarters in southern Iraq.

Progressively, from 2003 when the Army took over the site, all they have done is add to the fortifications, giving the impression of a base under siege - which is precisely what it is, sending a signal to the insugents and the people of Basra that the British and coalition forces are not in control.

As a result, the passive defences have done absolutely nothing to stop the continued barrage of attacks which are reported to be occurring daily with, we are told, increasing accuracy.

This blog has questioned, again and again, the reluctance of the Army to take adequate counter-measures against rocket and mortar attacks and, in December, Tory back-bencher Ann Winterton asked the secretary of state for defence whether his Department had evaluated the existing Counter Battery Radar to be adapted to provide targeting data for the Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar system – one of the key defence weapons systems (pictured).

Minister of state Adam Ingram offered a typically complacent response, saying:

Initial assessments of the Phalanx C-RAM Anti Mortar system indicate that it is not appropriate for our current requirements, but we keep the operational situation under review. We have not therefore considered the adaptation of the Counter Battery Radar to provide targeting data for this system. We provide layered protection for British bases in Iraq and Afghanistan through a range of force protection methods.

So, unlike US and now Canadian bases, which are protected by this technology, it is "not appropriate" for British bases. We have "layered protection". We can hide under the beds, under the tables, in the bunkers…

With six troops having been injured, however, this should be a wake-up call for the British government. Not a few expert commentators have been warning that, as the date for a British retreat withdrawal comes closer, insurgent activity could well increase. It is also feared that, as the additional troops in the US sector begin to exert their effect in president Bush's "surge", hostile action may be displaced into the less protected British sector.

It may be only a matter of time, therefore, before a mortar bomb or rocket finds a really vulnerable target, like a mess hall where troops are gathering for a meal, or one of the dormitory tents which house 20 or more troops. There are no excuses and further delay is intolerable. The technology exists to safeguard our troops and only the lack of political will can prevent the necessary safeguards being put in place.

And it would, of course, help if the Conservatives had a policy on this issue. Where art thou Gerald?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, defence

I suppose we all have our own favourite mental image of the British Army – whether it is that famous Alamein shot (which was actually Australian troops), or the timeless scene of Trooping the Colours, with the Brigade of Guards executing their drill with flawless ease.

That, if you like, is the myth – the image that the powers that be would like you to hold. The reality – or one of the many realities – is shown below, in a photo we've just discovered in one of our many trawls. I do not recall seeing this picture in any newspaper, but it has its own caption which is self explanatory.


The incident to which the caption refers is this one, at the Shatt al-Arab Hotel base, near the centre of Basra.

Months down the line, nothing changes. For want of the right kit, it is this to which our troops are reduced, cowering in their tents hoping that they are not the next to be hit.

Although most of the bombs, miss their targets, many do not. When they do hit a vulnerable site, they cause a great deal of damage and harm. Beyond that, though, the constant mortaring has a highly disruptive effect and is a constant drain on morale. It can only because the situation is so little reported that the government can get away with leaving our soldiers so exposed.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, defence, mortar attacks

We have no more details, this photograph up for less than an hour. The caption reads:

Two British army vehicles are seen destroyed on a road in Basra, 550 kilometers 340 miles southeast of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, Dec. 29, 2006. Unknown gunmen attacked a British army convoy on the southern outskirts of Basra, burning two armored vehicles, police said. AP Photo/Nabil al-Jurani.

There is nothing on the MoD website (as yet) so one must assume that (fortunately) no British troops have been killed. The MoD does not routinely issue details on injuries, though – so we cannot be assured that all the troops escaped uninjured.

However, on what might be the eve of Saddam Hussein's execution, this has to be considered a bold attack. As can be seen from this above and this second photograph, the attack took place in the open – no ambush in the narrow street of Basra this. And, once again, Snatch Land Rovers are in the firing line – and found wanting.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the Daily Mail is reporting that the government's timetable to transfer power in the southern Basra province had slipped beyond the end of 2007/beginning of 2008.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, land rover

And soldiers complain about being underpaid? Well, some do, but look at the perks of the job – they get to blow up police stations. Pity though they have to go to Iraq to do it.

That, of course, is the lighter side of the story, but the engineers would not be human if they had not got a tremendous boost from successfully completing this particular piece of work.

The darker side is that this was the headquarters of the 400-strong serious crimes unit in Basra, the al-Jameat police station and prison. And it was there, in the early hours of yesterday morning, that the Army launched another of its mass raids – the third one that we know about – meeting resistance on the way in and killing seven "gunmen".

The raid came a mere three days after Friday's operation - which was said to be the first stage of moves to disrupt and disband the serious crime unit – when a "significant" member of the unit was captured.

