The article outlines how the Iraqi government of Nuri al Maliki, in its recent disastrous and bloody offensive against the Shia militias of Moqtada al Sadr, bypassed the British troops (still) stationed around the city of Basra and instead chose to rely for support on US military forces called in from Baghdad.
From the Times:
“About 550 US troops, including some from the 82nd Airborne Division, were sent from Baghdad to Basra to join up with 150 American soldiers already serving with Iraqi forces in the southern city.
“The Ministry of Defence made much of the fact that British troops, based at Basra airport outside the city, were not requested in the early stages of the operation. British officials claimed that the Basra offensive was proof that Iraqi troops could cope on their own.
“The Times has learnt, however, that when Britain’s most senior officer in Basra, Brigadier Julian Free, commander of 4 Mechanised Brigade, flew into the city to find out what was going on, Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, who was orchestrating the attacks on militia strongholds, declined to see him.”
So the question is, in the wake of such a humiliating gesture from our own puppet government in that occupied nation, why on earth are 5,000-plus British troops still in Iraq, cowering behind the walls of Basra airport and sitting on their backsides? Why have they not been withdrawn and brought home - as per the wishes of the majority of the British public? And do we need any further proof of the fact that British troops have been fighting and dying in vain in the south of Iraq, serving no particular strategic purpose other than to perpetuate the myth that the United States is part of a ‘Coalition’ that is occupying Iraq?
No comments:
Post a Comment