Women Officers & Swords In The Royal Navy
D. Spencer Hines
Skirts for the formal ceremony of graduation into the Royal Navy as
commissioned officers -- then trousers once in the fleet and operational...
Sound decision by their Lordships.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
> With the abolition of the WRNS, and the full integration of women into the
> RN, the problem had arisen, and this was the decree: only at the
> passing-out parade at Dartmouth would a sword be worn with a skirt, on
> all other occasions it would be worn with trousers!
Vincent Brannigan
> Sounds eminently reasonable...
>
> Skirts for the formal ceremony of graduation into the Royal Navy as
> commissioned officers -- then trousers once in the fleet and operational...
>
> Sound decision by their Lordships.
I'm sure the men look good in the skirts
Vince
Raymond O'Hara
"Vincent Brannigan" <fir...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
news:WP%lk.232$EL2.195@trnddc01...
its england, skirt wearing is common among men.
after all what is a kilt? it's a skirt.
Roger Conroy
"Raymond O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3_CdnUprv-axJwXV...@rcn.net...
You really do not want to repeat that in a Highland Regiment mess.
Trust me, it could be a painful experience for you.
BTW Kilts are not worn nearly as often in England as they are in Scotland.
Vincent Brannigan
I once met some very very tough looking men wearing sarongs
so I don't ever cal them skirts
Vince
D. Spencer Hines
He's liable to wind up buried in a peat bog -- or dumped out to sea.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Roger Conroy" <rogerconr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:g7ae7k$7rb$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:wt%lk.632$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
> Sounds eminently reasonable...
Most would prefer being issued vibrators.
Paul J. Adam
<fir...@firelaw.us> writes
The detailed RNTM on exactly what hosiery the men should wear with their
skirts (many are holding out for proper stockings, sheer but seamed,
supported by a good suspender belt - though I gather the infighting in
MoD Main about the merits of Cuban heels has become quite bloody),
whether leg hair should be removed, and the officially approved method
for doing so (shaving? waxing? angle grinder? flamethrower?) is keenly
awaited.
Poor Hines has his timing wrong, too. In the RNR you're still a
midshipman or Acting Sublieutenant (age dependent - you're a middie
below 20, an A/SLt after that) even after you pass out from Dartmouth.
You don't hold substantive rank and cannot apply for a commissioning
scroll until you then pass Fleet Board, which is the modern version of
Hornblower's "lieutenant's examination" - though I don't think you have
to calculate and draw a rhumb line to order any more, thank the deities
of choice.
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
D. Spencer Hines
>dependent - you're a middie below 20, an A/SLt after that)
> even after you pass out from Dartmouth. You don't hold substantive rank
> and cannot apply for a commissioning scroll until you then pass Fleet
> Board, which is the modern version of Hornblower's "lieutenant's
> examination"
Fair Enough...
The decision on skirts and trousers sounds eminently reasonable...
Skirts and swords for women for the formal ceremony of graduation from
Dartmouth -- then trousers once in the fleet and operational...
Sound decision by their Lordships.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
> With the abolition of the WRNS, and the full integration of women into the
Roger Conroy
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f+zN1pPD...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <WP%lk.232$EL2.195@trnddc01>, Vincent Brannigan
> <fir...@firelaw.us> writes
>>D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Sounds eminently reasonable...
>>> Skirts for the formal ceremony of graduation into the Royal Navy as
>>> commissioned officers -- then trousers once in the fleet and
>>> operational...
>>> Sound decision by their Lordships.
>>
>>I'm sure the men look good in the skirts
>
> The detailed RNTM on exactly what hosiery the men should wear with their
> skirts (many are holding out for proper stockings, sheer but seamed,
> supported by a good suspender belt - though I gather the infighting in MoD
> Main about the merits of Cuban heels has become quite bloody), whether leg
> hair should be removed, and the officially approved method for doing so
> (shaving? waxing? angle grinder? flamethrower?) is keenly awaited.
>
>
> Poor Hines has his timing wrong, too. In the RNR you're still a midshipman
> or Acting Sublieutenant (age dependent - you're a middie below 20, an
> A/SLt after that) even after you pass out from Dartmouth. You don't hold
> substantive rank and cannot apply for a commissioning scroll until you
> then pass Fleet Board, which is the modern version of Hornblower's
> "lieutenant's examination" - though I don't think you have to calculate
> and draw a rhumb line to order any more, thank the deities of choice.
>
Naturally the "deity of choice" would be Neptune.
William Black
"J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
news:gICdnWU_dupyTAXV...@earthlink.com...
You haven't met many ladies who areRN officers then...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
guy
> "Vincent Brannigan" <fire...@firelaw.us> wrote in message
Really? how many Englishmen wear kilts?
Guy
Raymond O'Hara
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3dfc542f-e9dc-4935...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
that prince guy, errr what's his name, hmmm Prince Tampon, yeah that's it.
the guy who'll never be king because momma won't die.
Raymond O'Hara
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:3dfc542f-e9dc-4935...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
that prince guy, errr what's his name, hmmm Prince Tampon, yeah that's it.
Vincent Brannigan
I think it's only when he is play-acting as a faux Scotsman
Vince
William Black
Wasn't his granny a Scot?
And I think he has a house there, in fact I have a suspicion he owns a
measureable proportion of the place...
Oh yes, and he's also 'Lord of the Isles'...
All of which makes him a sight more Scottish than me, and at least three
clans are busy telling me, via emails now and again, that not only do I
belong to them but they'll sell me a kilt with 'my' tartan on it to prove
it...
Vincent Brannigan
My wife is an Irish citizen
She is as Irish as Pâté's pig
There is "De Facto" and "De Jure"
Vince
William Black
> My wife is an Irish citizen
> She is as Irish as Pâté's pig
> There is "De Facto" and "De Jure"
Well yes, exactly, and I have papers proving that I'm a 'Person of Indian
Origin', despite not having a single Indian ancestor.
However I am undoubtedly a citizen of the United Kingdom and have the right
to live anywhere in Scotland, and people who may well know what they're
talking about say I'm Scottish, or at least, that any money I have may be
spent there...
J A
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g7buv9$io5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "J A" <a...@re.com> wrote in message
> news:gICdnWU_dupyTAXV...@earthlink.com...
>>
>> "D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
>> news:wt%lk.632$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
>>
>>> Sounds eminently reasonable...
>>
>> Most would prefer being issued vibrators.
>>
>
> You haven't met many ladies who areRN officers then...
Great job in Basra.
Paul J. Adam
<a...@re.com> writes
>
>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:g7buv9$io5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>Great job in Basra.
It was, wasn't it? Iraqis taking over security, Jaish al-Mahdi falling
apart, al-Sadr marginalised.
Took time to plan and organise, but it worked...
R.C. Payne
Not to mention Duke of Rothesay
> All of which makes him a sight more Scottish than me, and at least three
> clans are busy telling me, via emails now and again, that not only do I
> belong to them but they'll sell me a kilt with 'my' tartan on it to prove
> it...
I suspect he's more Scottish than a whole lot of men who dress up in
skirts and claim Scottish herritage.
Robin
J A
> In message <ZamdnXxaudZ7sgfV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:g7buv9$io5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> You haven't met many ladies who areRN officers then...
>>
>>Great job in Basra.
>
> It was, wasn't it? Iraqis taking over security, Jaish al-Mahdi falling
> apart, al-Sadr marginalised.
>
> Took time to plan and organise, but it worked...
LOL.
From 2003, they let shiia militia/gangs run rampant in the area, tapping off
large amounts of oil production and terrorizing women who didn't dress like
like 14th century troglodytes.
Then, recently, when Maliki made his move to correct the situation:
From BBC website.
Did Britain make Mehdi Army pact?
UK troops were deployed a week after the offensive began
The British in Basra made a secret pact with the Mehdi Army which kept the
military out of March's Iraqi-led offensive against the Shia militia for a
week, according to the Times newspaper.
The BBC's Crispin Thorold, in Baghdad, assesses whether such an
"accommodation" could have been possible.
===
BBC 6 Aug 2008
The Army has admitted making a secret deal with a Shia militia which killed
dozens of British service personnel in Iraq.
Paul J. Adam
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1MZnZzAq...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <ZamdnXxaudZ7sgfV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>>
>>>"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:g7buv9$io5$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> You haven't met many ladies who areRN officers then...
>>>
>>>Great job in Basra.
>>
>> It was, wasn't it? Iraqis taking over security, Jaish al-Mahdi falling
>> apart, al-Sadr marginalised.
>>
>> Took time to plan and organise, but it worked...
>
>LOL.
No, fact...
>From 2003, they let shiia militia/gangs run rampant in the area, tapping off
>large amounts of oil production and terrorizing women who didn't dress like
>like 14th century troglodytes.
Like the rest of Iraq, you mean?
>Then, recently, when Maliki made his move to correct the situation:
>
>From BBC website.
>
>Did Britain make Mehdi Army pact?
And the answer is "no".
+++++
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/2506222/Des-B
rowne-in-political-row-over-secret-deal-in-Basra.html>
The Defence Secretary angrily denied reports that a secret agreement
with the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army meant British troops stood by in
March as Iraqi and US forces fought for control of the Iraqi city.
US and Iraqi officers were quoted as saying that a "pact" with the
militia had kept the British forces out of Operation Charge of the
Knights.
Mr Browne told MPs in April that British tanks, armoured vehicles and
artillery all took part in the operation. The MoD added that Tornado
warplanes and UK medical evacuation facilities were also used.
The MoD said: "Suggestions that UK forces failed to get involved in the
recent operation against militias in Basra are inaccurate. No 'secret
deal' or 'accommodation' kept us out of the city."
...
Privately, British commanders admitted that they had been "caught on the
hop" by the Iraqi-led operation into Basra last time which given them 48
hours in which to react.
But they insisted that from the outset British artillery pounded
insurgent positions and Tornado fighters were used in a close air
support role to provide back-up for Iraqi forces.
British helicopters were also used to ferry Iraqi wounded and supplies
were ferried into the city. An armoured cordon of Challenger 2 tanks and
Warrior armoured vehicle also covered key entry points into Basra.
"The reason we didn't want to put British troops on the ground was
because we had to have an Iraqi face on the operation," a military
source said. "If British troops had been deployed into Basra it would
not have worked and we would not have the stability in the city that we
see now because this had to be an Iraqi led operation."
+++++
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good whine...
J A
Then why did US troops have to come in and back them up?
Paul J. Adam
>news:qpiwglEF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> And the answer is "no".
>
>Then why did US troops have to come in and back them up?
They didn't. Try finding out what actually happened.
"American soldiers appeared first on the ground in Basra because their
mentors were already "embedded" with the Iraqi 1st Division when it
deployed to the city as a quick reaction force. "
It was an Iraqi-led operation - as appropriate because the province is
under Iraqi control - and the real issue was the powerplay between
Maliki and Mohan.
None of this is hard to find out...
Andrew Swallow
>>> Then, recently, when Maliki made his move to correct the situation:
>>>
>> >From BBC website.
>>> Did Britain make Mehdi Army pact?
>> And the answer is "no".
>
> Then why did US troops have to come in and back them up?
Because Maliki is an American puppet?
Andrew Swallow
J A
> In message <XKWdnaELbr17FwbV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:qpiwglEF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> And the answer is "no".
>>
>>Then why did US troops have to come in and back them up?
>
> They didn't. Try finding out what actually happened.
LOL. THAT IS BULLSHIT.
It doesn't show much wit, to lie about things that have a lot of coverage,
particularly coverage
from the BBC.
And don't bother trying to foist British ministry of defense denials on this
matter as being credible.
From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
[re. Maliki offensive into militia and gang dominated Basra ]
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
military intelligence source
===
Entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
Did Britain make Mehdi Army pact?
UK troops were deployed a week after the offensive began
The British in Basra made a secret pact with the Mehdi Army which kept the
military out of March's Iraqi-led offensive against the Shia militia for a
week, according to the Times newspaper.
The BBC's Crispin Thorold, in Baghdad, assesses whether such an
"accommodation" could have been possible.
In March this year the Iraqi security forces launched a major offensive
against the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia, in Iraq's second city Basra. From
the beginning the British described that operation as "Iraqi planned, led
and executed".
But once again questions are being asked about why the British were so slow
to put their troops on the ground in the city.
From the earliest hours of the Iraqi military operations in Basra it was
clear that things were not going according to plan.
MoD denial
The resistance by Shia militiamen was much stronger than had been
anticipated.
Yet British troops were only deployed from Basra's airport into the city
after nearly a week of fighting.
Could that decision have been dictated by a secret deal between the British
and the Mehdi Army, as suggested by the Times?
The newspaper has claimed that UK troops initially stayed out of the battle
because of a pre-arranged "accommodation" with the Mehdi Army - denied
flatly by the Ministry of Defence.
They were on the streets by 1 April when they had turned the training
mission into a support mission
Major Tom Holloway
However, closer examination of the British relationship with the militias in
Basra shows that such a deal could have been possible.
Military intelligence sources have told the BBC that the British have been
talking to Shia militias including the Mehdi Army for several years.
At times the frequency of the talks have declined, like during the Shia
uprising in 2004.
More recently there appear to have been specific deals between the two
sides.
Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007".
According to the militia commander, a colonel from the Iraqi Army, and Ahmad
Al-Fartusi, another member of the Mehdi Army who had been detained by the
British, were also present.
'Prisoners released'
Our attempts to find Ahmad al-Fartusi, who is now in hiding, have been
unsuccessful. The Iraqi Army refused to comment.
Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners were
released, the British agreed to stop patrolling in Basra and the Mehdi Army
agreed not to attack the British headquarters in the city.
The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
Basra".
The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates
BBC source
A British military spokesman in Basra refused to discuss the details of any
negotiations with any party.
"Nothing of that nature affected movement into the city", said Major Tom
Holloway.
If there were any sort of accommodation between the Mehdi Army and the
British army the details are unlikely to have been widely disseminated.
"If the delay in fighting in March/April 2008 was due to a deal the only
people who would have known would have been the defence minister, the
defence chief, a very senior commander in the field and some planners," said
a British military intelligence source.
"The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates. That would make the government as
popular as a bag of puke," said the source.
Whatever the truth there are still serious questions about why the British
took so long to support the Iraqi army when they were on the back-foot.
"British forces in Basra were postured for training," said Major Tom
Holloway, the British military spokesman in Basra.