The action was taken on Christmas Day after it had been learned that some of the 127 prisoners held at al-Jameat faced imminent execution (the police station is pictured here - the photograph taken in August 2005, one month before major riots). They were found crowded into a small cell, living in "appalling conditions." A number had crushed feet or hands and gunshot wounds to the knee, compatible with their having been tortured. They were transferred to another police station.

The explosives have been used, says the Army, "to put the building beyond use so it can no longer be used by the criminal enterprise." And, as television footage showed most of the building reduced to rubble with at least one police vehicle crushed and one lying upside down, the Army spokesman, Major Burbridge said - with not a trace of understatement: "The serious crimes unit has now been disbanded."

The dissolution has, apparently been approved by prime minister Nuri al-Maliki and the Basra governor, Mohammed Waili. Interestingly, Basra's police chief, Brigadier Mohammed al-Musawi, said he had not been told of the raid beforehand, and accused the British of trying to "stir up trouble". On the other hand, the Iraqi defence ministry in Baghdad said it had consented to the operation.

It is, we are told, no coincidence that al-Jameat was targeted. It was at the centre of the kidnapping in September last year of two SAS soldiers, the rescue of whom triggered major riots, producing the now famous pictures of soldiers leaping from a burning Warrior - and a breakdown of relations between the Army and the Basra police.

It was then, that September, when Times journalist Anthony Loyd wrote a piece headed, "Murder, violence and politics: how rogue police can live outside law in Basra".

According to Lloyd, the activities of the Jameat gang had been brought to the attention of the Iraqi government six months previously. Yet, even though allegedly funded by Iran and responsible for attacks on British forces, it was allowed to carry on with impunity. Its members remained at large and in uniform until yesterday – over 20 months after the problem had been recognised. Thus, while we must applaud this Christmas Day action, there is a real question as to why it took so long to do something of this nature.

One indication might be that while, in September year last - when the Army broke into the compound to rescue the SAS men - major riots erupted, current reports from Basra indicate that the city is quiet. It is too early thus to infer that the action has the general support (or acceptance) of the population, but the signs so far are encouraging.

So, following the raid, as they tucked into their well-deserved Christmas dinners and were then able to rest, we hope, merry, the troops concerned might have pondered over the words of the carol, which reminds us that the baby Jesus was born "to save us all from Satan's power when we were gone astray." Their rest will be well-deserved.

* * * *

In other developments, the US military has admitted it is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men seized in raids last week. This is according to Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the US National Security Council, who confirmed that two diplomats were among those initially detained in the raids. They were turned over to Iraqi authorities and released.

However, Iraq's Kurdish president, Jalal Talabani, has protested about the arrest of the diplomats, even though US officials say they were suspected of planning attacks on security forces. Nevertheless, we are told, "The president is unhappy." This is because the diplomats came to Iraq at the invitation of the president, "as part of an agreement to build better security links between the countries".

In Tehran, the Foreign Ministry said the "move is not compatible with any international regulations and will provoke unpleasant repercussions." And, as we all know, Iran is very familiar with "international regulations", which it applied with rigour during the US embassy siege in Tehran.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, defence, jameat

The British Army has launched yet another huge raid in Basra but, with the city still far too dangerous for independent Western journalists, details are sparse, unlike the raid on 8 December, when the MoD was more forthcoming.

Even then, we were only being told what the Army wanted us to know and, currently, much of the detail is being channelled through a favoured and therefore untrustworthy source. All we can be certain of, therefore, is that a raid happened.

The bare details seem to be that hundreds of troops were involved – the figure varies from 800 to "over a thousand" – backed, we are told, by tanks. The troops are said to have seized seven Iraqi police officers suspected of corruption and leading a death squad in the city.

The operation, carried out at dawn yesterday, is said to be the first stage of moves to disrupt and disband the southern city's Serious Crime Unit. The British military spokesman, Major Charlie Burbridge, claims a "significant" member of the unit was captured. No shots were fired and there were no casualties, he adds. Some damage was done to property (see above picture) but, again, details are sketchy.

Burbridge says the police officer was suspected of links to an incident in October, when gunmen ambushed a minibus carrying police translators, trainers and cleaning workers from a police academy to Basra. The Telegraph also claims links with the capture of two SAS soldiers last year.

Despite this, it is difficult to assess what is going on in the city. This article from Arab News gives some background, from which one senses a powder keg waiting to explode.

All we can do is watch and wait, trying to unravel what little information is forthcoming. But this is not a satisfactory way of trying to understand something that is so important to our national interest. We really do need better sources of information – the "fog of war", it seems, is thicker than that at Heathrow.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, defence

"Media coverage of the murders has been out of proporation (sic), denying airtime to much more important events."

This is Martin Bell, writing from Basra in the Guardian's Comment is Free blog.

Not only do I agree with him, his piece is quite good. But I cannot believe I am writing this, except that it says little about Basra and the Iraq war that you haven't already read on this blog.

But the Guardianistas hate it ... some of the comments are hilarious.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: basra, iraq