POLL: British help in Baghdad

Remove all ads!

First attempt at a poll, so excuse any mistakes.

America has recently asked for British troups to fill in behind them in Bahgdad while they go and pound Falujah into dust. (Or something like that.)
Why do you think support has been asked for? and why is it a good/bad thing?

Poll Information
This poll contains 2 question(s). 15 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: British help in Baghdad (15 votes.)

Why has help been asked for? (Choose 1)
* Help Bush out of a Political pickle close to the Election. - 47% (7)
* Not enough American troops to fill the gaps from attacking somewhere else. - 27% (4)
* Recognising that British troops have had higher "success" at keeping the area peaceful - 20% (3)
* Don't know, don't care, second question please. - 7% (1)

Why is this a good/bad thing? (Choose 8)
* Good - It may help George W. Bush out of a tight spot - 0% (0)
* Bad - It might help Bushy boy out of a tight spot - 33% (5)
* Good - Yet another thing to beat Tony up over (when) he accepts - 13% (2)
* Bad - May damage (further) Mr. Blairs reputation for doing anything the Americans ask - 33% (5)
* Good - Shows strength and unity amongst the allies at this difficult time - 33% (5)
* Bad - This is going to lead to more British casualties as it's a more dangerous area - 40% (6)
* Bad - This is going to lead to more British casualties as they will no longer be distinguished from the American Gung-ho methods. - 53% (8)
* Don't know, don't care, stop wasting my time and show me the results. - 7% (1)

 

It seems to me that help has been requested do to America's 'bungling', so to speak, of the war effort. There have been numerous claims about American troops not having the equipment they need, and so on, which reflects rather poorly upon the US army, and the organisation thereof.

I think it's very important for Britain to give aid, if it is genuinely needed to their American counterparts, and odds are British troops might actually do a better job, since many of them have real experience with peacekeeping due to the troubles in Northern Ireland, and this experience is something that the US army lacks significantly.

 

excuse me Wildfire, I am a decorated veteran of the first Gulf War. To think that the Americans are bungling the war effort is absurd. The American "Army" does what it is told by one man. Do not lump everything done by one man under the term America. When I fought we had everything we needed and the Brits were right there with us fighting, dying, and seeing crap that would make the average person fall down a cry themselves to sleep and see a therapist in the morning. I have nothing but respect for the British military and Tony Blair for their continued support for this cause. Please link to me the reports you have spoken about about the "poorly equipped Americans". It is true the British have had more effectiveness with the peace keeping, not the actual fighting. Both of the armies are good at that. You seem a bit one sided in your views. I wonder, have you ever been shot at, mortared, gassed, burned by white hot shrapnel. If so, kudos brother in arms, if not, you may want to open your mind to what the men and woman who are actually fighting this war are doing and who for. Me and you. I could care less about the popularity of Bush or Blair at this point. This is a war that Britian and America have stuck together on and will continue to stick together on.

 

Well, here's one from today, just for example: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/18/prez.iraq/index.html

I have nothing but the greatest respect for members of the armed forces. In no way am I saying this is the fault of the soldiers, I'm saying that it's the upper management of the US army who have managed to screw up things like resource allocation which hinders the effect of the troops who are actually in Iraq.

 

The answer to the first question is simple. The U.S. needs more help from Britain because of a lack of U.S. troops. The problem is twofold:

1. We probably need to about double the number of troops in Iraq. To effectively run a counter-insurgency campaign, traditional military thinking is to win by vastly superior numbers - 10 to 1 is usually the accepted figure. So that means we need about 250,000 troops over there.

2. We don't have the right kind of troops there. Iraq has turned into a policing action for most of the soldiers, and they aren't trained for this type of activity. The U.S. troops are among the best in the world in the actual combat, but this defending place A through Z is not what they are designed to do.

 

Agreed, but what type of troops do you suggest Aldeth? And who(that is there with troops) have the troops to aid in this problem. I agree with you 100% about the number of troops and I didn't once state anything but respect for the British army.

