The British in Basra – did they deliver?


Hello. Welcome to WHYS Daily Email newcomers Donald in Argentina, John in Germany, Tim in the Netherlands and Cathryn in Pennsylvania. Thanks for signing up. You’ll see right at the bottom that some people take my daily delivery very seriously. I can’t vouch for everyone though.


It was 21 March 2003 that British and American troops entered Basra. Yesterday, 16 December 2007, Basra was returned to Iraqi authority. Before the invasion, Tony Blair spoke of Britain helping to rid the world of a dangerous leader, of helping to bring stability to the Middle East, of creating a safer and fairer society for Iraqis to live in. Now it’s over, how do you judge the contribution of the British?

Here’s an excellent report from our correspondent Andrew North.


American officials had two demands at the Bali talks. 1) No fixed targets for CO2 emissions, and 2) that the developing world (namely India and China) commit to greater cuts in emissions. They got the first, but not the second, and it’s no secret they’re unhappy.

Is the US right to be frustrated? Forget about America’s emissions for the moment – are environmentalists giving these two major polluters an easy ride here? Does it matter that the developed world benefited from environmentally unfriendly economies in the 20th century? If cutting emissions is the goal, and America will play if China and India do, why not put pressure on all three?


Unlikely to make it on air because of Bali and Basra, but I still wanted to ask you about this story from Spain.


Nigel Chapman is the Director here and as part of the WS’s 75th anniversary he’ll be answering questions about the WS on the WHYS blog on Wednesday. If you’ve something you’d like to ask him, email me and we’ll do our best to get you an answer.


Following on from our ‘Where you listen’ feature, Lubna in Baghdad takes it one step further.

Dear Ros, Why don’t you ask WHYS daily email subscribers this question: Your lives while receiving or replying to the WHYS daily email:), and I’ll start by myself: I usually reply to the WHYS daily email while drinking my regular cup of tea with milk, my access to the web is through mobile phone, so I sit on my bed and put my cup of tea with milk on a table by my bed, and try to comment on the stories that interest me! With my love! Lubna!

Speak to you later.

59 Responses to “The British in Basra – did they deliver?”

  1. December 17, 2007 at 15:20

    Hullo Ros! i do appreciate your efforts for updating me on global affairs.The reality is that in few years to come the world is facing a lot of problems .With out fear or favour, i must say that the industrialised countries must change on the technology used in industries and reduce on the rate of manufacturing the toxic machines(nuclear weapons) .The developing countries need to ensure tree planting and proper gabbage disposal.thanks alot and merry x-mas and prosperous new year.

  2. 2 XM
    December 17, 2007 at 15:21


    You have asked for questions to the head of the BBC World Service.

    First, let me say that I am a great fan (and critic)!

    To the point: the news presenters follow a timed format. If the subject has no information, the time is still expended on pointless, time-filling nonsense. Should the interviewee have information, he is still cut off to fit the time slot. Why not allow some discretion to the presenter?

    A specific: the US currency is rising in value when rate cuts and recession are predicted. Why?

    The Euro and Swiss Franc are falling with respect to the USD. Why?
    Surely, you have some interviewers who are capable of eliciting views on why this is so. Your present format and interviewers do not allow this to happen. Something needs to be done!


  3. December 17, 2007 at 15:37

    Hi Ros,

    You’ll probably get this question from lots of other WHYS fans, but it’s something I’m pretty concerned about, so I’ll go ahead and ask it myself as well! What are the future plans of the World Service when it comes to podcasts? I always feel a little guilty at the enjoyment I get out of them, without having to pay the license fee or listening to advertising. Also, by now, I’m hopelessly addicted, and don’t know what I’d do without my daily fill of the World Service and Radio 4! Is there ever going to be advertising in the podcasts? Are there likely to be more podcasts coming out in the future, or will the current number be reduced? Do you know what experiences the directors of the other departments have had with their podcasts? How do they justify free for download podcasts to us non-license-fee- paying foreign leachers?