"They were on the streets by 1 April when they had turned the training
mission into a support mission."
Political reluctance?
Observers reject that outright.
There are more than 4,000 British forces in the Basra airport, including
three or four infantry battle groups.
Even at a conservative estimate that would mean 1,800 British soldiers would
be ready to fight.
Could the delay have been due to a political reluctance in Whitehall for
British soldiers to be embroiled in an Iraqi fight just months after the
British had handed over security control of the province?
Again the answer to that is unclear.
The 60,000-strong Mehdi Army was created in 2003
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
military intelligence source.
"They are considering sending as many as 15,000 troops down there".
===
BBC Wednesday, 26 March 2008, 00:41 GMT
Iraq forces battle Basra militias
Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki is in Basra supervising the operation
The UK military returned control of Basra to the Iraqis in December and
concentrated its forces at the city airport.
The Iraqi commander in charge, Lt Gen Ali Ghaidan, said the operation aimed
to purge Basra of what he called "outlaws".
Moqtada Sadr has threatened "general civil disobedience"
He said his forces had confiscated weapons and roadside bombs during raids
across Iraq's second city.
Routes into Basra have been sealed off, according to reports.
One resident of the city told the BBC: "The streets are very dangerous,
there's continuous exchange of fire in areas very close to my house, even
though my neighbourhood is relatively safer than others."
The BBC's Paul Wood says the fighting in Basra can be seen as the government
trying to impose law and order but also as part of the power struggle within
the Shia community.
He says such intra-Shia violence could be just as dangerous to hopes of
peace as sectarian hatreds or the insurgency.
Curfew
The offensive comes a day after the authorities in Basra imposed an
indefinite night-time curfew.
Police have now also imposed curfews in the cities of Kut, Samawa,
Nasiriyah, Hilla and Diwaniyah.
Moqtada Sadr called for "general civil disobedience in Baghdad and the Iraqi
provinces" if the attacks did not end.
In Sadr City, Mehdi Army fighters reportedly ordered Iraqi police and
soldiers out of the district and there have been clashes between rival
militias.
Hundreds of protesters marched in the Iraqi capital, calling on shops to
shut.
The Mehdi Army also took control of several areas in Kut, 175km (110 miles)
south-east of Baghdad.
Moqtada Sadr last month renewed the group's ceasefire, under which it
pledged not to attack rival armed groups or American forces in Iraq.
But the truce is said to have come under strain in recent weeks as US and
Iraqi forces detained militia members.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the BBC: "Militias have taken
over almost the city and law and order has collapsed, although it is not a
hopeless case because the government is taking measures to reverse the
situation.
"Remember, Basra is the lifeline of Iraq. Most of Iraq's oil exports go
through Basra."
=====
<snip obfuscations>
D. Spencer Hines
Bad Show...
By the British in Basra.
Paul J. Adam
>news:XfyftRBGq$mIF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> They didn't. Try finding out what actually happened.
>
>LOL. THAT IS BULLSHIT.
No, it isn't.
>It doesn't show much wit, to lie about things that have a lot of coverage,
>particularly coverage
>from the BBC.
If it's on the BBC it must automatically be true?
You need to think a little more. Just because you like a story, doesn't
mean it's true...
>And don't bother trying to foist British ministry of defense denials on this
>matter as being credible.
Because of course the BBC knows more about what's going on than the MoD?
I can't help it if the facts disagree with your chosen interpretation.
>The American military though was not as slow to respond.
>
>Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
>in April 2008.
>
>It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
>within 48 hours.
Because they were attached to the Iraqi Army units that were sent in (by
Maliki).
>
>Compare that to the British response.
Artillery, airstrikes, armoured roadblocks - yep, no reaction at all.
>The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
By who, precisely? Anyone in MNF-I willing to put their name to that?
>There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
>taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
And that perception is incorrect.
>Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
They are indeed. But not in the ways you claim... (seen many JAM
strutting the streets since Charge of the Knights?)
The facts are really quite simple. Charge of the Knights was started
ahead of schedule by Baghdad, and Maliki tried to cut his local Army
commander out of the loop for political reasons: that caused some delay
in backing up the first stumbles in CotK, but not enough to prevent the
operation being very successful. Some newsie got what sounded like a
great story from Maliki's mob, tried to spin a story, and had to fall
back on the time-honoured dodges of nameless sources and unattributable
briefings.
It's a traditional game, and it's only about Iraqi politics.
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> In message <U9ydnU7MM9MkWAHVnZ2dnUVZ_rjin...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Commander Hines is going to make the judgement that the
Brits made a bad show in the "Basra Intervention," then somebody
ought to write a book about the battle for Basra.
This thread implies that the Basra battle was a turning point for the
Maliki
government. If so, then the world needs a replay of the event by an
authentic
Arabic speaking historian and not by an armchair Colonel Blimp.
If there are a hundred tomes about Gettysburg, then we should have a
dozen chronicles analysing the Basra labyrinth which was a religious
struggle as well as a political cauldron.
Cheers, David H on the Third coast
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
La N
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a27e7a6e-ebf7-48a5...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
There have been so many American right wingers complaining of Brit
performance in Iraq, that I wouldn't blame the Brits for demanding to be
pulled out of the coalition and not have to sacrifice any more young lives.
- nilita
J A
> In message <U9ydnU7MM9MkWAHV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:XfyftRBGq$mIF...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> They didn't. Try finding out what actually happened.
>>
>>LOL. THAT IS BULLSHIT.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
>>It doesn't show much wit, to lie about things that have a lot of coverage,
>>particularly coverage
>>from the BBC.
>
> If it's on the BBC it must automatically be true?
The odds of the BBC (and the US military) having the story right, versus a
self serving denial by the British ministry that is embarrassed by the
story, favor the BBC by a great deal.
> You need to think a little more. Just because you like a story, doesn't
> mean it's true...
LOL.
<snip further embarrassing wriggling>
J A
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Zbink.5845$nu6.5712@edtnps83...
The BBC wrote the story about the deal with the militias, you dimwit.
By the way, for months I've been asking you to back up that story you told
about a friend in California complaining about Obama campaign tactics
against Clinton's wife.
>
> - nilita
>
Paul J. Adam
>news:nlzzzdDH...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> If it's on the BBC it must automatically be true?
>
>The odds of the BBC (and the US military) having the story right, versus a
>self serving denial by the British ministry that is embarrassed by the
>story, favor the BBC by a great deal.
Oh, right. Apparently the BBC know exactly what this "deal" was, down to
the exact details of who was and was not authorised to move troops from
the COB into the city, but can't actually produce any evidence that it
exists.
Other significant details - like the fact that Basrah had already been
given PIC on a US-driven timetable, which meant British assistance was
available on request but *not* provided pre-emptively - tend to go
unsaid.
Maliki wanted to upstage General Mohan, called Charge of the Knights
early with units from out of area, and found to his annoyance that he
actually *did* need both 10th Brigade and British support. This story is
him covering his back to blame any problems on the British, rather than
his own machinations.
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4467087.ece>
+++++
"British and Iraqi commanders in Basra had their own troop-surge plan to
rid the city of Shia militia extremists but it was vetoed by the Iraqi
Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The third and final phase of the plan, which would have involved a surge
of Iraqi troops into Basra with “low-profile” support from British
troops, was due to have started this month. When it was presented to
Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, on March 21, however, he
surprised the British by announcing that he had his own troop-surge plan
that he would launch the following day, with 900 American soldiers and
Marines being sent into Basra.
Colonel Robert Castellvi, the senior American Marine adviser to the 1st
Iraqi Army Division sent down to Basra, described exclusively to The
Times what he found when he arrived in the southern city in March.
“The Iraqi forces that had been in the city had been defeated. There
were whole swaths of the city under militia control,” he said. “The
provincial government had stopped functioning as a government that
provides security for the people. There were dead bodies and burnt-out
vehicles on the streets.”
The rejection of the longer-term plan drawn up by General Mohan
al-Firaiji, then the Iraqi commander in Basra, in collaboration with the
British military, was the latest blow in relations between Mr al-Maliki
and the British commanders in the south.
...
Under General al-Firaiji’s British-sponsored three-phase plan, the
first stage was to have involved an intensive training programme to get
the Iraqi Army’s 14 Division, which had been sent to Basra, up to
combat-ready levels. The second phase was to involve negotiations with
the Iraqi Government to guarantee economic development in Basra. The
third phase, fixed for August, was to launch a large-scale operation in
Basra, with 14 Division reinforced by Iraqi troops from Baghdad.
The plan was taken up to Baghdad on March 21 and presented to General
David Petraeus, the US commander of the Multinational Corps, who showed
it to Mr al-Maliki. It was then that the Iraqi Prime Minister announced
that he wanted to send troops down to Basra the next day. Thousands of
Iraqi troops with 900 American minders from the US Marine Corps and 82nd
Airborne Division, as well as specialist planners from the 1,000-strong
coalition corps headquarters in Baghdad, arrived the next day at the
British airport base. The British provided Challenger 2 tanks as well as
artillery units and RAF Tornados, but no combat troops were requested.
+++++
But presumably Generals Petraeus and al-Firaiji know less than the BBC
about their plans and operations?
D. Spencer Hines
tended to hunker down at the Basra Airport, thereby allowing large portions
of the city to be taken over by Shia militias.
Thoroughly bad show by the British...
Cowardly.
J A
Give it up.
Nobody with any common sense has trouble understanding what went on.
From the BBC:
" Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007". "
" Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners
Paul J. Adam
<a...@re.com> writes
>
>Give it up.
No, thanks. You've got a BBC hack chasing a brief from Baghdad, and a
handful of unattributable claims and vague statements. But this is
supposed to be convincing?
>
>Nobody with any common sense has trouble understanding what went on.
No, they don't. But that seems to exclude you...
>
>From the BBC:
>
>" Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
>that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
>'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007". "
And he can identify these people?
"Colonel Michael 'Mickey' Mouse" and "Sir Bartholomew Simpson OMG"
aren't authorised to make deals for anyone. If he had three meetings
with these characters, why doesn't he know their names?
"They had no names, no identification, but they *said* they were British
so they must surely be..." is just a little bit desperate, don't you
think?
J A
> In message <AsSdnZh5NNGdRgDV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>Give it up.
>
> No, thanks. You've got a BBC hack chasing a brief from Baghdad, and a
> handful of unattributable claims and vague statements. But this is
> supposed to be convincing?
The BBC didn't make this up. Their reporters have been in Iraq for a long
time, and they know what's going on and how to source a story.
Besides, it's against the BBC's interests to foist phony stories on their
own military.
Also, the story fits perfectly well with the lack of British military
activity in recent years, the dominance of the shiia gangs and militias in
Basra, and the need for Miliki to send troops in.
Maliki didn't send his troops in for the fun of it, he thought he needed to.
Sorry, but the truth is pretty obvious....
torresD
Why some rice farmers --
some rice farmers --
some rice eaters
ran him out of Korea.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/malcolmxballotorbullet.htm
I hope that the white man can see this,
'cause if he don't see it you're finished.
If you don't see it you're going to be coming --
you're going to become involved in some action
in which you don't have a chance.
And we don't care anything
about your atomic bomb;
it's --
it's useless because other
countries have atomic bombs.
When two or three different
countries have atomic bombs,
nobody can use them,
so it means that the white man
today is without a weapon.
If you're gonna --
If you want some action,
you gotta come on down to Earth.
And there's more black people on
Earth than there are white people
on Earth.
I only got a couple more minutes.
The white man can never win
another war on the ground.
His days of war, victory,
his great --
his days of that ground
victory are over.
Can I prove it?
Yes.
Take all the action that's going on on
this earth right now that he's involved in.
Tell me where he's winning. Nowhere.
Why some rice farmers --
some rice farmers --
some rice eaters
ran him out of Korea.
Yes, they ran him out of Korea.
Rice eaters with nothing but
gym shoes and a rifle and a
bowl of rice took him and
his tanks and his napalm
and all that other action
he's supposed to have and
ran him across the Yalu.
Why?
'Cause the day that he can
win on the ground has passed.
Up in French Indo-China those little peasants,
rice growers, took on the might of the French army
and ran all the Frenchmen --
you remember Dien Bien Phu. No.
The same thing happened in Algeria, in Africa.
They didn't have anything but a rifle.
The French had all these highly
mechanized instruments of warfare,
but they put some guerilla action on,
and a -- and a --
and a white man can't fight a guerilla warfare.
Guerilla action takes heart,
takes nerve,
and he doesn't have that.
He's brave when he's got tanks.
He's brave when he's got planes.
He's brave when he's got bombs.
He's brave when he got a
whole lot of company along
with him,
but you take that little
man from Africa and Asia,
turn him loose in the
woods with a blade,
with a blade --
that's all he needs,
all he needs is a blade --
and when the sun comes down --
goes down and it's dark,
it's even-steven.
Paul J. Adam
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4vHUxUAX...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <AsSdnZh5NNGdRgDV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>>
>>>Give it up.
>>
>> No, thanks. You've got a BBC hack chasing a brief from Baghdad, and a
>> handful of unattributable claims and vague statements. But this is
>> supposed to be convincing?
>
>The BBC didn't make this up. Their reporters have been in Iraq for a long
>time, and they know what's going on and how to source a story.
Which is why they name sources when they have them. When they don't have
named sources, the story's based on lobby briefing rather than
researched fact...
>Besides, it's against the BBC's interests to foist phony stories on their
>own military.
'Scuse me? The BBC reports stories that look like good news. Sometimes
they turn out to *not* be good news. This is an example.
>Also, the story fits perfectly well with the lack of British military
>activity in recent years,
You've never been to Basrah, have you?
>the dominance of the shiia gangs and militias in
>Basra, and the need for Miliki to send troops in.
>
>Maliki didn't send his troops in for the fun of it, he thought he needed to.
However, Maliki's perceived need to send troops in - and particularly to
use troops from outside the region - was driven by domestic politics,
not the situation on the ground.
If there was a deal to "leave one particular militia alone", let alone
"leave *all* the militias alone", it would have had to be briefed from
CG MND(SE) right down to sub-unit commanders. Should be *easy* to find
either records of it, or someone willing to go on record describing
their orders.
Surreyman
He said, hunkering down in his Hawaii shack.
Twit.