@Wildfire, I understand from the article where you argument comes from. The lack of "maintenence ou equipment" always drops during warfare due to usage, environmental variable and so on. The United States Army has a standing rule that equipment meeting standards of around 70% or higher is functional but needs to be replaces asap. we are sitting around (I believe the article said), 80- 85% on various equipment. Although I agree, this should be at 100% at all times, it is not feasible in warfare. But from that report I can see where anyone would get the idea that the military should be paying a little more attention to detail. But like I said remember, all the general in the Army still have to answer to the one man. Regardless of if he is right or wrong. Believe me when I was over there, I didn't like alot of stuff, but I had to keep my mouth shut

 

@ Tiberius

I really don't think there is a good solution to this problem. We need either A.) Different troops or B.) Troops trained for this type of activity, and neither are forthcoming.

We certainly could use different troops - i.e. U.N. who are far more adept at such policing situations, most likely because that is what they are trained to do (funny how that works). The alternative is to train U.S. troops for this role. This is also an impossibility. We're shifting so many troops back and forth to Iraq at this point, that we simply don't have a few months to reliably train U.S. forces for such an action.

The first war in Iraq went much easier not because the coalition was better prepared to fight, but that is was broken down into two parts, with each part doing what it is best at doing. Part one was the U.S. doing what the U.S. does best - laying the smack down and kicking some major ass. After that, the major rebuilding efforts in Kuwait were left to the U.N. which is what they do best - defense and policing activity while the U.S. pays for all the stuff they broke in laying the smack down.

 

Agreed and well put Aldeth, I couldn't agree with you more. It is just frustrating to see the way that so many things have been handled and how they could have been handled differently with better outcomes for the US and the UN

 

Tiberius, are you talking about Rumsfeld or the president? It seems to me that it is Rumsfeld that is and have been making all the shots, even concerning strategy and it wouldnt surprise me if he even meddles in tactics. I dont have a link handy but I seem to recollect more than one general grumbling over how things were done and are being done and that they arent being run by the military but by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and company.

Umm, the UN have no troops, not a single soldier. All they have are loans from the memberstates. I have a hard time imagining that Swedish, German, Indian whatnots soldiers would have more training in policing than US troops. Of course non-american MP's and units especially designed for that would be but the US have those as well, just not in sufficient numbers and I doubt the non-american troops could supply any considerable bulk of that kind of troop. The one advantage non-American UN uniformed troops might have is that the Iraqis might have a slightly less negative image of them and I actually think that the attitude differences of the non-American troops might be a help as well. I have read a few articles about how the British soldiers different attitude towards the Iraqis compared to the Americans have helped the British enourmosly.

I also think you have an exaggerated image of the American troops smackdown ability, a grunt is a grunt is a grunt, no matter the nationality. The US smack down capability comes from the air, not from the ground. A frightened nineteen year old kid with a gun is pretty much the same around the world.

 

are you talking to Aldeth about the smackdown or myself?
-I was speaking mainly of Rumsfeld(sorry I did not clarify)

 

I was talking to anyone who felt hit by it.

I wasnt sure what you meant as saying that Rumsfeld runs the show is somewhat of a political statement and generally not in the support of the current way of handling the war.

 

Fair enough of a statement. Yes, a 19-year old with a gun is pretty much the same around the world, but the smackdown isn't generated by 130,000 troops with assault rifles. It's caused by stealth bombers, precision smart bombs and Abrams tanks. That's why we're better at the actual smackdown, when we have clear technological advantage, rather than the policing operation which requires boots on the ground.

 

Which is why I said your smackdown capability comes from the air, also the Abrams tank isnt better than any other modern tank. American smackdown comes from an immense amount of bombers and missiles. A sixteen year old with a sling shot could take out what was left of an enemy the US have bombed to smithereens.

 

In light of the global war on terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Forecast International Weapons Group has re-evaluated its annual ranking of the world’s best main battle tanks. With an unmatched combat record in Operation Desert Storm (1991) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-present), the M1A1 Abrams by General Dynamics Land Systems Division has clearly proven itself to be the premier main battle tank in service today. Based on its combat debut with the U.S. 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package) Abrams now sets the international standard for main battle tank performance.
- The Israel Ordnance Corps Merkava Mark IV moves up to second place in the Forecast International ranking.
-Japan’s Type 90, by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, maintains its third-place position on the Forecast International list. Drawing heavily on German Leopard 2 technology
-the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann Leopard 2A6 falls to fourth place.
-Fifth place on the Forecast International ranking belongs to the British Challenger 2 by Vickers Defence Systems Division

 

You wanted proof of poorly equipped US forces ? Read this

If an entire platoon refuses to carry out orders, there must be something wrong, wouldn't you say so ?

