Friday, 31 August 2007

Basra

Basra is terrifying. Informed Comment cannot be bettered. Read there and then think of the 500 British soldiers in Basra palace.

10 comments:

lilith said...

I am beginning to wonder if our troops are there because it is not safe for them to try and leave.

hatfield girl said...

Chess was never my strength L, but that panic feeling that comes over me as I look at a piece altering quite suddenly from one status to another and I can't prevent it is the same sensation as reading the news in the last couple of days. The soldiers in Basra palace are like that. Perhaps someone who knows about modern warfare will contribute.

Having David Milliband as the political negotiator with Rice, and her at odds with Cheney and his people is not good on any consideration. And Brown is in full disappearance, note.

Nick Drew said...

If this was viewed purely as a military issue, even with only British resources to effect the withdrawal from the palace, I'd have few concerns.

We have the ability to dictate the timing and almost all the detailed aspects. Of course the bad guys know it's going to happen but, whilst it is rarely possible to spring a strategic surprise, tactical surprise should always be possible.

I don't propose to give examples of how it could be done but (again with the caveat of the opening line) you should expect to turn on the radio one morning to find it has happened overnight.

The problems start when (a) we allow 'diplomatic' considerations to intrude (b) some moronic politician telegraphs the move in advance (c) McBroon places 'budgetary constraints' on the operation ...

hatfield girl said...

There is an outstanding academic who must have been a soldier, John Erickson who was at Edinburgh and knew everything about the Red Army and its activities in every aspect, including all the Cremlinology that goes with military activity; he is fascinating to read. My fear is that no-one in the Labour junta has the least idea about the British army, or how it works, or what it can do, and what it shouldn't be used for, or about the politics of military action, frankly, they are what could be called soft minds; not disciplined or capable of analytical work or realising the effects of certain kinds of hard actions - like going to war.

Edmund Leach was a brilliant soldier turned academic too;there are too many apparatchiks (and not enough of those who used to be part of the Establishment), worming and weaselling and risking other people, making up the Labour government and its beneficiaries; I miss the churchmen as well, not to speak of the head of state sunk into utter silence.

Anonymous said...

The overriding feature of NuLab is that they are all career politicians. None of them have done anything else (I discount tjat clown Prescott. Completely). The era of the career politician is with us, and it is frightening.

I am sure HG is correct when she surmises that in the immortal chant of the terraces, they "don't know what they're doing".

Me. I'd combat terrorism with some new nuclear subs. That makes sense. And sell arms nilly-willy in the Middle East. That makes sense.

One pill makes you larger.
One pill makes you small.

Nurse, the screens, the screens...

hatfield girl said...

Even Anthony Eden was shafted rather than insouciant and uncomprehending (not that reading your allies so badly isn't deserving of the political punishment dealt out). But not Stupid and Without Awareness and Self Admiring, and suffering from Fragile Ego, and feeding on the shadows of an ideology sprung from other histories and and places and circumstances.

Electro-Kevin said...

Interesting, Nick. Doubtless you're right.

I often watch our troops on footage leaked onto You Tube and I have every faith in them - absolutely NO faith in our politicians.

Nick Drew said...

takes small bow, coughs modestly

Electro-Kevin said...

How prescient, Nick. I'm impressed and you have every right to feel pleased with yourself.

hatfield girl said...

'Contrary to stereotypes that represent it primarily as an expression of machismo or romantic chivalry, military honour... [is] professional, moral, utilitarian ... It was pragmatic as well as idealistic. It shared attributes of civilian honour but also comprehended rules and obligations specific to soldiers. Professional honour required that the soldier should know and observe the codes and practices of his métier. To do so satisfied his internal sense of personal integrity and brought external reputation. Honour also had a broader social value. Mutuality and utility marked its operation... This mutuality safeguarded practices both sides found useful, such as prisoner exchanges, for the honour of each side was engaged in observance of the relevant rules. The survival of a bipartisan soldiers' honour ameliorated relations between enemies.'

There is disapproval of 'deals' done in some of the reporting today; yet it seems that the understanding that soldiers have of the moral nature of honour, that was so marked, for instance, in the English Civil War, has operated between the forces on both sides in Basra.
And the suggestion that the soldiers were ready to go in early August but held there by Brown's political requirements only renders Labour's inadequacies more distasteful.

You knew ND, and the applause is mixed with relief.