Surreyman
James Hogg
<a.spe...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>On 9 Aug, 18:11, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote:
>> The British were simply unwilling to put their troops in harm's way and
>> tended to hunker down at the Basra Airport, thereby allowing large portions
>> of the city to be taken over by Shia militias.
>>
>> Thoroughly bad show by the British...
>>
>> Cowardly.
>
>He said, hunkering down in his Hawaii shack...
...dressed up as Julia (to fool the press gang).
James
J A
> In message <u6-dndS0YqgSiAPV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:4vHUxUAX...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <AsSdnZh5NNGdRgDV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>Give it up.
>>>
>>> No, thanks. You've got a BBC hack chasing a brief from Baghdad, and a
>>> handful of unattributable claims and vague statements. But this is
>>> supposed to be convincing?
>>
>>The BBC didn't make this up. Their reporters have been in Iraq for a long
>>time, and they know what's going on and how to source a story.
>
> Which is why they name sources when they have them. When they don't have
> named sources, the story's based on lobby briefing rather than researched
> fact...
>
>>Besides, it's against the BBC's interests to foist phony stories on their
>>own military.
>
> 'Scuse me? The BBC reports stories that look like good news. Sometimes
> they turn out to *not* be good news. This is an example.
>
>>Also, the story fits perfectly well with the lack of British military
>>activity in recent years,
>
> You've never been to Basrah, have you?
The point is, the BBC has, and so were US troops..... that's the problem.
>
>>the dominance of the shiia gangs and militias in
>>Basra, and the need for Miliki to send troops in.
>>
>>Maliki didn't send his troops in for the fun of it, he thought he needed
>>to.
>
> However, Maliki's perceived need to send troops in - and particularly to
> use troops from outside the region - was driven by domestic politics, not
> the situation on the ground.
Bullshit.
The odds of the BBC (and the US military) having the story right, versus a
self serving denial by the British ministry that is embarrassed by the
story, favor the BBC by a great deal.
<snip>
It doesn't show much wit, to lie about things that have a lot of coverage,
particularly coverage
from the BBC.
And don't bother trying to foist British ministry of defense denials on this
matter as being credible.
From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
[re. Maliki offensive into militia and gang dominated Basra ]
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
military intelligence source
MoD denial
Major Tom Holloway
Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007".
According to the militia commander, a colonel from the Iraqi Army, and Ahmad
Al-Fartusi, another member of the Mehdi Army who had been detained by the
British, were also present.
'Prisoners released'
Our attempts to find Ahmad al-Fartusi, who is now in hiding, have been
unsuccessful. The Iraqi Army refused to comment.
Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners were
released, the British agreed to stop patrolling in Basra and the Mehdi Army
agreed not to attack the British headquarters in the city.
The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
Basra".
The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates
BBC source
A British military spokesman in Basra refused to discuss the details of any
negotiations with any party.
"Nothing of that nature affected movement into the city", said Major Tom
Holloway.
If there were any sort of accommodation between the Mehdi Army and the
British army the details are unlikely to have been widely disseminated.
"If the delay in fighting in March/April 2008 was due to a deal the only
people who would have known would have been the defence minister, the
defence chief, a very senior commander in the field and some planners," said
a British military intelligence source.
"The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates. That would make the government as
popular as a bag of puke," said the source.
Whatever the truth there are still serious questions about why the British
took so long to support the Iraqi army when they were on the back-foot.
"British forces in Basra were postured for training," said Major Tom
Holloway, the British military spokesman in Basra.
"They were on the streets by 1 April when they had turned the training
mission into a support mission."
Political reluctance?
Observers reject that outright.
There are more than 4,000 British forces in the Basra airport, including
three or four infantry battle groups.
Even at a conservative estimate that would mean 1,800 British soldiers would
be ready to fight.
Could the delay have been due to a political reluctance in Whitehall for
British soldiers to be embroiled in an Iraqi fight just months after the
British had handed over security control of the province?
Again the answer to that is unclear.
The 60,000-strong Mehdi Army was created in 2003
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
Paul J. Adam
<a...@re.com> writes
>Bullshit.
A concise summary of the story, yes...
>
>The odds of the BBC (and the US military)
Who is the source in the US military who can show any evidence of the
deal?
They've got quotes saying "if there was a deal like that, it would be a
bad thing".
>having the story right, versus a
>self serving denial by the British ministry that is embarrassed by the
>story, favor the BBC by a great deal.
So you believe that when the US Army rescued Jessica Lynch, it really
was a faked incident using pyrotechnics and blank rounds, they actually
knew there was no danger and they exaggerated the whole incident for
publicity?
After all, the odds of the BBC having the story right, versus a
self-serving denial by the US military that is embarrassed by the story,
favours the BBC by a great deal...
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm>
"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no
soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the
hospital.
"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and
blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a
show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like
Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."
So, were the BBC right then, too? Don't bother with self-serving denials
by the US military...
>It doesn't show much wit, to lie about things that have a lot of coverage,
>particularly coverage
>from the BBC.
Which is why you shouldn't be doing it.
>And don't bother trying to foist British ministry of defense denials on this
>matter as being credible.
In other words, the BBC are infallible?
Try the Chief of the General Staff.
+++++
RHQ/RRF/1363 28th April 2008
1. CHIEF OF THE GENERAL STAFF’S LETTER TO THE ARMY ON THE SITUATION
IN IRAQ
The Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir Richard Dannatt,
visited Iraq last week and wants to ensure that All Ranks are aware of
the current situation in theatre.
CGS’ unclassified letter follows below and is self-explanatory,
outlining the conclusions of his visit to Iraq last week but set in the
context of the Campaign as a whole over the last 5 years so that no one
should be in any doubt as to the current situation. Although addressed
to CinC Land Forces it is for general release.
25th Apr 08
CinC Land Forces
IRAQ
1. I have just come back from one of my regular visits to Iraq and
given the recent developments, I thought that it was important to give
you my views about the situation and I would ask you to pass on this
perspective to the chain of command and our families so that everyone is
clear as to what is going on.
2. The first point to make is that as far back as 2003, the
Campaign Plan envisaged a progressive handing over of responsibility to
the Iraqis, both in governance and security. This is what we have
achieved in Dhi Qar, Al Muthanna and Maysan and was what occurred last
year in Basra when we handed over the last remaining base in the city,
and then, in December 2007, the Province itself, to Iraqi control.
Having set the conditions in Basra, the concept of moving into an
overwatch posture at the Contingency Operating Base at Basra Airport was
the next logical step and has allowed the Iraqi Security Forces to
assume responsibility for the security of the Province. We always
assumed that ‘overwatch’ involved the possibility of having to
re-intervene in security matters if deemed appropriate by both the
Iraqis and the Multinational Force that our troops come under. The idea
that ‘overwatch’ simply involved our soldiers merely sitting around
waiting to be called was always inaccurate, since the strategy has
always been dependent on capacity building of the Iraqi Security Forces
both in numbers and capabilities – and that has kept us pretty busy.
3. When I visited Iraq last week, I met soldiers of every rank who
were positive about their role and committed to the task. I cannot deny
that there are many who said that they would rather be at the forefront
of the operations (as CGS, I think that I would be worried if I headed
an Army that did not express such views) but those same individuals were
all mature enough to understand it is right that the Iraqis that are now
taking the lead. Indeed, these are exactly the nature of operations that
we have been pressing for for some months – an Iraqi solution to an
Iraqi problem. The Iraqis have called their surge into Basra
‘Operation Charge of the Knights’ and the Iraqi Prime Minister took
the decision to take personal charge of it. To us in the military, that
is a clear sign as to where the Iraq Main Effort has shifted and as a
consequence, where the support of the Multinational Force must follow.
The deployment of additional Multinational Corps headquarters staff
(mostly from the US) to Multinational Division (South East) Basra is
therefore an entirely logical military move which we can understand and
support.
4. Following the principles of overwatch, we have provided support
to the Iraqis where it is appropriate and within our rules of
engagement. The capabilities that the Iraqis have requested from us and
which we have provided include intelligence, aerial surveillance (manned
and unmanned), force protection (including CHALLENGER 2 and WARRIOR),
support helicopters, logistic and medical support. In addition, we have
continued to mentor the Iraqi Security Forces and that is where most of
our effort is now directed, principally with the Iraqi 14th Division.
However, the Iraqis have supported their main effort by moving
additional formations into the Basra area and these have come from areas
in Iraq where they have been mentored by US troops. Just as it makes
sense for UK advisors to accompany the Iraqi troops that we mentor, it
makes equal sense that US advisors should operate alongside the Iraqi
units they have been working with as they are brought in from other
parts of the country for ‘Operation Charge of the Knights’.
5. Some commentators have been critical of the way that the Iraqi
operation has been carried out. Having visited Iraq and talked to many
of those involved, I have concluded that this is unreasonable and
ignores the complexity of dealing with determined adversaries in
challenging counter-insurgency operations. Just as Multinational Forces
have challenges in operating in a foreign country, the Iraqi Security
Forces face different challenges in operating in their own country. It
is also worth bearing in mind that a year or so ago, 14 Division did not
exist. Nor was it at full operating capability when operations in Basra
started. Therefore to expect it to perform to a standard that has taken
other nations (including our own) decades to reach is patently
unrealistic. No one would deny that aspects of the Iraqi operation
could have gone better at the outset. But there is no doubt that each
phase (the Iraqis are now on the fourth phase ) has gone from strength
to strength and is now showing some significant results – the Iraqi
plan is working and is delivering what we sought. Indeed Basrawis are
now being reported as “optimistic” about the future for the first
time in many years.
6. My conclusion from my visit is that the campaign remains on its
broad track but as everyone in the Army who has either served in Iraq or
been involved in supporting the operation knows, it has, and will
continue, to take time. We have quite properly reduced our force
numbers over the last couple of years, but there will still be many more
challenges to overcome and at no stage will it be easy. When faced with
these situations, we must steel ourselves to see it through; this is
what we have done for the past 5 years and we will continue to do so as
long as a Land Forces contingent is required in Southern Iraq. I
returned from my visit buoyed by the courage, sense of purpose and
determination of our soldiers. I would like everyone to know this, lest
anyone think that somehow this is not the case and our families can
continue to take great pride in how their loved ones are carrying out
their duty as professional soldiers serving their country.
CGS
+++++
Now, if you want to call Richard Dannatt a liar, you'd be most unwise:
he's earned a formidable reputation for honesty.
>From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
>
>[re. Maliki offensive into militia and gang dominated Basra ]
>
>The American military though was not as slow to respond.
>
>Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
>in April 2008.
>
>It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
>within 48 hours.
Because they were attached to the Iraqi Army units that Maliki sent
south at short notice, cutting his local commander (and the British) out
of the loop. You've been told that several times, didn't you notice?
>There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
>taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
There is "a perception"? There is none of that awkward "evidence"?
Funny, that...
>If there were any sort of accommodation between the Mehdi Army and the
>British army the details are unlikely to have been widely disseminated.
>
>"If the delay in fighting in March/April 2008 was due to a deal the only
>people who would have known would have been the defence minister, the
>defence chief, a very senior commander in the field and some planners," said
>a British military intelligence source.
More nonsense from more nameless "sources".
Because, you know, *nobody* would notice that they were meant to be
going into Basrah and actually they weren't, and *nobody* would wonder
why. If there was a deal to "leave the militias alone" that has to be
pushed right down the chain of command: otherwise, the militias don't
get left alone.
Try looking beyond the BBC for your information.
<http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/mag/update1.htm>
A SENIOR American officer has praised British soldiers for their work in
southern Iraq, claiming that their “decisive” efforts had helped
smash rogue militias.
Gen Jack Keane, who serves on the US Policy Review Board, told reporters
there had been a “stunning turnaround” in fortunes and said the
troops deserved recognition. He had earlier been quoted in the media as
saying there was a “general disengagement” by British forces in the
region and that security on the ground was gradually deteriorating.
But speaking in Basra, he pointed out that British support for the
Iraqi-led Operation Charge of the Knights had played a pivotal role in
defeating the insurgents who had been in control in some areas of the
city.
“It has been a stunning victory in such a short period of time,” he
said. “I was here in the third week of March of this year and the
militia were pretty much in control of the city. Now the Iraqi security
forces are in control. You can go any place in Basra, have complete
freedom of movement and can do it safely.”
Gen Keane praised soldiers of 7th Armoured Brigade – the Desert Rats –
for their work with the Iraqis in Military Transition Teams. They had
passed on invaluable knowledge and experience to the Iraqi soldiers they
were mentoring, who were becoming a credible force in their own right.
“Working with the Iraqis side-by-side, providing advice and counsel
and helping educate them about techniques and procedures we know work is
a proven combination,” he said.
“The British participation is not only helpful, it is decisive.”
Gen Keane said he believed that the Iraqis had a strong senior commander
in Gen Aziz, who was committed to ensuring enemy forces had no place to
hide. His crackdown had hit the insurgents hard.
“The British military, the Iraqi forces and some of the US forces that
are also participating in the operation deserve a tremendous amount of
credit,” Gen Keane concluded.
+++++
<http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iraqi-security-force-operat
ions-basra>
"Frustrated American officials claimed that the Iraqi government
overestimated the ISF’s abilities, “underestimated the scale of
resistance,” and failed to establish detailed and coordinated
plans.[xvi] Despite prior coordination with American leaders in
Baghdad, Maliki’s impulsive thrust into Basra left Iraqi and Coalition
forces without time to prepare and mass forces before mounting the
attack.[xvii] Given the historical lack of U.S. and British presence in
Basra as well as the limits of Iraqi logistics and command and control,
Operation Charge of the Knights would have been difficult under far
better circumstances.[xviii] The GOI’s faulty planning and
coordination complicated the mission even further and contributed to
perceptions that Mahdi militiamen completely defeated the Iraqi Security
Forces.[xix]"
+++++
<http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/preserving_freedom/documents/twii_080630.
pdf>
BASRA — Operation Charge of the Knights, a joint operation involving
UK Soldiers and the Iraqi Army, which aims to restore order and improve
security in Basra, is making further progress. The Iraqi Army continues
to demonstrate its commitment to improving the security situation in the
city, carrying out a number of vehicle check points in recent days.
Inspections were carried out on a number of vehicles which were going in
and out of
the city.
Operation Charge of the Knights, which began in March, is now into its
14th phase. The operation has been one of the key drivers in bringing
peace and stability to the streets of Basra in recent months. Elements
of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police Service, with their US and UK
Military Transition Teams (MiTTs), can now be seen working in the city.