    Err, that’s a lot of questions, so ask just one or many depending on the time you have and what the other WHYSers ask! And thanks for the opportunity to ask this question!

    Gaurav from Singapore

  4. 4 Mark
    December 17, 2007 at 16:01

    I have some questions for Nigel Chapman regarding Alan Johnston. I doubt you will publish them or answer them either publicly or privately.

    In March, Alan Johnston, BBC’s reporter in Gaza disappeared from public view. It was reported that he was kidnapped by what BBC breaking with long standing policy described as a “terrorist group.” (The words terrorist, terror, and terrorism were always ascribed to someone else’s characterization such as “President Bush’s so called war on terror.”) BBC reported that he was the last news reporter from a major news organization still there because he wanted to tell the Palestinian’s story. He also expected that he might be kidnapped. Every other news organization had pulled out. Many people including his own father described him as “a friend to the Palestinian People.” So my first questions relate to why he was still there given the acknowledged danger and the fact that the story was so old having been already told so many times and in so many was already? And how can a friend of the subject he is reporting on possibly be considered an objective observer rather than a partisan propagandist?

    A few weeks later, fifteen Royal Marines were taken prisoner by the Iranian government in Iraqi waters and held hostage. Unlike Alan Johnston’s case, the entire world knew who had taken them prisoner, they were together, and they were trained and prepared to die in battle. Nevertheless, just a few days later, they were shown on Iranian television which was rebroadcast to the world. They were obviously very frightened and American analysts explained on one news channel (I think CNN) how by the involuntary contractions of certain facial muscles they were being forced to read statements they didn’t believe and were under enormous stress. They were released shortly afterwards. But Alan Johnston was not seen again in public for four months and when he did appear on TV the same day or one day after his release, he seemed very tired but not suffering from anything like the traumatic ordeal the Marines had evidenced. By his own admission he said he was given the food he asked for and a radio to keep his spirits up but he said at one point he was told that a decision would soon be made if he was to live or die. The day after his first appearance, he was again seen on TV at home in Scotland already looking more rested and relaxed. So my question is how can this be? How can a news reporter supposedly kidnapped alone by an unknown terrorist group and held for four months appear far less stressed and traumatized than 15 Royal Marines after being held for only a few days unless the entire episode was a big hoax, a sham effort to draw attention to the plight of his “friends?”

  5. 5 vijay
    December 17, 2007 at 16:16

    “The British in Basra -did they deliver?”

    Yes they did deliver .

    Saddam is gone.
    Iraqis have been given the opportunity to create a safer and fairer society to live in.
    A civilian democratic framework has been layed out and the rest is up to the Iraqis.

    It is not if the governing of Iraq has been outsourced to the British so they are responsible for the electricity supply ,pot holes in the roads , sewerage and water supply in perpetuity.

    As for bringing stability to the Middle East ,Libya,Syria and Saudi Arabia are ,in fact all the Arab and Muslim world have been shown that the US and Britain will act when necessary.

  6. 6 John D. Anthony
    December 17, 2007 at 16:24

    Should the developing world do more?
    Sqaubbling about who should do more is like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If everyone doesn’t do everything they can right now we are all going down together.

    John in Salem

  7. 7 Chernor Jalloh
    December 17, 2007 at 16:51

    The British Army should not be blamed for failing to deliver in Basra.This is because they were pushed to go to war in the name of WMD and to get rid of Saddam and his two sons including his men who made the people of Iraq to suffer very much.But those weapons,which Mr BLAIR and Mr BUSH were claiming to be hidden somewhere in Iraq,they could be found soon it was just a matter of time.The British politicians will suggest to be leberators,but the longer they stay the more people will see them as occupiers though they were sold by their Iraqi brothers.Dr Hans Blix and Albaradaye(IAEA) were accused by the Americans of helping the enemy,so the Bush administration had to send a team of experts to fetch them out,but it was to no avail.Saddam and some of his colaborators were sentenced to death in a kangaroo court organised by the US while others are in custody waiting to face the gallows too,but the Americans do not want to hand over their favourite general under Saddam (BAATH PARTY)to the present Iraqi government.Is this the justice and democracy?As we all know justice delayed is justice denied.DO they want him to tell them where the weapoons are?That is a cachy question to answer.Black water, private contractors(mecenaries) were called in to help protect US diplomats in and out of the green zone,but they turned their guns on families already devastated by unjustifiable wars.Those people who are being exploited if caught by the insurgency they will never live to tell their story to anyone.