 

this is a mistake, we're not going to solve this problem by spreading our forces out more, we need more there or were simply going to have no effect at all. the american forces are currently being hurt because theyre stretched too thinly, and now people are talking about doing the same with the british. people think that there isnt any fighting in british controlled provinces: that isnt true, its just that because we're concentrated as an effective fighting force in those regions we can deal with resistence without casualties - and without levelling their homes and everything in the local area.
when you spread us out, we become vunerable and we will be hearing about alot more british casualties if this goes forward.

i think before making this decision, hoon and blair should go out and actually meet the men and women who's lives they will be putting on the line- its easy enough to forget that a soldier is a person when your only seeing them on paper.

and tiberius, whats your source? seems very american to me, go tell the desert rats that the challenger is rated 5th in the world - its not the equipment, its who's operating it that matters.

 

Well, first and foremost, you don't really train to be a peacekeeping soldier. Being a good peacekeeper is all about attitude. Thus, some nationalities are suited more in this role than others. All these arguments about sending in the UN-troops and all their expertice at this? Hell, it's the bloody same soldiers, thay are just going to be wearing a different coloured helmet and work under some different rules of engagement.

To back up these claims, I myself have taken part in two peacekeeping operations so far, last year in Kosovo and this year in Iraq. To get more in detail, well, I'm danish. Yup, thats right, there are many more nations with soldiers in Iraq than just the british and the americans. We might only have a small batallion, but we are still doing our part.

During my stay in Iraq, it was quite common for troops from one nation to help troops from another nation. My company (I served in the danish mechanized infantry company) was often put into reserve to go and support some of the troops around our area. Thus we were helping the british in Al Amara for a period when they were having a hard time, while at the same time the british sent troops to help us when our camp was taking a shelling.

If the americans are having a rough time in Baghdad, sending in troops from another nation might help, as the locals might be more friendly towards these new troops. Hell, we got a lot of goodwill from the local simply because we were not americans....

As in the regard of tanks, well, I think I'll stick to the leopard II. But hey, what uses are there for tanks in Iraq at the moment? Theres hardly any armoured threats around anymore....

@Tiberius: Does being fired upon with two rpg's at 30 meters quallify as a "been there, done that" experince?

 

when people talk of being ill equipped, thats true but thats true of any army, there quite simply will never be enough ot the top quality equipment around, and everyone wants the best, there are advances in equipment every day and so the brass have to decide who needs it the most. with the regiment which disobeyed orders above they may not have needed it, it was probably a routine thing, as soldiers they felt they needed it, but they probably didnt.

priority is very important, with the RAF reg we needed the best because there simply is no such thing as support for us- often we're there to secure sites before support arrives, so we need to know that out weapons wont jam, we need to know that our vests can capably take small arms fire and we need to know that we're in good communication with eachother. in afghanistan i took part in a drop to secure a landing site for armour and supplies to be moved in to support forces fighting in urban areas. i dont know what we were fired at by altogether in that, but its an experience ill tell you, everyone here who has been under fire can tell you, the actual fire fight probably lasted no more then ten minutes on the ground and then sporadic fighting in the buildings, but it seemed like hours.

 

I think this will have a detremential effect on the British soldiers reputation with the Iraqi's. Maybe if they were not under American rule then they may be able to improve on the situation rather rush in 'all guns blazing' style which seems to be a common practice with the US.

 

abosolutely Grovflab, any man or woman thas was over there regardless of being fired on or not should be resepected. I know where your coming from exactly. And I as well have been supported by troops other than the British and have supported others
@Shoshino, The Forecast International Inc., claiming to be a "leading provider of Market Intelligence and Analysis in the areas of aerospace, defense, power systems and military electronics" did an evaluation of the most modern main battle tanks: "International" (keyword)