<http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17853&
Itemid=128>
NT: Question from Al-Watan Newspaper. A few days ago we’ve heard that
there is a desire by the United States to coordinate with the British
government to bring back the British forces to Basra. If this is true,
will—have you addressed the British government regarding this?
MAJ GEN BERGNER: Well, first of all, let me say that the British forces
that remain in Basra are there specifically to help enable and partner
with Iraqi Security Forces, and they are still there operating in the
province of Basra. I think that the decisions, the deployment of Iraqi
Security Forces, and the leadership and direction of the Government of
Iraq in the last few days demonstrates that the Government of Iraq takes
very seriously their responsibility and their capability to project
force into provinces that have achieved provincial Iraqi control and to
assert the necessary security forces to enforce the rule of law.
And so, this is less about the coalition forces in the province of Basra
than it is about Iraqi Security Forces and the leadership of the
Government of Iraq in implementing plans necessary to deal with criminal
activity. Shukran. Yes, sir.
....
REP5: James Hider from the London Times. You said that there had been
discussions with low-level members of the Jaish al-Mahdi in the Sadrist
office. Are those discussions going on? And what exactly did you agree
before this operation started? Have they in any way signed off on this
was the first question?
And secondly, what is the plan if the Iraqi forces can’t take Basra?
The British were there for five years, thousands of troops and we got
into this mess anyway. Is there any plan for reinforcements, for
coalition troops to go in if the Army can’t take Basra? And I hear
that they’ve been repulsed from one area, Al-Hanaya, already by the
Mahdi Army?
MAJ GEN BERGNER: What was the first part of your question?
REP5: It was the talks with the Jaish al-Mahdi.
MAJ GEN BERGNER:Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, first let me start with that. At
the local level, coalition commanders have talked to members of the
Jaish al-Mahdi on an unexceptional basis in an effort to try to improve
security in neighborhoods in different districts. And so, lieutenant
colonels and brigade commanders have engaged and will continue to engage
in dialog with all those who seek to improve security in the districts
and neighborhoods that they are responsible for.
And that has included members who are associated with Jaish al-Mahdi in
the past and it is not specifically tied to anything today. So I
think…I don’t want to mislead you that there is some recent
discussion or interaction underway. That’s not what I intended.
REP5: [Unintelligible] talks on at the moment. There’ve been talks
[unintelligible].
MAJ GEN BERGNER:I can’t tell you if there are battalion commanders out
there today talking to members of Jaish al-Mahdi, but they have in the
past, and where there is a basis to help improve the security situation
we continue to…we will always be willing to talk to folks on that level.
....
REP11: Sam Dagher] with the Christian Science Monitor. Thank you for
the opportunity. Just a couple of questions. We were told by an Iraqi
security official in Basra who is actually taking part in the operation
itself that there are U.S. and British soldiers close to the Iranian
border at the moment to intercept any sort of militia or weapons
movement.
So if you can comment on that. Second question is, we were just in Sadr
City and the whole…pretty much the whole district is ringed by U.S.
troops and U.S. military vehicles. A lot of the inner roads are now
closed by the militiamen themselves. They are out on the streets. They
are not letting anyone go in or out. We were told…we even saw evidence
perhaps that they’ve even booby-trapped a lot of the main roads into
Sadr City and laid IEDs. Is this mission impossible?
I mean, they are now among civilians. How could you get them? And also
the third question is relating to…[laughs] border, Sadr City, and, oh,
yesterday government checkpoints, Army and police—I mean, I saw this
with my own eyes. The militiamen were right next to these checkpoints
intimidating people, telling them to actually go back home, to close
their shops.
There was so much anti-American banners and graffiti at all these
checkpoints. So…I mean doesn’t this maybe lead us to question a
little bit maybe the loyalty of some of these forces and whether they
would be willing to fight, you know, these militiamen and criminals when
push comes to shove? Thank you.
MAJ GEN BERGNER: First, the forces that we have in Basra are the forces
that we have embedded in any…with any other Iraqi Security Forces. We
have transition teams with Iraqi Army units.
We have liaison officers with the Baghdad Operations Command, and they
represent both the Multi-National Force and MND…Multi-National
Division – Southeast. And we have the normal relationship we have with
border enforcement teams, which we generally have a border enforcement
transition team that helps coordinate efforts and develop capacity
within the border enforcement elements as well.
Those are the forces that we have in Basra. And we do not have any
conventional forces there. We do not have the…there have been other
reports that there were coalition forces deployed there. What we have
there is what I just described. Your comment about Sadr City and the
circumstance there, as you know, much of the indirect fire that has been
directed towards neighborhoods here in Baghdad has emanated from the
vicinity of East Baghdad and Sadr City in several cases in particular.
....
INT: Question from Kurdistan TV. You have mentioned that there are some
foreign sides that stand behind the military operations in Basra. And
you’ve mentioned also Quds Forces. Is this a direct accusation by you
against Iran regarding the operations and what’s going on in Basra?
The second question: is there any intention…if there is any withdrawal
of the British forces, will you take over responsibility there instead
of the British forces in case the British forces withdrew from Basra?
MAJ GEN BERGNER: Well, first of all, the Government of Iraq has asked
its neighbors to exert helpful influence in improving the security and
stability in Iraq. The Government of Iraq has asked its neighbors to
exert positive and helpful influences to improve the stability and
security here in their country. And we have certainly joined them in
that interest as well.
And in terms of Basra, there is no question but the Government of Iran
has significant influence in Basra and in the province and in
southeastern Iraq in general. And so, we would love to see the
Government of Iran fulfill its commitment to help improve the security
and stability and the situation there, and to reduce the activities of
those operating outside the law.
And our understanding is that the Government of Iraq is working closely
with their neighbors, specifically to ask their improved support in
improving the situation there. In terms of—what was your second
question again? It was about the Brit-…I remember. It’s…I got it.
Your second question was about MN-…Multi-National Division –
Southeast, and British forces there.
The government of the UK and the leadership of the Multi-National
Division there have made it very clear that they are working…they are
going to continue to perform their mission. They are continuing to work
with the Iraqi Security Forces, and so there really isn’t a basis for
me to project beyond that. There is no sense that they will do otherwise
than continue their mission there. Shukran. Who have I not asked
on…yes, sir.
....
J A
>>Bullshit.
>
> A concise summary of the story, yes...
The BBC got it right. You're lying and wriggling.
The British defefense ministry is embarrassed and lying.
The British were relatively passive in Basra over the years - that's how the
shiia gangs and militia took hold there.
A Sadr militia commander stated there was a deal.
" Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007". "
" According to the militia commander, a colonel from the Iraqi Army, and
Ahmad
Al-Fartusi, another member of the Mehdi Army who had been detained by the
British, were also present.
'Prisoners released'
Our attempts to find Ahmad al-Fartusi, who is now in hiding, have been
unsuccessful. The Iraqi Army refused to comment.
Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners were
released, the British agreed to stop patrolling in Basra and the Mehdi Army
agreed not to attack the British headquarters in the city.
The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
Basra". "
When the Iraqi forces got in trouble, the US had to come in and back them
up, saying they were at a loss over the absence of British forces.
Quit lying. You look ridiculous.
<snip>
Entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
MoD denial
Major Tom Holloway
'Prisoners released'
BBC source
If there were any sort of accommodation between the Mehdi Army and the
British army the details are unlikely to have been widely disseminated.
"If the delay in fighting in March/April 2008 was due to a deal the only
people who would have known would have been the defence minister, the
defence chief, a very senior commander in the field and some planners," said
a British military intelligence source.
"The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates. That would make the government as
popular as a bag of puke," said the source.
Whatever the truth there are still serious questions about why the British
took so long to support the Iraqi army when they were on the back-foot.
"British forces in Basra were postured for training," said Major Tom
Holloway, the British military spokesman in Basra.
"They were on the streets by 1 April when they had turned the training
mission into a support mission."
Political reluctance?
Observers reject that outright.
There are more than 4,000 British forces in the Basra airport, including
three or four infantry battle groups.
Even at a conservative estimate that would mean 1,800 British soldiers would
be ready to fight.
Could the delay have been due to a political reluctance in Whitehall for
British soldiers to be embroiled in an Iraqi fight just months after the
British had handed over security control of the province?
Again the answer to that is unclear.
The 60,000-strong Mehdi Army was created in 2003
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
Curfew
=====
<snip obfuscations>
Paul J. Adam
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:OQqpu7Gi...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <OM2dndhz5PFjmQLV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>> <a...@re.com> writes
>
>>>Bullshit.
>>
>> A concise summary of the story, yes...
>
>The BBC got it right. You're lying and wriggling.
No. I'm giving you chapter and verse. All you have is an unreferenced
story with no names.
>The British defefense ministry is embarrassed and lying.
So is the US military, it seems - strange they seem so unable to support
your claims.
Who signed off on this deal? Recall that the US kept channels open with
militia too.
+++++
MAJ GEN BERGNER:Oh, yeah. Okay. Well, first let me start with that. At
the local level, coalition commanders have talked to members of the
Jaish al-Mahdi on an unexceptional basis in an effort to try to improve
security in neighborhoods in different districts. And so, lieutenant
colonels and brigade commanders have engaged and will continue to engage
in dialog with all those who seek to improve security in the districts
and neighborhoods that they are responsible for.
And that has included members who are associated with Jaish al-Mahdi in
the past and it is not specifically tied to anything today.
+++++
>A Sadr militia commander stated there was a deal.
>" Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
>that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
>'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007". "
Who are, of course, completely nameless. Strange, that... He knew they
were "British Army" and "British civilian" but he has no idea what their
names were.
>The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
>the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
>Basra". "
But the BBC says the British Army honoured the "deal" and stayed out.
Who do we believe? The Jaish al-Mahdi commander who supposedly
negotiated the deal, or the BBC?
>When the Iraqi forces got in trouble, the US had to come in and back them
>up, saying they were at a loss over the absence of British forces.
Please check your facts before you write nonsense. The US personnel were
the training teams embedded with the Iraqi Army units sent down from
al-Anbar province. No additional US troops were used.
Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman:-
"First, the forces that we have in Basra are the forces that we have
embedded in any…with any other Iraqi Security Forces. We have
transition teams with Iraqi Army units. We have liaison officers with
the Baghdad Operations Command, and they represent both the
Multi-National Force and MND…Multi-National Division – Southeast.
And we have the normal relationship we have with border enforcement
teams, which we generally have a border enforcement transition team that
helps coordinate efforts and develop capacity within the border
enforcement elements as well. Those are the forces that we have in
Basra. And we do not have any conventional forces there."
Are you claiming the General is a liar?
What about the Iraqis, who might be expected to know a little about
what's going on?
"Sam Dagher] with the Christian Science Monitor. Thank you for the
opportunity. Just a couple of questions. We were told by an Iraqi
security official in Basra who is actually taking part in the operation
itself that there are U.S. and British soldiers close to the Iranian
border at the moment to intercept any sort of militia or weapons
movement."
Funny - according to the BBC there were no British troops doing
anything, because of some secret deal cooked up with the militias.
Still, who knows more about events in Iraq? The Iraqis? Or the BBC?
>Quit lying. You look ridiculous.
Don't have to. I produce facts, you ignore them and scurry back to the
same sourceless twaddle.
J A
> In message <K4idnYDMF6_MigLV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:OQqpu7Gi...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <OM2dndhz5PFjmQLV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>>>Bullshit.
>>>
>>> A concise summary of the story, yes...
>>
>>The BBC got it right. You're lying and wriggling.
>
> No. I'm giving you chapter and verse. All you have is an unreferenced
> story with no names.
You're a liar.
My information comes from BBC reporting and general reporting over recent
times.
Everybody knows Basra has been run by gangs and Shiia milita for years.
Everybody knows the Brtish forces permitted it - it was their area of
responsibility, post invasion..
Everybody knows Maliki went in early 2008 to establish Iraqi governemnt
control, and got into trouble fighting the Sadr milita.
Everybody knows the Americans had to send in ground troops in to help
them - becasue the British stayed in their bases - hence the quote the the
Americans were ""slightly at a loss with the British".
Everybody knows the the BBC is a very reliable news service that has been on
the ground there for years.
It has reported that the British made a deal with the Sadr miltia and has
used names. It is reporting on its own country's military and it's very
doubtful that it's lying.
" Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007". "
It is you who lying and peddling twaddle like a fool - it shows no brians to
lie about something everybody can see clearly.
<snip twaddle>
From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
[re. Maliki offensive into militia and gang dominated Basra ]
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
military intelligence source
===
Entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
MoD denial
Major Tom Holloway
Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007".
According to the militia commander, a colonel from the Iraqi Army, and Ahmad
Al-Fartusi, another member of the Mehdi Army who had been detained by the
British, were also present.
'Prisoners released'
Our attempts to find Ahmad al-Fartusi, who is now in hiding, have been
unsuccessful. The Iraqi Army refused to comment.
Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners were
released, the British agreed to stop patrolling in Basra and the Mehdi Army
agreed not to attack the British headquarters in the city.
The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
Basra".
The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
Paul J. Adam
>news:NzUZG0JY...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> No. I'm giving you chapter and verse. All you have is an unreferenced
>> story with no names.
>
>You're a liar.
>
>My information comes from BBC reporting and general reporting over recent
>times.
You have no names. You have no sources. You have one piece of lobby
journalism with nothing to back it up.
Being called a liar by an idiot hardly hurts...
>Everybody knows the Americans had to send in ground troops in to help
>them - becasue the British stayed in their bases - hence the quote the the
>Americans were ""slightly at a loss with the British".
But that means that MNF-I *lied*.
Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman:-
"First, the forces that we have in Basra are the forces that we have
embedded in any…with any other Iraqi Security Forces. We have
transition teams with Iraqi Army units. We have liaison officers with
the Baghdad Operations Command, and they represent both the
Multi-National Force and MND…Multi-National Division – Southeast.
And we have the normal relationship we have with border enforcement
teams, which we generally have a border enforcement transition team that
helps coordinate efforts and develop capacity within the border
enforcement elements as well. Those are the forces that we have in
Basra. And we do not have any conventional forces there."
Now, are you saying he's wrong and the BBC are right? That actually the
US secretly surged a vast mass of troops down into Basrah, over and
above the thousand or so embeds in the Iraqi Army divisions sent down
from Anbar? I'm sure you can identify the units involved for us.