  8. 8 gary
    December 17, 2007 at 17:25

    Hello All,
    The British did their duty as they saw it. No more may have been legitimately ask of any group of people. Whether good comes from the entire operation is still to be decided. True, Saddam is gone. Unfortunately, while one man may dictate horrors, many willing minds and hands are required to make them reality. Those resources remain intact. All that is required for their assembly into a cohesive mass, is a excellent orator with self-serving desire in his heart. The fundamental evils remain; the Sunni / Shīa Islam conflict, the relative poverty of the majority of Iraqis, the continued retribution for past insults and deaths, and the lack of a nationalistic center about society may hold. These are the negatives. My belief is, however, that the Iraqi people will succeed. By far, the majority of them are good, honest, hard-working and tolerant people. It is as the lesson to be taken from the apostles, only one in twelve may have been evil; but his elimination could not come to pass until his evil act. The Iraqis have seen much evil, and so they will avoid it in future.

  9. December 17, 2007 at 17:36

    Dear WHYS,

    I tried to contribute via your blog but there seemed no way of opening up a new subject.

    I’d like to talk about Mbeki and Zuma’s fight to become ANC leader.
    Although neither an African or a South African, I have formed the view over
    the years that Mr Mbeki’s leadership has been lacklustre, On Aids he has
    wanted to promote a handful of natural remedies that are simply insufficient to fight this wicked disease. On the newverending Zimbabwe crisis one has constantly hoped for a positive issue to his talks with Mr Mugabe only to see one’s hopes dashed.

    So from A to Z he has not led.

    Mr Zuma, for all his faults, and perhaps precisely because of these faults, is a man of the world and as President of South Africa might tackle these problems in an effective way.

    By the way I absolutely do not like whiteon black on your new blog site.
    It’s not at all calming for the eyes and diffiicult to follow for any length
    of time.. Sort of thing you find at the back of magazines that are trying
    to be modern; you don’t need that.


  10. 10 Ferudun, NY
    December 17, 2007 at 17:52

    The ceremony to hand over power to the Iraqis was indoors to avoid mortar fire from the militias. The region is still in turmoil, which the Iraqis cannot handle.


  11. December 17, 2007 at 17:58

    Hi Peter,
    Suggesting a topic is as simple as emailing us or posting anywhere – we read everything. And be assured, we are inching towards getting rid of the black background (and the white text, obviously).
    And we thought about discussing the ANC leadership today but had other, stronger topics, and figured we’d wait for the winner to be announced before going any further.
    So check back tomorrow.

  12. December 17, 2007 at 18:01

    Bush and blair can say what they like, they made a complete mess of the middle east and they know it.. Because of them, millions are dead, millions displaced and millions starving. How can they justify that??

    re: tipping: never have. Everyone doing a job gets paid..

    Ingrid B

  13. December 17, 2007 at 18:03

    Hi Ros,

    This something good for the troubled region in the middle east. Also for the british its a relief. You can imagine how happy the people of Iraq are to learn that they will at least not die in cross fire. As far as can remember the british went to Iraq for a peace making process not like the amis who went there for war under proganda. You will see that respect that British will recieve worldwide after they completely withdraw. This war was unwarranted and it made the world a very dangerous place to live. Its now to change things for the better and bring about love among the people of earth. I can imagine seeing many Iraqis heading home soon and starting a new life.


  14. December 17, 2007 at 18:03

    Dear HYS Team,

    There is never the perfect time to withdraw and hand power to the Iraqi forces. The British have probably been withdrawan more for political reasons than pragmatic ones. But in answer to the central question yes I think they did deliver. The war has in effect been won, civil war has been avoided, democracy accepted and the remaining violence is mainly instgated by criminals.