I can't help it if you wilfuly delude yourself. You can go on quoting
the same nonsense for as long as you like. Squeal "liar!" as loudly as
you like at the US military, at MNF-I, at everyone who dares to doubt
the BBC.
It's *funny* watching an idiot try to argue about something he doesn't
understand, seeing the desperate evasions as each silly statement is
torn to bits. (By the way, you're Idiot Type #3 - when challenged with
evidence, you snip it out and quote the original nonsense over and over
again, as if flapping it around really hard will make it more credible
and accurate)
J A
> In message <yN2dnVVfZplXsQLV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:NzUZG0JY...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> No. I'm giving you chapter and verse. All you have is an unreferenced
>>> story with no names.
>>
>>You're a liar.
>>
>>My information comes from BBC reporting and general reporting over recent
>>times.
>
> You have no names. You have no sources. You have one piece of lobby
> journalism with nothing to back it up.
>
> Being called a liar by an idiot hardly hurts...
You're a liar and an idiot.
I'm just stating information that's well known and info from the BBC -
you're a liar and an idiot to be to be in feeble denial about it.
Everybody knows Basra has been run by gangs and Shiia milita for years.
Everybody knows the Brtish forces permitted it - it was their area of
responsibility, post invasion..
Everybody knows Maliki went in early 2008 to establish Iraqi governemnt
control, and got into trouble fighting the Sadr milita.
Everybody knows the Americans had to send in ground troops in to help
them - becasue the British stayed in their bases - hence the quote the the
Americans were ""slightly at a loss with the British".
Everybody knows the the BBC is a very reliable news service that has been on
Paul J. Adam
>news:FTWbugAS...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> You have no names. You have no sources. You have one piece of lobby
>> journalism with nothing to back it up.
>>
>> Being called a liar by an idiot hardly hurts...
>
>You're a liar and an idiot.
>
>I'm just stating information that's well known and info from the BBC -
>you're a liar and an idiot to be to be in feeble denial about it.
No, I'm afraid not, and repeating nonsense over and over again doesn't
make it true.
>Everybody knows the Americans had to send in ground troops in to help
>them - becasue the British stayed in their bases - hence the quote the the
>Americans were ""slightly at a loss with the British".
Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq: a two-star general
in the US Army, deputy Chief of Staff for all of Multinational Forces
Iraq, says differently.
I believe him rather than you, or the BBC, since the troops are
commanded through his HQ.
Now, are you claiming MGen Bergner is a liar? Or are you saying he's
merely incompetent? Because - according to you - the BBC can never be
wrong...
J A
> In message <YMOdnQo7kseV2QLV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:FTWbugAS...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> You have no names. You have no sources. You have one piece of lobby
>>> journalism with nothing to back it up.
>>>
>>> Being called a liar by an idiot hardly hurts...
>>
>>You're a liar and an idiot.
>>
>>I'm just stating information that's well known and info from the BBC -
>>you're a liar and an idiot to be to be in feeble denial about it.
>
> No, I'm afraid not, and repeating nonsense over and over again doesn't
> make it true.
>
>>Everybody knows the Americans had to send in ground troops in to help
>>them - becasue the British stayed in their bases - hence the quote the the
>>Americans were ""slightly at a loss with the British".
>
> Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq: a two-star general in
> the US Army, deputy Chief of Staff for all of Multinational Forces Iraq,
> says differently.
>
> I believe him rather than you, or the BBC, since the troops are commanded
> through his HQ.
>
> Now, are you claiming MGen Bergner is a liar? Or are you saying he's
> merely incompetent? Because - according to you - the BBC can never be
> wrong...
Do you think most of the readers in this group, are naive enough to believe
that a careerist US general is a good honest source of information on a
delicate international matter like this?
But fell free to tell us what Bergner said - I googled his name some
relevant keywords and got nothing.
You say that i'm repeating "nonsense".
I'll take that as a justification for repeating the logical well referenced
things I have said, so people can make up their own minds if its "nonsense".
==
I'm just stating information that's well known and info from the BBC and
other crdible sources:
Everybody knows Basra has been run by gangs and Shiia milita for years.
Everybody knows the Brtish forces permitted it - it was their area of
responsibility, post invasion..
Everybody knows Maliki went in early 2008 to establish Iraqi governemnt
control, and got into trouble fighting the Sadr milita.
Everybody knows the Americans had to send in ground troops in to help
them - becasue the British stayed in their bases - hence the quote the the
Americans were ""slightly at a loss with the British".
Everybody knows the the BBC is a very reliable news service that has been on
the ground there for years.
It has reported that the British made a deal with the Sadr miltia and has
used names. It is reporting on its own country's military and it's very
doubtful that it's lying.
" Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007". "
From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
MoD denial
Major Tom Holloway
'Prisoners released'
BBC source
Political reluctance?
Observers reject that outright.
Curfew
>
>
D. Spencer Hines
Over several months...
The British were simply unwilling to put their troops in harm's way and
tended to hunker down at the Basra Airport, thereby allowing large portions
of the city to be taken over by Shia militias.
Thoroughly bad show by the British...
Cowardly.
Unworthy of the British Armed Forces...
Which used to be highly respected.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Deus Vult
Paul J. Adam
>news:BnfazSL1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq: a two-star general in
>> the US Army, deputy Chief of Staff for all of Multinational Forces Iraq,
>> says differently.
>>
>> I believe him rather than you, or the BBC, since the troops are commanded
>> through his HQ.
>>
>> Now, are you claiming MGen Bergner is a liar? Or are you saying he's
>> merely incompetent? Because - according to you - the BBC can never be
>> wrong...
>
>Do you think most of the readers in this group, are naive enough to believe
>that a careerist US general is a good honest source of information on a
>delicate international matter like this?
Okay, so according to you we can't believe the UK MoD, and we can't
believe the US military. We can't believe Iraqis or the US press either.
[Sam Dagher, Christian Science Monitor, March 26 2008]. "We were told by
an Iraqi security official in Basra who is actually taking part in the
operation itself that there are U.S. and British soldiers close to the
Iranian border at the moment to intercept any sort of militia or weapons
movement."
Apparently the Iraqis know less about what's going on in their country
than the BBC does.
Is there *anyone* who knows more than the all-mighty British
Broadcasting Corporation?
>But fell free to tell us what Bergner said - I googled his name some
>relevant keywords and got nothing.
Here's the fellow -
<http://www.mnf-iraq.com/images/stories/daily/2007/June/070607_sod_hi.jpg
>
Obviously you neither Googled very well, nor bothered to read where I
quoted him previously.
But I don't mind repeating the information (again) - this is only the
third or fourth time you've been shown it.
<http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17853&
Itemid=128>
Operational Update: Maj. Gen. Bergner, Wednesday, 26 March 2008
Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq spokesman, provides
an update on current operations.
"First, the forces that we have in Basra are the forces that we have
embedded in any…with any other Iraqi Security Forces. We have
transition teams with Iraqi Army units. We have liaison officers with
the Baghdad Operations Command, and they represent both the
Multi-National Force and MND…Multi-National Division – Southeast.
And we have the normal relationship we have with border enforcement
teams, which we generally have a border enforcement transition team that
helps coordinate efforts and develop capacity within the border
enforcement elements as well. Those are the forces that we have in
Basra. And we do not have any conventional forces there."
>You say that i'm repeating "nonsense".
>
>I'll take that as a justification for repeating the logical well referenced
>things I have said, so people can make up their own minds if its "nonsense".
A little hint. When you're in a hole, *stop digging*.
Your story is al-Maliki briefing against political rivals: it's
contradicted by everyone who was actually *involved*. Nobody seems to
know what this deal was. Nobody, even a self-announced participant, can
say who the deal was *with*. Even the JAM "leader" who supposedly made
the deal whines that 'the British "didn't keep their part of the bargain
as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in Basra".'
Keep on posting the same screed over and over again. It doesn't get any
more accurate and it doesn't get any better supported.
Try finding someone who's gone on record as agreeing with it, or someone
who's turned up some proof. You can't, can you? So all we'll get is more
whines of "liar! liar! everyone everywhere is lying and only the
Infallible BBC can be trusted!" and the same old articles.
After all, it was the BBC who broke the shocking story about Private
Jessica Lynch's rescue being stage-managed as a propaganda event...
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm>
Witnesses told us that the special forces knew that the Iraqi military
had fled a day before they swooped on the hospital.
"We were surprised. Why do this? There was no military, there were no
soldiers in the hospital," said Dr Anmar Uday, who worked at the
hospital.
"It was like a Hollywood film. They cried 'go, go, go', with guns and
blanks without bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions. They made a
show for the American attack on the hospital - action movies like
Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan."
How can you argue with quality journalism like that?
D. Spencer Hines
simply dodges the question...
Properly...
He doesn't want to field that diplomatic hot potato regarding British
Forces...
He's a soldier -- NOT a diplomat.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
----------------------------------------------------
REP1: [Asks question in Arabic.]
INT: Question from Al-Watan Newspaper. A few days ago we’ve heard that
there is a desire by the United States to coordinate with the British
government to bring back the British forces to Basra. If this is true,
will — have you addressed the British government regarding this?
MAJ GEN BERGNER: Well, first of all, let me say that the British forces
that remain in Basra are there specifically to help enable and partner with
Iraqi Security Forces, and they are still there operating in the province of
Basra. I think that the decisions, the deployment of Iraqi Security Forces,
and the leadership and direction of the Government of Iraq in the last few
days demonstrates that the Government of Iraq takes very seriously their
responsibility and their capability to project force into provinces that
have achieved provincial Iraqi control and to assert the necessary security
forces to enforce the rule of law.
And so, this is less about the coalition forces in the province of Basra
than it is about Iraqi Security Forces and the leadership of the Government
of Iraq in implementing plans necessary to deal with criminal activity.
Shukran. Yes, sir.
<http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17853&Itemid=131>
J A
> In message <Nd-dnVIUMoO2wALV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:BnfazSL1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq: a two-star general
>>> in
>>> the US Army, deputy Chief of Staff for all of Multinational Forces Iraq,
>>> says differently.
>>>
>>> I believe him rather than you, or the BBC, since the troops are
>>> commanded
>>> through his HQ.
>>>
>>> Now, are you claiming MGen Bergner is a liar? Or are you saying he's
>>> merely incompetent? Because - according to you - the BBC can never be
>>> wrong...
>>
>>Do you think most of the readers in this group, are naive enough to
>>believe
>>that a careerist US general is a good honest source of information on a
>>delicate international matter like this?
I'm embarrassed for you.
The Maliki offensive reportedly started stalling around the time of the
irrelevant "Operational Update: Maj. Gen. Bergner, Wednesday, 26 March
2008".
You pretend this briefing, which occured around the time the Maliki Basra
offensive was running into problems and would have had to start looking for
help, indicates US troops didn't go into Basra and help turn it around.
;-)))
LOL. That's not even good obfuscation. The whole point is what happened
after Maliki ran into trouble, in the days following the last week of March,
and who he got help from, LOL. the BBC says the US was quickily there, the
Brits weren't.
You go on to criticize the BBC for reporting on the Jessica Lynch story.
Like all news organizations at that time, they were reporting what the US
military told them, and they later uncovered the truth and reported that.
Now British MOD is putting out what appears to be face saving rubbish, and
you want to go by that... quite inconsistent, assuming you even understand
irony.
I think the BBC reporting is credible.
However, since you seem so devoted to all this, why don't you simply take
your argument and "evidence" to the BBC and get them to retract what they
said?
Papers frequently do corrections due to "true facks" brought to them....
;-)). Present your argument and "evidence" to the BBC and the Times and
then post their retraction, and I, for one, will applaud you - with both
hands even. ;-))
Until then...
http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm dated Tuesday, 5
August 2008, ,,,, NOT March 26 ;-))))
MoD denial
However, closer examination of the British relationship with the militias in
Basra shows that such a deal could have been possible.
Military intelligence sources have told the BBC that the British have been
talking to Shia militias including the Mehdi Army for several years.
At times the frequency of the talks have declined, like during the Shia
uprising in 2004.
More recently there appear to have been specific deals between the two
sides.
Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007".
According to the militia commander, a colonel from the Iraqi Army, and Ahmad
Al-Fartusi, another member of the Mehdi Army who had been detained by the
British, were also present.
'Prisoners released'
Our attempts to find Ahmad al-Fartusi, who is now in hiding, have been
unsuccessful. The Iraqi Army refused to comment.
Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners were
released, the British agreed to stop patrolling in Basra and the Mehdi Army
agreed not to attack the British headquarters in the city.
The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
Basra".
The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
Andrew Swallow
[snip]
> In other words, the BBC are infallible?
>
> Try the Chief of the General Staff.
>
> +++++
> RHQ/RRF/1363 28th April 2008
>
> 1. CHIEF OF THE GENERAL STAFF’S LETTER TO THE ARMY ON THE SITUATION
> IN IRAQ
>
> The Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir Richard Dannatt,
> visited Iraq last week and wants to ensure that All Ranks are aware of
> the current situation in theatre.
>
> CGS’ unclassified letter follows below and is self-explanatory,
> outlining the conclusions of his visit to Iraq last week but set in the
> context of the Campaign as a whole over the last 5 years so that no one
> should be in any doubt as to the current situation. Although addressed
> to CinC Land Forces it is for general release.
>
UNCLASSIFIED!!!
Even Generals need permission to write UNCLASSIFIED letters.
In Britain Unclassified is for censored press releases (and the odd
'official' report). If it was aimed at the privates it would be
RESTRICTED.
Andrew Swallow
J A
> In message <Nd-dnVIUMoO2wALV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:BnfazSL1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq: a two-star general
>>> in
>>> the US Army, deputy Chief of Staff for all of Multinational Forces Iraq,
>>> says differently.
>>>
>>> I believe him rather than you, or the BBC, since the troops are
>>> commanded
>>> through his HQ.
>>>
>>> Now, are you claiming MGen Bergner is a liar? Or are you saying he's
>>> merely incompetent? Because - according to you - the BBC can never be
>>> wrong...
>>
>>Do you think most of the readers in this group, are naive enough to
>>believe
>>that a careerist US general is a good honest source of information on a
>>delicate international matter like this?
>
> Okay, so according to you we can't believe the UK MoD, and we can't
> believe the US military. We can't believe Iraqis or the US press either.