    As for the war being ‘illegal’ the UN first approved the coalitions role in May 2003 and it has been renewed each year the latest being in August of this year.

    The opponents to the coalition are Ba’athists (the Nazi’s of the middle East), Sunni fundamentalists, the opponents to progress in Islam’s struggle with modernity and the government of Iran. Causes do not come much clearer than this one.

    Yours sincerely


  15. 15 George
    December 17, 2007 at 18:04

    The UK troops showed up when we ask them.
    That means something right there.

  16. December 17, 2007 at 18:06

    Role of British in Basra was it good?
    It was a complete failure of what it was intended by Tony Blair when Britain and America transgressed Iraq by overlooking UN Charter 2(4)of the sovereign right of a country and throwing away the importance of international law to the wind .and after four years 9 months without achieving what they have set for quitting throwing the entire system into chaos the time has come for Britain to introspect their foreign policy so as not to commit this kind of blunders in the future and making Britain a laughing stock in the so called global world?

  17. December 17, 2007 at 18:07

    And regarding the second debate of developing countries role in climate change and Americas unhappiness of not passing the restrictions on developing countries just shows how America with its agenda engulfed the bail summit on climate change thus making it in a vegetative state as in Kyoto .and it was in Bonn meeting a couple of years later America agreed to keep Kyoto declaration floating .here in bail the same has happened only difference the Bonn farce was avoided making America agree to abide by the footnote protocol and laying all blame on developing countries cattle belching and industrial pollution out of outdated technologies .how can developing countries afford to drastically change into sophisticated technologies at short notice is unanswered . If only the developed countries were willing to help out it was possible .in bail if developed countries would have committed regarding this it would have been a reality or else developing countries with closure of industries and other means to support its large population will face catastrophe if they abide by this theoretical jamboree.
    And the whole question I wish to know is that to abide by footnotes ?do we want to waste crores of rupees for a summit in resorts of nearly 200 countries for drafting and redrafting and ultimately agreeing for only footnotes? its time to ask the developed and developing countries a firm yes or no to tackle global warming and what measures according to their geographical and economic conditions rather than arguing on whether carbon dioxide or cattle belching is the most pollutant.

  18. December 17, 2007 at 18:11

    The scientific consensus is that the entire world needs to be 85 percent renewable energy by 2050 to avoid a 20 meter sea level rise. Both the developed world and developing world need to avoid this future with serious carbon emission cuts.


    Los Angeles

  19. December 17, 2007 at 18:13

    Free Market Conservatives gave us this Global Warming crisis, it is time now to reject Free Market Conservatism and ask scientists to set scientifically valid rules and regulations!


  20. December 17, 2007 at 18:16

    Climate: Very simple MORAL question: short-term sectional greed v. the longterm interests of humanity
    – Martin, Amsterdam

  21. December 17, 2007 at 18:17

    The Western World have the greatest responsibility for creating the Global Warming crisis and we have to take the greatest responsibility to stop it by being the leaders! We have to be the example.


  22. December 17, 2007 at 18:19

    Dearest Ros: The Brits didn’t leave Basra a better place, but surely getting rid of a brutal dictator like Saddam is really worth it! With my love! Lubna!

  23. December 17, 2007 at 18:20

    No. China chose Communism which has failed so they should not be given any advantage over the “free world”. It’s different with India and Africa.
    Jo. Prague.

  24. December 17, 2007 at 18:22

    People talking about it for several years. People think there’s one single issue, but there are several factors contributing to it. The topic has definetly made its way into the public forum in the US. We can see real results now.
    Morgan, in Illinois, USA

  25. December 17, 2007 at 18:24

    Dear World have your say,
    I think that the English forces did their best. They tried to be friends with the Irakies and I think that they may succeded most of the time. For the British it is overwhelmingly better that they come home to their families.
    Now living in Northern France.

  26. December 17, 2007 at 18:28

    Boring us with global warming /climate change as usual: it’s all a big hoax and con !!!!!!!!!!
    Mike, London.

  27. December 17, 2007 at 18:29

    Dear WHYS,

    In 1988, Helen Caldecott of Scientists for Social Responsibility said in a speech that when all Chinese start to drive cars, “the world will die.”

    Dr Mark LaRue

  28. December 17, 2007 at 18:31

    Should the developing world do more?

    Squabbling about who should do more is like arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    If everyone doesn’t do everything they can right now we are all going down together.


  29. December 17, 2007 at 18:31

    The main reason we are in this mess is because corporations have been given too many breaks by the US governement. It’s no secret that major companies prefer more lenient envornmental regulations of places like China and India. Let’s hold the most grievous corporations to task for putting America’s messes out of sight and out mind.

    Ken in Cleveland

  30. December 17, 2007 at 18:31


    regardxing Indias’ emissions; I recall a study that emission reduction is reallya product of a nations wealth. The US and England (and perhaps Japan?) historically had higher emissions during their industrial revolutions. So While there is always more to be done, I feel that we shouldn’t expect a quid pro quo action.

    I am also emabarrassed by my own countrys lack of leadership or cooperation in this same arena.


    Bend. Oregon

  31. December 17, 2007 at 18:32

    Please identify your guest, Kenneth Green, properly as representing the FAR RIGHT EXTREMIST IDEOLOGICAL American Enterprise Institute.

    Greed Inc is what they are!

    Bend, OR

  32. December 17, 2007 at 18:32

    If you want to sanction China and India for not complying to with regulations, it would require Wal-mart would have to stop buying from them. In turn that would force them to raise the price on goods that currently are affordable by the poorest class of Americans. pressure would eventually rise until they were forced to release them from the sanctions.

    the whole supply chain must be addressed if real progress is going to be made towards functional environmental policies.

    dwight in cleveland

  33. December 17, 2007 at 18:33

    There was a point made that 80 percent of the people in china live near the coast. These same people who are supposed to benefit from the economic expansion of the future are also the people most susceptible to the catastrophic effects of climate change in the future.

  34. December 17, 2007 at 18:35

    I believe that Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair invaded Iraq on a false pretext because of their misguided religious beliefs.

    This is a complete disaster.

    California, The United States

  35. December 17, 2007 at 18:36

    I think we don t need to concentrate on the US,China and Indian since the results will affect us all.here at my home in Guangzhou China, the winter is just normal like spring, this make me to understand that global warming is no more a joke.
    Daniel lawal from China

  36. December 17, 2007 at 18:37

    Stop this contraption u call global warming. What human activity caused d demise of d ice age? Naturaly, d world would end in fervent heat.
    JS Madugu-Nigeria

  37. December 17, 2007 at 18:37

    Since these are growing economies its better that they develop environmental friendly technologies from the onset. It wil save them future adjustments.

  38. December 17, 2007 at 18:39

    British withdrawal is simply a defeat and American troops should equally withdraw now.
    Robert in Arua Uganda

  39. December 17, 2007 at 18:44

    I’m sure the U.S. troops occupying Iraq 50 years from now will appreciate what the British have done.

    John in Salem

  40. December 17, 2007 at 18:47

    In my idea this is the first and the best step they took and it will hopefully have a good output. Hope to see Iraq free of interference one day.
    Jawaid, Kabul

  41. December 17, 2007 at 18:48

    To Whom It May Concern,

    Upon listening to your program today, I feel compelled to write.

    Climate change is a matter of global impact, but subject to particular interests. I find both the United States’ argument that India and China need to agree to binding targets before the White House commits to reigning in its own emission levels ridiculous. As a developed nation, with funds available to funnel into alternative energies and to urge companies to develop a more “green” economy, it is a delaying tactic used to shirk responsibility, and to pander to certain business interests which are closely connected to the US governing regime today.
    There is very little attention being paid to the vast possibilities in the alternate energy sector and how jobs can be streamed into, and created out of, it.