Sorry old buddy, but now you'll have to add the NY Times to list that you
need to get retractions from.
Some salient points extracted, entire article follows...
LONDON - More than four months after American troops were moved hundreds of
miles across Iraq to help save a faltering Iraqi Army offensive against
Shiite militias in the southern oil city of Basra, a political controversy
has erupted here over Britain's failure to promptly deploy its own troops,
stationed only a few miles from the fighting.
=
American commanders, who committed nearly 1,000 soldiers to the fighting.
[brought in from hundreds of miles away].
=
limited effect because of a determination to limit British casualties.
=
as one British military expert with extended experience in Iraq put it, was
that British forces stood by for several days while American troops helped
Iraqi units regain control of a city that Britain, responsible for the city
for nearly five years, had effectively abandoned only six months before.
=
centered on a secret deal that Britain's commanders have acknowledged
reaching with the Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army to assure a
casualty-free pullout from the Basra Palace base
=
The overnight pullout went off without bloodshed, though at least some
British officers have described it as shameful.
=
The Times of London, in a front-page article on Monday by the paper's
defense editor, Michael Evans, said the September deal had prevented British
commanders from sending troops back into the city during the Iraqi-led
offensive in March.
=
Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, acknowledged, at least implicitly, the frustration
that the delay in entering the battle had caused among British troops.
=
American commanders have withheld public criticism of the British actions,
and have said, when speaking not for publication, that they sympathize with
the political problems Mr. Brown faces, because opinion polls indicate
strong British opposition to the war within both his own party and the
British electorate.
[not to mention that they are all careerists who will do nothing to imperil
the next promotion]
=
One British expert on Iraq who has advised Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top
American commander in Iraq, described the chill he encountered among
American officers and civilian officials in Baghdad after the Basra
offensive. He asked that his name be withheld in exchange for candor in
discussing a sensitive topic.
=
=== entire article
Britain Debates Army's Delay at Basra
By JOHN F. BURNS (a top British reporter for the NY Times with about 5 yrs
reporting in Iraq)
Published: August 6, 2008
LONDON - More than four months after American troops were moved hundreds of
miles across Iraq to help save a faltering Iraqi Army offensive against
Shiite militias in the southern oil city of Basra, a political controversy
has erupted here over Britain's failure to promptly deploy its own troops,
stationed only a few miles from the fighting.
British newspapers have made much of the dismay that the delayed British
entry into the Basra fighting caused among American commanders, who
committed nearly 1,000 soldiers to the fighting. Many of the Americans were
moved from bases in central Iraq, the first time United States troops had
been committed to combat in the southernmost area of the country since
British troops took control of the area after the 2003 invasion, leaving
central and northern Iraq to the much larger American force.
The charges come as Prime Minister Gordon Brown faces a widening challenge
to his leadership within the governing Labor Party, less than 14 months
after he succeeded Tony Blair.
Eager to distance himself from a war that hastened Mr. Blair's downfall, Mr.
Brown pledged last fall to halve British troops in Iraq this year. He pulled
the British garrison out of the heart of Basra in September, and began a
drawdown that left the bulk of the remaining force of about 4,100 troops at
a base at the Basra airport, about 10 miles from the city center. But the
fighting in the city in March caused him to scrap plans to reduce the
British force to 2,500 this year, and the latest government plan, outlined
last month, is to aim for substantial cutbacks in 2009.
British military experts say Mr. Brown's shifting signals have left the
British force in Iraq in a no man's land, still committed in significant
numbers but having limited effect because of a determination to limit
British casualties. This ambivalence, these experts say, contributed to the
confusion in which British troops delayed for six days joining the battle
over Basra in March.
The result, as one British military expert with extended experience in Iraq
put it, was that British forces stood by for several days while American
troops helped Iraqi units regain control of a city that Britain, responsible
for the city for nearly five years, had effectively abandoned only six
months before.
Some of the debate in Britain has centered on a secret deal that Britain's
commanders have acknowledged reaching with the Shiite militia known as the
Mahdi Army to assure a casualty-free pullout from the Basra Palace base
beside the Shatt al Arab waterway in the heart of the city last September.
The deal, these officers have said, involved releasing from British custody
Ahmed al-Fartusi, a senior Mahdi Army commander, and 120 other militia
members, in return for a promise that the retreating British troops would
not be attacked.
The overnight pullout went off without bloodshed, though at least some
British officers have described it as shameful. One newspaper, The
Independent on Sunday, published a weekend interview in which Col. Richard
Iron, who leads British teams mentoring Iraqi Army units in Basra, described
the deal as "understandable but inexcusable," because it strengthened the
Mahdi Army's ability to take control of much of Basra as the British
withdrew, and, the colonel said, compounded the "terrible mistakes" British
forces made in tolerating Shiite militias throughout their years in southern
Iraq.
The Times of London, in a front-page article on Monday by the paper's
defense editor, Michael Evans, said the September deal had prevented British
commanders from sending troops back into the city during the Iraqi-led
offensive in March. The paper said an armored brigade and special forces
units based at the airport "watched from the sidelines for six days" until
Britain's defense secretary, Desmond Browne, gave approval to join the
fighting. The first American troops were committed to the battle within 48
hours.
The Defense Ministry in London reacted vigorously to the article, saying in
a statement that while British forces had "always been prepared to talk to
anyone who wishes to renounce violence," there had been "no 'deals' with
militias that kept us out of the city." British military experts said the
statement appeared to have been crafted in a way that acknowledged, by
inference, that a pact had covered the pullout in September, but denied that
the terms of the agreement limited British military action in March.
When they joined the fighting, the ministry said, British forces "provided
the assistance that Iraqi authorities sought from us, including armor,
artillery, airpower, medical and logistic support." But only a month after
the Basra fighting ended, an open letter to British troops in Iraq from the
country's overall army commander, Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, acknowledged, at
least implicitly, the frustration that the delay in entering the battle had
caused among British troops. "I cannot deny that there are many who said
that they would rather be at the forefront of the operations," he said.
American commanders have withheld public criticism of the British actions,
and have said, when speaking not for publication, that they sympathize with
the political problems Mr. Brown faces, because opinion polls indicate
strong British opposition to the war within both his own party and the
British electorate.
But the March events have sown ill feeling that has been rare between the
militaries. One British expert on Iraq who has advised Gen. David H.
Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, described the chill he
encountered among American officers and civilian officials in Baghdad after
the Basra offensive. He asked that his name be withheld in exchange for
candor in discussing a sensitive topic.
"Having a British passport was a bonus" for advisers visiting Saddam Hussein's
old Republican Palace, the American command center in Baghdad, at earlier
stages of the war, he said. "But when I went back in March, it was a
distinct disadvantage. There was a strong air of disillusionment."
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
> In message <YMOdnQo7kseV2QLVnZ2dnUVZ_hqdn...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
J A ,
Why do you persist in using the Jewish spelling ?
Said Moqtada Al Sadr leads the "Mahdi Army" not
the "Mehdi."
Why is it that the Brits are expected to perform miracles
with a Basra force that was never larger than 5000 ?
Why is it that Americans always believe the BBC
is infallible in everything from Oxbridge pronunciation to
reports on the ground overseas ?
Why is it wrong for the Brits to make deals with the Mahdi
when everyone knows the Basra local "Shia militia" are the puppets
of the Iranians ?
For years there was no effective national
government presence or force in Basra. The British had to "make
do" block to block, house to house. Those Iranian stooges were
even killing females who did not meet their fanatic dress code.
You, J A, are behaving like that armchair Jellicoe known as...
Commander Hines. The bloody Brits have paid their dues in Basra
and they deserve our salute and hooray. And you can repeat this to
Gordon Brown himself.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul J. Adam
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> In other words, the BBC are infallible?
>> Try the Chief of the General Staff.
>> +++++
>> RHQ/RRF/1363 28th April 2008
>> 1. CHIEF OF THE GENERAL STAFF’S LETTER TO THE ARMY ON THE
>>SITUATION IN IRAQ
>> The Chief of the General Staff (CGS), General Sir Richard Dannatt,
>>visited Iraq last week and wants to ensure that All Ranks are aware of
>>the current situation in theatre.
>> CGS’ unclassified letter follows below and is self-explanatory,
>>outlining the conclusions of his visit to Iraq last week but set in
>>the context of the Campaign as a whole over the last 5 years so that
>>no one should be in any doubt as to the current situation. Although
>>addressed to CinC Land Forces it is for general release.
>>
>
>UNCLASSIFIED!!!
>
>Even Generals need permission to write UNCLASSIFIED letters.
No they bloody well don't. What's the 'default classification' for a
letter written by a member of the military? (Or an attached civil
servant, for that matter?) By your argument, every time a soldier writes
out a shopping list he either needs permission to declassify it, or a
carriage chit to take it to the supermarket.
>In Britain Unclassified is for censored press releases (and the odd
>'official' report).
In Britain, UNCLASSIFIED is for material whose revelation will not
compromise operational matters or personnel security.
> If it was aimed at the privates it would be
>RESTRICTED.
Why?
Read JSP440 and see if you can find anything that supports your case.
For sure it's not classified when Swiss Des or the PUS put out 'all
staff' memos.
Paul J. Adam
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:hldyTyN9...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <Nd-dnVIUMoO2wALV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:BnfazSL1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner, Multi-National Force-Iraq: a two-star general
>>>> in
>>>> the US Army, deputy Chief of Staff for all of Multinational Forces Iraq,
>>>> says differently.
>>>>
>>>> I believe him rather than you, or the BBC, since the troops are
>>>> commanded
>>>> through his HQ.
>>>>
>>>> Now, are you claiming MGen Bergner is a liar? Or are you saying he's
>>>> merely incompetent? Because - according to you - the BBC can never be
>>>> wrong...
>>>
>>>Do you think most of the readers in this group, are naive enough to
>>>believe
>>>that a careerist US general is a good honest source of information on a
>>>delicate international matter like this?
>
>
>I'm embarrassed for you.
Why? Because I can read and you can't?
>The Maliki offensive reportedly started stalling around the time of the
>irrelevant "Operational Update: Maj. Gen. Bergner, Wednesday, 26 March
>2008".
>
>You pretend this briefing, which occured around the time the Maliki Basra
>offensive was running into problems and would have had to start looking for
>help, indicates US troops didn't go into Basra and help turn it around.
>;-)))
So, which additional US units *did* go in and when?
You don't know?
How surprising.
The offensive kicked off on the 25th March. US troops were supposedly
rushed down there "within 48 hours", so they were supposedly out and
operational from the 27th at the latest..
So which units were sent? It was obviously a *huge* commitment since it
was so vital: *which* US units were hastily hurled south to support the
faltering Iraqis and the bashful Brits?
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346430,00.html>
"Since so few U.S. and coalition personnel were involved in executing
the campaign, most broadcast and print reports originated in Baghdad —
where the focus was on mortar rounds and rockets fired into the Green
Zone. Field reports filed from Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Kut, Hillah
and Basra — all scenes of heavy fighting between Iraqi security Forces
(ISF) and renegade Shiite militia units — have generally been filed by
news agency "stringers" of dubious credibility.
...
Here is a synopsis of what those with "boots on the ground" have to say
about our Iraqi allies and their adversaries:
— The Iraqis planned and executed the operation with little U.S.
involvement and managed to commit more than 40,000 troops in
high-intensity combat against well-armed, militia-terrorists in six
cities — a feat that would have been impossible just six months ago."
>LOL. That's not even good obfuscation. The whole point is what happened
>after Maliki ran into trouble, in the days following the last week of March,
>and who he got help from, LOL. the BBC says the US was quickily there, the
>Brits weren't.
And the BBC is mistaken. (Which, I know, you believe can never happen).
>You go on to criticize the BBC for reporting on the Jessica Lynch story.
>Like all news organizations at that time, they were reporting what the US
>military told them, and they later uncovered the truth and reported that.
But how can they be right both times? They reported a story they were
told, then they reported a different story. Which is correct?
>
>Now British MOD is putting out what appears to be face saving rubbish, and
>you want to go by that... quite inconsistent, assuming you even understand
>irony.
>
>I think the BBC reporting is credible.
How lucky for the MoD that so many people are concocting such a vast
conspiracy to cover up for them, then - where ever would we be without
the all-knowing BBC?
So many senior officers, US and British and Iraqi, all apparently
willing to lie through their teeth just to deny the BBC its story. It
seems there isn't an honest serviceman to be had anywhere... and we know
what beacons of truth and integrity reporters are.
+++++
The fact is there were no “deals” that kept us out of Basra during
Operation Charge of the Knights. Nor were British Forces waiting for
permission from the Defence Secretary. When Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi
Prime Minister, launched the operation on March 24, British Forces
provided all the assistance that the Iraqi authorities sought from us,
including armour, artillery, airpower, medical and logistic support. The
only limit on our involvement was Mr al-Maliki’s concern that the
operation was seen by the people of Basra to be Iraqi-led.
US forces were not rushed in to “fill a void”, as has been suggested
by American officers in your report.
While we have always supported efforts to reconcile with insurgent
elements, this did not deter us from supporting the Iraqi Government’s
drive to tackle militias and enforce rule of law in the city.
Far from being an embarrassment, the events in Basra since March 24 are
the proof that this strategy has worked. Basra is a transformed city.
Security is vastly improved and there is real hope for the future.
Air Vice-Marshal C. M. Nickols
Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Operations)
+++++
>
>However, since you seem so devoted to all this, why don't you simply take
>your argument and "evidence" to the BBC and get them to retract what they
>said?
Because it's more fun watching you spin on the spot, squealing "The BBC
are perfect! The BBC are perfect!".
And idiots like you simply ignore any retraction or correction, anyway,
or you'd have seen this:-
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7543763.stm>
But of course that's all awful lies from UK MoD - even though the BBC
printed it. (Seems that we can only trust the BBC when it suits you all
of a sudden...)
guy
> In message <9I-dnRu-KYsOEwLVnZ2dnUVZ_sHin...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:hldyTyN9...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >> In message <Nd-dnVIUMoO2wALVnZ2dnUVZ_judn...@earthlink.com>, J A
> >> <a...@re.com> writes
> >>>"Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You will never win Paul, some people do not understand the concept of
'facts'
thanks for all the good info though!
cheers
Guy
William Black
But that wasn't the case ten or fifteen years ago, when Mr Swallow's
information is probably coming from, and when note paper was headed
"Official Use Only/RESTRICTED" as a matter of course in most offices in the
defence field.
Things changed some years ago, and general officers in UK service have
never needed permission to send a letter to the press.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
La N
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2cb73ab-8a11-4d8e...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Amen. And I give a lot of cred to Paul Adam who himself was in that part of
Iraq and knows it up close and personal.
- nilita
La N
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:e4179954-7230-4fa5...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
cheers
Guy
*****************
It's not that they don't know "facts". They just want to be right.
JA, along with his buddy Hines, have long been in zee golden killfile for
that reason.
- nilita, who enjoys reading Paul Adam coz he truly does know what he's
talking about ...
William Black
>>I'm embarrassed for you.
>
> Why? Because I can read and you can't?
>
You have to understand that after the great debacle of Iraq and the large
numbers of UK soldiers training US soldiers at low level on how to function
in a low level conflict in urban areas the US militarist right needed some
way to humiliate the British army, if only to themselves and to prove to
themselves that they were right all along.
This has been accomplished by a series of clever lies relating to operations
in Basra recently.
You'll find similar lies told about the 'fortified hamlet' scheme employed
by the British in Malaya, and why the US never used it in Vietnam.
J A
Military unit designations are usually not published for some time after
operations, for obvious reasons.
> The offensive kicked off on the 25th March. US troops were supposedly
> rushed down there "within 48 hours", so they were supposedly out and
> operational from the 27th at the latest..
You need a better smoke machine, idiot.
Everybody knows the offensive didn't run into problems and need help
instantaneously, on March 25, when it began with no warning.
The briefing by Gen. Kevin Bergner your trying to foist as proving lack of
US involvement occured one day later, on March, 26. He was apparently
dealing with the fact that the US hadn't been informed it was going to take
place.
It's just plain stupid to lie about things that can be verified from other
sources, so either get a better smoke machine, or run along.
However, papers frequently do corrections due to "true facks" brought to
them....
;-)). Present your argument and "evidence" to the BBC and the Times and now
the NY Times,
then post their retraction, and I, for one, will applaud you - with both
hands even. ;-))
Here's more reporting on this subject, fool..... ;-)))
=== entire article
Published: August 6, 2008
the assistance that Iraqi authorities sought from us, including armor,
artillery, airpower, medical and logistic support." But only a month after
the Basra fighting ended, an open letter to British troops in Iraq from the
country's overall army commander, Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, acknowledged, at
least implicitly, the frustration that the delay in entering the battle had
caused among British troops. "I cannot deny that there are many who said
that they would rather be at the forefront of the operations," he said.
American commanders have withheld public criticism of the British actions,
and have said, when speaking not for publication, that they sympathize with
the political problems Mr. Brown faces, because opinion polls indicate
strong British opposition to the war within both his own party and the
British electorate.
But the March events have sown ill feeling that has been rare between the
militaries. One British expert on Iraq who has advised Gen. David H.
Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, described the chill he
encountered among American officers and civilian officials in Baghdad after
the Basra offensive. He asked that his name be withheld in exchange for
candor in discussing a sensitive topic.
"Having a British passport was a bonus" for advisers visiting Saddam
Hussein's
old Republican Palace, the American command center in Baghdad, at earlier
stages of the war, he said. "But when I went back in March, it was a
distinct disadvantage. There was a strong air of disillusionment."
>
> So which units were sent? It was obviously a *huge* commitment since it
> was so vital: *which* US units were hastily hurled south to support the
> faltering Iraqis and the bashful Brits?
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346430,00.html>
> "Since so few U.S. and coalition personnel were involved in executing the
> campaign, most broadcast and print reports originated in Baghdad - where
> the focus was on mortar rounds and rockets fired into the Green Zone.
> Field reports filed from Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniyah, Kut, Hillah and
> Basra - all scenes of heavy fighting between Iraqi security Forces (ISF)
> and renegade Shiite militia units - have generally been filed by news
> agency "stringers" of dubious credibility.
> ...
> Here is a synopsis of what those with "boots on the ground" have to say
> about our Iraqi allies and their adversaries:
>
> - The Iraqis planned and executed the operation with little U.S.
> involvement and managed to commit more than 40,000 troops in
> high-intensity combat against well-armed, militia-terrorists in six
> cities - a feat that would have been impossible just six months ago."
J A
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g7phcj$u0k$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aCsMKmFE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>I'm embarrassed for you.
>>
>> Why? Because I can read and you can't?
>>
>
> You have to understand that after the great debacle of Iraq and the large
> numbers of UK soldiers training US soldiers at low level on how to
> function in a low level conflict in urban areas the US militarist right
> needed some way to humiliate the British army, if only to themselves and
> to prove to themselves that they were right all along.
>
> This has been accomplished by a series of clever lies relating to
> operations in Basra recently.
Hilarious.
=== entire article
Published: August 6, 2008
>
J A
"Singanas@Texasgulfcoast" <davidh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2cb73ab-8a11-4d8e...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
He can't even figure out that I was quoting a piece from the BBC - he thinks
I reported all this myself.
> Why is it that the Brits are expected to perform miracles
> with a Basra force that was never larger than 5000 ?
> Why is it that Americans always believe the BBC
> is infallible in everything from Oxbridge pronunciation to
> reports on the ground overseas ?
> Why is it wrong for the Brits to make deals with the Mahdi
> when everyone knows the Basra local "Shia militia" are the puppets
> of the Iranians ?
> For years there was no effective national
> government presence or force in Basra. The British had to "make
> do" block to block, house to house. Those Iranian stooges were
> even killing females who did not meet their fanatic dress code.
>
> You, J A, are behaving like that armchair Jellicoe known as...
> Commander Hines. The bloody Brits have paid their dues in Basra
> and they deserve our salute and hooray. And you can repeat this to
> Gordon Brown himself.
Your post is just as stupid and out of contact with reality, as ever.
Moron, it is the British press *itself* which rasied the points which I
simply refered to in this thread.
A couple days ago, a world class British reporter (John Burns), wrote the
below piece which supports and amplifies the points I addressed in posting
the BBC piece which the Times also has reported on.
You people are simply showing that you are incompetent liars.
Dwarfs, living in closets. LOL
===
J A
"La N" <nilita20...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:YJXnk.6086$%b7.4924@edtnps82...
Sure he does.
By the way, when are you going to tell us what your friend in Calif. had to
say about Obama's dirty tricks there, against Hillary? I've asked numerous
times, now.
You weren't lying about it, were you?
J A
Secret deal kept British Army out of battle for Basra
Four thousand British troops, including elements of the SAS, are based
outside Basra
Deborah Haynes in Baquba and Michael Evans, Defence Editor
A secret deal between Britain and the notorious al-Mahdi militia prevented
British Forces from coming to the aid of their US and Iraqi allies for
nearly a week during the battle for Basra this year, The Times has learnt.
Four thousand British troops – including elements of the SAS and an entire
mechanised brigade – watched from the sidelines for six days because of an
“accommodation” with the Iranian-backed group, according to American and
Iraqi officers who took part in the assault.
US Marines and soldiers had to be rushed in to fill the void, fighting
bitter street battles and facing mortar fire, rockets and roadside bombs
with their Iraqi counterparts.
Hundreds of militiamen were killed or arrested in the fighting. About 60
Iraqis were killed or injured. One US Marine died and sevenwere wounded.
Britain left facing wrath of its allies
A bad time but the city is now safe
Iraqi PM risks all in battle of Basra
US advisers who accompanied the Iraqi forces into the fight were shocked to
learn of the accommodation made last summer by British Intelligence and
elements of al-Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical
Shia Muslim cleric.
The deal, which aimed to encourage the Shia movement back into the political
process and marginalise extremist factions, has dealt a huge blow to Britain’s
reputation in Iraq.
Under its terms, no British soldier could enter Basra without the permission
of Des Browne, the Defence Secretary. By the time he gave his approval, most
of the fighting was over and the damage to Britain’s reputation had already
been done.
Senior British defence sources told The Times that Nouri al-Maliki, the
Iraqi Prime Minister, who ordered the assault, and high-ranking US military
officers had become disillusioned with the British as a result of their
failure to act. Another confirmed that the deal, negotiated by British
Intelligence, had been a costly mistake.
The Ministry of Defence has never confirmed that there was a deal with
al-Mahdi Army, but one official denied that the delay in sending in troops
was because of the arrangement agreed with the Shia militia.
A spokesman for the MoD said that the reason why troops were not sent
immediately into Basra was because there was “no structure in place” in the
city for units to go back in to start mentoring the Iraqi troops.
Colonel Imad, who heads the 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army
Division, the most experienced division, commanded one of the quick-reaction
battalions summoned to assist British-trained local forces, who faltered
from the outset because of inexperience and lack of support.
He said: “Without the support of the Americans we would not have
accomplished the mission because the British Forces had done nothing there.
“I do not trust the British Forces. They did not want to lose any soldiers
for the mission.”
Lieutenant-Colonel Chuck Western, a senior US Marine advising the Iraqi
Army, told The Times: “I was not happy. Everybody just assumed that because
this deal was cut nobody was going in. Cutting a deal with the bad guys is
generally not a good idea.”
He emphasised, however, that he was not being critical of the British
military, which he described as first-rate.
Captain Eric Whyne, another US Marine officer who took part in the battle,
said that he was astounded that “a coalition force would make a pact with
essentially their enemy and promise not to go into their area so as not to
get attacked”. He alleged that “some horrific atrocities” were committed by
the militia in Basra during the British watch.
A senior British defence source agreed that the battle for Basra had been
damaging to Britain’s reputation in Iraq. “Maliki, and the Americans, felt
the British were morally impugned by the deal they had reached with the
militia. The British were accused of trying to find the line of least
resistance in dealing with the Shia militia,” said the source.
“You can accuse the Americans of many things, such as hamfistedness, but you
can’t accuse them of not addressing a situation when it arises. While we had
a strategy of evasion, the Americans just went in and addressed the
problem.”
Another British official said that the deal was intended as an IRA-style
reconciliation. “That is what we were trying to do but it did not work.” The
official added that “accommodation” had become a dirty word.
US officials knew of the discussions, which continued until March this year.
They facilitated the peaceful exit of British troops from a palace compound
in Basra last September in return for the release of a number of prisoners.
The arrangement fell apart on March 25 when Mr al-Maliki ordered his
surprise assault on Basra, catching both the Americans and British
off-guard.
The Americans responded by flying in reinforcements, providing air cover and
offering the logistical and other support needed for the Iraqis to win.
The British were partly handicapped because their commander, Major-General
Barney White-Spunner, was away on a skiing holiday when the attack began.
When Brigadier Julian Free, his deputy, arrived to discuss the situation
with Mr al-Maliki at the presidential palace in Basra, he was made to wait
outside.
The first British troops only entered the city on March 31.
The MoD spokesman said that the operation was launched at such short notice
that the only support that could be given in the first few days was air
power – in the form of Tornado ground attack aircraft – and logistics.
He said that after British troops were withdrawn from Basra last year it was
realised that the Iraqi forces still needed help, which was why the current
British force contained more instructors and trainers.
J A
J A
[re. Maliki offensive into militia and gang dominated Basra ]
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
military intelligence source
===
Entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
Did Britain make Mehdi Army pact?
MoD denial
Major Tom Holloway
'Prisoners released'
BBC source
Political reluctance?
Observers reject that outright.
"They are considering sending as many as 15,000 troops down there".
Paul J. Adam
>news:aCsMKmFE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> So, which additional US units *did* go in and when?
>>
>> You don't know?
>>
>> How surprising.
>
>Military unit designations are usually not published for some time after
>operations, for obvious reasons.
It's been long enough that the units have rotated out and moved on.
Meanwhile the units concerned will be reporting on their successful
mission. Shouldn't be hard to find out at all.
Unless, of course, you're wrong...
>> The offensive kicked off on the 25th March. US troops were supposedly
>> rushed down there "within 48 hours", so they were supposedly out and
>> operational from the 27th at the latest..
>
>You need a better smoke machine, idiot.
>
>Everybody knows the offensive didn't run into problems and need help
>instantaneously, on March 25, when it began with no warning.
So when were the US troops requested, and when did they arrive?
Funny how this story goes to holes when you poke it...
J A
> In message <KsOdnWzHmrJ1WD3V...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:aCsMKmFE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> So, which additional US units *did* go in and when?
>>>
>>> You don't know?
>>>
>>> How surprising.
>>
>>Military unit designations are usually not published for some time after
>>operations, for obvious reasons.
>
> It's been long enough that the units have rotated out and moved on.
> Meanwhile the units concerned will be reporting on their successful
> mission. Shouldn't be hard to find out at all.
Oh, has it now?
If you knew anything about military operations, or Iraq, you would know
that what recently happend in Basra may well be soon repeated.
Do you think that might make the commands involved a little tight with info
on what units they commited, and how operated in backing up the Iraqis,
since this may well all take place again?
But none of this really matters, becasue you're going to present your
important info and questions and get The Times, the BBC, and the NY Times
(John Burns, see below ;-))) retract their mis-informing articles,
right??????
Keep us up to date. Who have you contacted so far?????
<snip smoke>
David E. Powell
Counterterror operations in Iraq.
As Roger Moore once said the British end has been kept up....
Gernot Hassenpflug
Hah! :-)
--
BOFH excuse #357:
I'd love to help you -- it's just that the Boss won't let me near the computer.
Paul J. Adam
>news:zM8mJ2CE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> It's been long enough that the units have rotated out and moved on.
>> Meanwhile the units concerned will be reporting on their successful
>> mission. Shouldn't be hard to find out at all.
>
>Oh, has it now?
Unless you're claiming the US units in question are still down in
MND(SE)'s area of operations? Which, again, is easily determined.
So, again, which US units were rushed down there and when? The answer is
actually "none", but feel free to produce any evidence you have to the
contrary.
>Do you think that might make the commands involved a little tight with info
>on what units they commited, and how operated in backing up the Iraqis,
>since this may well all take place again?
Not so tight that the BBC don't know all about it. Obviously it *wasn't*
that closely held if a British media outfit know all about it - well,
apart from names and times and units, anyway.
Can't have it both ways. Either the story's true, in which case you can
back it up with facts (which units? when were they called in? when did
they arrive?) or it's in error and it turns out there were *no* such
units.
So far, the evidence is "no units".