    I also find the reluctance of developing economies such as China and India to consider an alternate path to development short-sighted.
    Streaming into newer technologies and attempting to develop different practices to economic and industrial growth should be top of mind. If using the old industrial methodologies to grow now, making a switch in the near future to other methods will be even more costly and a waste of current resources.

    The United States cannot expect others to sacrifice when they are unwilling to experience some mild discomfort as well. In the end, I believe we all, regardless of residence, need to prepare ourselves for some difficult times ahead.

    Thank you for your attention,

    Toronto, ON

  42. December 17, 2007 at 18:49

    Im glad they are moving out, it puts more pressure on the US soldiers and politicians to pull out as well.

    Seattle, USA

  43. December 17, 2007 at 18:50

    The British are wise to withdraw. It would have been wiser not to go in the first place.
    Kimberly, California

  44. December 17, 2007 at 18:50

    considering a number of lives that got lost is not worthy it. Four and half years in Basra is a big loss that cant be reversed. .

    Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania

  45. December 17, 2007 at 18:52

    The failure of world leaders in Bali to curb global warming is quite unfortunate.
    Mansour of Monrovia.

  46. December 17, 2007 at 18:53

    Just so that I have this straight. Before the invasion a few hundred people per year were killed for what they said and their political views and now a few hundred people per year are killed for how they dress and their view on religion. Is that about right?

    Dead people are dead people. It seems the new environment would be more conducive to one day provide sanctuary to extremist views like that of Al-queada.

  47. December 17, 2007 at 18:53

    It is unpalatable for any American politician, Democrat or Republican, to admit the truth : that the US and UK irremediably broke Iraq and handed increased geopolitical leverage to Syria and Iran.

    The “surge” is not a success, because the country remains broken with the stage set for further ethnic cleansing. Only 4% of Iraqis are daring to return.

    The Bush Pentagon has built enormous bunker bases and will use any excuse to hunker down and keep army or mercenary agents in Iraq for years.

    Only an international force would have legitimacy to stay there, to prevent civil war.

    C Luce

  48. 48 Jon Liew
    December 17, 2007 at 18:54

    Over the British withdrawal, I guess some people would have a better later than never mentality. I won’t say its a defeat, neither would I say it something to be celebrated over. I guess its good the British have withdrawn as this move would allow the Iraqis to run their state and build the country up, restoring it in due time. The British shouldn’t feel affected by all the negative comments as they have attempted and tried to achieve what they wanted to do in the beginning.

    Jonathan from Singapore.

  49. December 17, 2007 at 18:55

    I found it extremely hypocritical that developed nations such as the US asked developing nations such as China and India to reduce green house gases emission. Per capita emission of China is less than 1/4 of that US; furthermore, since 1750, more than 80% of worlds’ emission has come from western countries with population less than 20% of the world total. It does not take a person of above-average IQ to say that western countries are not even qualified to ask others to emit less while themselves have done and been doing much more to damage to the earth. It is completely pointless when one states a bigger country emits more green house gases; it is ONLY important and relevant to compare per capita emission. This is not to say developing countries have nothing to do with global warming; in fact, increasingly, they DO. The world must work together to overcome this extremely serious issue for otherwise our future is certainly doomed.
    Jay Tu
    Cleveland, OH, USA

  50. 50 Will Rhodes
    December 17, 2007 at 19:20

    Nobody can deliver in Iraq – this is one thing that many seem to overlook. The British went in and did the job asked, they have now moved back and are allowing the Iraqi’s to take over in their own land. The Americans will come to realise that they too will have to do the same – if America (Bush) is wanting a complete victory, they may as well forget it, isn’t going to happen.

    A strategic withdrawal and exit from that country is all can be accomplished, what will happen is what many fear and feared, civil war will break out once the American’s and British have gone, that is one thing inevitable. It won’t be good or nice or anything else.

  51. 51 Waleed
    December 17, 2007 at 21:11

    The British did deliver some good things like ousting Saddam but failed in other areas including improving the living condition and stability of the city.