>But none of this really matters, becasue you're going to present your
>important info and questions and get The Times, the BBC, and the NY Times
>(John Burns, see below ;-))) retract their mis-informing articles,
>right??????
<http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,NI_1004_Media-P1,00.html>
"As a journalist, when given an assignment, I will not fail. To a
journalist, an assignment is the same as a mission order. If the people
in the know will not tell me, I will go to their soldiers. If that does
not work, I will go to the families of the soldiers and get the versions
of the story their sons and daughters have sent them by e-mail. Then I
will write the story based on what I was able to get from whatever
source was available. All the after-the-fact howling in the world from
those who think I got the story all wrong will have no effect. Even if I
wanted to go back and fix it, I probably would not bother. The news
cycle has moved on, and I have moved on with it.
Anyone who thinks a journalist is ethically bound to go back and fix
wrong information or impressions is fooling himself. Even current
military stories are competing for space against J-Lo's latest wedding.
Editors are not giving up space to rehash the past - historical record
be damned. Besides, too many corrections will begin to make it look like
I could not get the right story in the first place, and what compelling
reason is there to make myself look incompetent? "
John Briggs
More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten the
rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only used in
conjunction with "Unclassified".
--
John Briggs
Paul J. Adam
<john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten the
>rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only used in
>conjunction with "Unclassified".
I don't believe it's actually used these days, at least on UK documents.
Fred J. McCall
:
:More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten the
:conjunction with "Unclassified".
Is, not was.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
John Briggs
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten
>> the rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only
>> used in conjunction with "Unclassified".
>>
>
> Is, not was.
We're not talking about American usage.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
> In message <Qwgok.193657$IP7....@newsfe16.ams2>, John Briggs
> <john.b...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>> More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten
>> the rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only
>> used in conjunction with "Unclassified".
>
> I don't believe it's actually used these days, at least on UK
> documents.
Exactly - that's the point I'm making.
--
John Briggs
Fred J. McCall
:
Then perhaps you should remove "US military" from the subject line.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Renia
> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> :>>
> :>> More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten
> :>> the rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only
> :>> used in conjunction with "Unclassified".
> :>>
> :>
> :> Is, not was.
> :
> :We're not talking about American usage.
> :
>
> Then perhaps you should remove "US military" from the subject line.
And perhaps you should all remove "soc.history.medieval" from the
subject line.
James Hogg
wrote:
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> :> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> :>>
>> :>> More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten
>> :>> the rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only
>> :>> used in conjunction with "Unclassified".
>> :>>
>> :>
>> :> Is, not was.
>> :
>> :We're not talking about American usage.
>> :
>>
>> Then perhaps you should remove "US military" from the subject line.
>
>And perhaps you should all remove "soc.history.medieval" from the
>subject line.
I don't think Fred has noticed that the first newsgroup in the
list is alt.history.british, or that this discussion began with a
letter from the Chief of the British General Staff.
Why General Sir Richard Dannatt should be bound by the rules of
American usage is beyond me.
James
Andrew Swallow
The USA and Britain had different rules.
Andrew Swallow
J A
http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html
Delivery of this e-mail may be delayed. If you need to reach The Times
immediately, please call 212-556-1234.
I'm sure this top British reporter will be grateful for your information
disproving his article about the British performance in the recent fighting
in Basra..
J A
<snip obvious smoke>
> Anyone who thinks a journalist is ethically bound to go back and fix wrong
> information or impressions is fooling himself.
More smoke, and everybody knows it.
This isn't a J-Lo story, this is a major criticsm invovling an important
miltary operation.
You've claimed to have decisive info and questions which indicate the below
story to be incorrect - it has been reported by The Times, the BBC and by
British reporter John Burns, of the NY Times.
If you **actually believe** what you're saying here, then you should have no
problem making an issue of this and getting those media sources to retract.
Keep us up to date. Who have you contacted so far?????
frank
> > <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
> >> More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten
> >> the rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only
> >> used in conjunction with "Unclassified".
>
> > I don't believe it's actually used these days, at least on UK
> > documents.
>
> Exactly - that's the point I'm making.
> --
> John Briggs
FOUO is for official use only, like telephone books. Not supposed to
be given out to local telemarketer, left at the local bank.
Unclassified is what it means, usually not a marking except within a
document. i.e.
(U) British General has nickers in a uproar on American listserv
(U) Many sources argue about how and what letter he wrote means.
(S) Brits are undersexed, underpaid, and their PM was a lap dog.
Poodle actually.
and so it goes for each paragraph as classification are needed.
Classified is lowest level of security, requires a security clearance
to read it. This can be granted administratively in the US. Secret
requires a background check, is for material that can cause damage to
national security if leaked.
Top Secret requires a more extensive background check, up to a year,
lots of forms, for material that can cause grave damage to national
security. There are various levels and add ons but this is the basic
gist.
In the late 80s, they came up with EEFI, Essential Elements of
Friendly (? I think this is right) Information. Basically if the Army
asked for the weather forecast in Georgia that was EEFI. Weather is on
the internet now, but the fact the Army was interested meant it wasn't
to be discussed. Also unit designations, readiness, stuff that usually
is talked about.
If you watch the news, they loosen and tighten on this stuff. Local
paper may report this unit is going to Iraq, but once there they don't
want unit revealed.
Last I heard, TS clearance was taking over a year and costing $100k
and up. Somebody is making money on it. used to be $50k or so a good
decade ago. Secret used to take months and a few $10k, depending. Now
there's a backlog. The US government at work.
There's also restricted, FRD, compartmentalized, code word, yadda
yadda.
After a while some people get real jaded on all this.
I was sooooo damned glad when they came out and said you could
actually use a computer printed classification instead of stamping
every %*#% page. If it was the old type computer paper that was one
long creased, strip off the printer you could stamp front and back as
long as it didn't come apart. Then they went and bought a LASER
printer. It spit out pages. Hundreds of pages. Thousands of pages. The
scorcorer's apprentice....
Fred J. McCall
:On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:55:58 +0300, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr>
:wrote:
:
:>Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
:>>
:>> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:>> :> "John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
:>> :>>
:>> :>> More like 50 years ago. So long ago, in fact, that I have forgotten
:>> :>> the rules for the "Official Use Only" marking - I think it was only
:>> :>> used in conjunction with "Unclassified".
:>> :>>
:>> :>
:>> :> Is, not was.
:>> :
:>> :We're not talking about American usage.
:>> :
:>>
:>> Then perhaps you should remove "US military" from the subject line.
:>
:>And perhaps you should all remove "soc.history.medieval" from the
:>subject line.
:
:I don't think Fred has noticed that the first newsgroup in the
:list is alt.history.british, or that this discussion began with a
:letter from the Chief of the British General Staff.
:
I noticed it. I just didn't consider it relevant. One always sees
various 'alt.history' groups on widely crossposted things. They're
the source of most of the garbage one sees here.
I don't think you noticed the first three words in the subject line.
:
:Why General Sir Richard Dannatt should be bound by the rules of
:American usage is beyond me.
:
Who said he should?
tankfixer
says...
>
> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aCsMKmFE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > You don't know?
> >
> > How surprising.
>
> Military unit designations are usually not published for some time after
> operations, for obvious reasons.
Really..
And what were you saying about units being ID inother threads ?
--
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.
J A
"tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
news:MPG.230c08d7c...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> In article <KsOdnWzHmrJ1WD3V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> says...
>>
>> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:aCsMKmFE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> > So, which additional US units *did* go in and when?
>> >
>> > You don't know?
>> >
>> > How surprising.
>>
>> Military unit designations are usually not published for some time after
>> operations, for obvious reasons.
>
> Really..
> And what were you saying about units being ID inother threads ?
Well, here's another indication.
You think the need to keep units' designation information confidential,
after a recent combat action, is the same as maintaining secrecy about some
routine unit designaiton in the US.
Ridiculous.
And for years, they've been draggin guys back into service and sending them
to Iraq and Afghanistan, long after they were discharged and out in civilian
careers, but not you.
I hope some real vets who are familiar with those weapons systems you listed
start asking some questions.
I think you're just as real as that "Soldier in a Combat zone" guy who posts
through Comcast in Lousiana.
Good luck.
tankfixer
says...
>
> "tankfixer" <paul.c...@gmail.comm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.230c08d7c...@nntp.earthlink.net...
> > In article <KsOdnWzHmrJ1WD3V...@earthlink.com>, a...@re.com
> > says...
> >>
> >> "Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:aCsMKmFE...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >> > So, which additional US units *did* go in and when?
> >> >
> >> > You don't know?
> >> >
> >> > How surprising.
> >>
> >> Military unit designations are usually not published for some time after
> >> operations, for obvious reasons.
> >
>
> > Really..
> > And what were you saying about units being ID inother threads ?
>
> Well, here's another indication.
>
> You think the need to keep units' designation information confidential,
> after a recent combat action, is the same as maintaining secrecy about some
> routine unit designaiton in the US.
I think you don't have a need to know.
So you won't.
>
> Ridiculous.
I know you rfication about it is ridiculous, try and let it go.
>
> And for years, they've been draggin guys back into service and sending them
> to Iraq and Afghanistan, long after they were discharged and out in civilian
> careers, but not you.
Long after ?
No, if they were in the IRR then they had only be of active duty for
three or four years at most.
If they are in the Guard then they have been drilling with a unit.
I don't know of anyone drug back into the service after completion of
thier obligation.
> I hope some real vets who are familiar with those weapons systems you listed
> start asking some questions.
Don't mind if they do.
If you were a vet I'd even welcome questions about them from you.
>
> I think you're just as real as that "Soldier in a Combat zone" guy who posts
> through Comcast in Lousiana.
Think what you like about me, you will be wrong.
Paul J. Adam
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:h1by3PCa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <uK6dnUJEocKwQj3V...@earthlink.com>, J A
>> <a...@re.com> writes
>
>
><snip obvious smoke>
In other words, "no evidence" is proved. Thank you.
J A
> In message <78WdnT3eNNUqkD_V...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:h1by3PCa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <uK6dnUJEocKwQj3V...@earthlink.com>, J A
>>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>
>>
>><snip obvious smoke>
>
> In other words, "no evidence" is proved. Thank you.
Oh contrar, mon ami ;-))
I gave "evidence" of how to contact John Burns, so you can supply your
"evidence" showing his story was falacious...
Burns is a top British reporter who spent over 5 years in Iraq, through the
invasion and occupation, and came close to being to killed at least once in
the pursuit of a story.
He'll welcome any real "evidence" you might supply. ;-))
Keep us posted. I'll be looking for retractions ;-))
http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html
<snip smoke>
Burns NY Times article : Britain Debates Army's Delay at Basra
Paul J. Adam
>news:2po3A7CU...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In other words, "no evidence" is proved. Thank you.
>
>Oh contrar, mon ami ;-))
>
>I gave "evidence" of how to contact John Burns, so you can supply your
>"evidence" showing his story was falacious...
I'm not arguing with John Burns. He's just a journalist. He got briefed
a story, he ran it, that's what his kind do. I'm arguing with you. (And
your evasions and deflections continue to amuse).
You have no idea who the US units concerned are, when they were called,
when they arrived, what they did.
I quote your own words-
"This morning (8/11/08) I listend to an NPR report on current Special
Forces training and operations in Afghanistan. Units, operations and
even names were freely mentioned with one exception of an SF officer who
didn't want his last name used."
We're discussing is an operation and - if you're right- a troop
deployment that you claim is fully and accurately reported by the
British Broadcasting Corporation - so foreign media are all over it.
Obviously not closely held or classified.
Yet you can't tell us what units were sent, what the US called the
operation, who went or when. Apparently it's uber-top-secret-codeword.
So secret that it's all over the media. And you see no contradiction
there. Either you're right, and there were US units rushed to Basrah,
and you can tell us who they were: or you're wrong. I'll be generous and
give you three tries to pick which I believe.
So, tell us: are you a liar, or are you stupid? You've determinedly
ruled out all the other options. Journalists have an excuse - they have
a deadline to meet and they refuse to look back.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
But you have yoked your wagon to this story and insist it's true; defend
it or deny it, your call. Don't slope your shoulders and cry that those
nasty journalists misled you. It should - by your own words! - be *easy*
to find out which US units were involved. So why do you struggle so?
guy
> "Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in messagenews:2po3A7CU...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>
> > In message <78WdnT3eNNUqkD_VnZ2dnUVZ_s_in...@earthlink.com>, J A
> > <a...@re.com> writes
>
> >>"Paul J. Adam" <n...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:h1by3PCa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> >>> In message <uK6dnUJEocKwQj3VnZ2dnUVZ_r_in...@earthlink.com>, J A
You remind me , in the words of Lord Mountbatten, of one of those
people 'who would dringk sulphuric acid if came from a bottle labelled
gin'
guy
J A
> In message <xpGdndLsMIfcxj7V...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:2po3A7CU...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> In other words, "no evidence" is proved. Thank you.
>>
>>Oh contrar, mon ami ;-))
>>
>>I gave "evidence" of how to contact John Burns, so you can supply your
>>"evidence" showing his story was falacious...
>
> I'm not arguing with John Burns. He's just a journalist. He got briefed a
> story, he ran it, that's what his kind do. I'm arguing with you. (And your
> evasions and deflections continue to amuse).
You're pretending that you have info that contradicts the stories published
by The Times, the BBC, and the NY Times.
I simply posted the stories.
Your argument is false.
You don't want to make an issue of it with somebody like Burns, as you can
easily do by email or phone, becasue you are lying.
Again,
I gave "evidence" of how to contact John Burns, so you can supply your
"evidence" showing his story was falacious...
Burns is a top British reporter who spent over 5 years in Iraq, through the
J A
"guy" <guyswe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4504a568-ec7d-4659...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
You remind me of a gormless git who can't even lie effectively.
If you don't like this story, and you don't believe it, talk to the
goddamned reporter, git.
Andrew Swallow
TOP SECRET
SECRET
CONFIDENTIAL
RESTRICTED
(Unclassified)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_classification>
The USA has given up using the low security classification RESTRICTED,
but TOP SECRET information about nuclear weapons can be marked
'Restricted'.
The subject title of this thread may start "The US military" but it
finishes
'British".' A memo written to his troops by a British General would
use the British classification rules.
The civil service has a few marking of its own, such as 'Personal', that
sometimes end up on British military documents.
Andrew Swallow