  52. December 18, 2007 at 16:36

    As for the Basra question,I live in central Iraq in Baghdad and we have always said that Basra was lucky to have had the British in charge as opposed to the Americans,being a Brit myself, I too wished that.The Brit know the Iraqi people from way back when they controlled the country back in the 1918/20,so they have a history here .I believe the strategy was all wrong,the Brit should have been in control in the central areas and I believe that would have made a real difference.And yes they have done their job (improved security,infrastructure)and its now time to take a back seat and let the Iraqis manage themselves again but be there if crisis occurs.

    With best wishes from

  53. December 18, 2007 at 21:03

    For the time being perhaps the British delivered some peace, but in the long run, the same problems in Basra will emerge again. It is in the nature of the inhabitants of Basra and Iraq as a whole to disagree and the violence will continue same as before. In my oppinion it would not surprise me if a dictator will emerge again another Sadam Hussien type subjucating and terrorising their people all over again.

  54. 54 Gyaneshwor Ranabhat
    December 19, 2007 at 14:42

    Hi Ross

    The answer for your question is obvious. It is nothing but no.
    You have to calculate PM Blair’s profit and loss. What Britons paid in Iraqi soil and what did they got. Loss of patriotic soldier who will never see even their beautiful homeland. Thanks to Bush and Blair.

  55. 55 George
    December 19, 2007 at 18:35

    The soldiers who defend and protect our nations, US and UK, have stepped up to the plate and performed with valor and distinction.

    Do not confuse the foreign policies that order troops to this or that war with the men and women who serve with honor and valor the orders of the civilian governments.

    Did the UK troops do good soldiering in Iraq and Pakistan?

    Yes, they performed in the highest tradition of their services and are to be commended and honored.

    The Iraq War like so many wars in history, STINKS, but that is your civilian leaders and those who pick them’s fault, not the military.

    Catch the distinction, it is a basic and important one.

  56. 56 ARShams Reflection
    December 21, 2007 at 12:16

    Better it would be if Basra or any part of Iraq or the whole country of Iraq were handed over to the UNO peace forces for security purposes by the combatting country / countries e.g. UK or US rather than doing so to Iraqi forces / Iraqi Government!

  57. December 22, 2007 at 12:47

    Some time a question raise in my mind which force me to think that what is expected in the near future of Iraq.

    It is right to say that we should remove all good expectation from our mindes that Iraq will see better future or the world leaders like Bush or Blair will make iraq elysium through democracy.

    Admitted fact is that Iraqi future is dark and there is no light at the end of it.
    It will take a century to change the circumstances as find at present.

  58. December 22, 2007 at 16:07

    Realiy of the day is that there is no balence of power in world.It goes with breaking the Russian Federation.And thw united states appeared as a single super power on the earth.

    Agood number of mistakes has been made by this super power including strike on Iraq which has still no end.

    Insurgence is in motion with more speed can not be stoped by using any option.

    Allegation of mass dustrution has been buried alive idealogy of democracy has also become a disputed matter.

    Now you talking about deployment of UNO forces for peace in Iraq? impossible i say impossible

    If you want to bring peace in the region ,talke about real repersentative of the people otherwise you will see peace in the region will take a century. Everything possesed will have to give back those are really deserve then peace will be enter in this region.

  59. 59 Kindi Jallow
    January 27, 2010 at 22:07

    The British to have invaded Iraq in the pretext of removing a dangerous leader was the greatest miscalculation. It all began by accusing Sadam of developing nuclear and biological weapons, but this allegation was no where to be found. Then later on the tone changed to bring democracy and good governance to Iraq when this also fails to materialise another tone for insurgency was made. A change of government could happen for the better or worst and the yard stick we could use to judge if the British troops deliver in Basra depends on what their objectives were at that time, simple truth everybody know and the facts speaks out for themselves.
    Invading Iraq without the support of UN exposes a lot and you can write a lot more, in conclusion one can say the mission is a miserable failure on both the British and US forces.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: