With Friends Like These...

Crossposted from our new home blog,They gave us a republic...
It's not a huge deal, but it will complicate things for a more simple-minded crowd:

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.

There have, no doubt, been many "secret deals" between various factions in Iraq. You cannot blame the British for setting up a deal with the Mahdi Army--they had to find a way to operate in Basra. What you can point out is that the US did the exact same thing with Sunni elements. Both deals reduced violence against British and US troops. Both could be interpreted to mean that we're all just kicking the can down the road until we can all leave.

Britain's accomodation--and the revelation that part of the deal was the release of detained individuals--came about because of the siege that took place at the fortified palace in Basra.

Britain’s main base at an airport just outside the city was also under constant rocket and artillery fire.

In what turned out to be a misinterpretation of the violence as criminal-led rather than a full-blown insurgency, Britain cut a deal with the Sadrist militia to ensure the safe withdrawal of British troops from the Basra palace to the airport in return for the release of a number of militia prisoners, in what became known as the “accommodation”.

What's not clear is just what the reaction among the British and the Americans really was when it became evident that the Maliki government was going to freelance it and start a fight in Basra. It was either a debacle or a stunning victory. Troops mutinied but the Mahdi Army melted away. Did they demand that no future operations kick off like that again? Or did another secret deal ensure everything would settle down until an eventual British withdrawal?

Or did it convince the British that their imminent withdrawal was long overdue?Remember to update your blogrolls and bookmarks with our new domain name, They gave us a republic...

Matt Drudge is an Asshat

We had our own reaction to Drudge's outing of Prince Harry being in Afghanistan earlier, when the story was revealed.

Now, I honestly don't know if the prince was really in any danger. I do know that the area he was in has been the scene of fierce fighting with a resurgent Taliban. Every single NATO soldier that serves in Afghanistan means that someone else is stepping up to the plate to fight terrorism and each and every one of them is a soldier that is serving in the place of a US soldier. I do know that the British Army isn't the sort of organization that would tolerate a disasterous officer presence in its ranks, regardless of that person and their pedigree. It is expected that Harry serve, in any capacity, and that expectation is something we, as Americans, aren't ever going to understand until we begin insisting that if Washington politicians want to vote for a goddamned war, they better have their own kids in uniform, and with the right mission and the right gear.

LTC Bateman says it a little better than I do:

For years I struggled with many of my peers, trying to convince them that journalists are not the enemy. It was an uphill row to hoe, but a worthy one. Over time most seem to have accepted the proposition that journalists and their editors really do take a lot of time and effort to determine if they should run with a story, particularly one which might damage us, so the terrain shifted. More and more I came to find myself engaging with either veterans or “pro military” civilian bloggers. Their positions are more hardened than those of us serving today. Often this appears to be a byproduct of their politics. (One of the political parties has it as a basic contention that “the mainstream media” is fundamentally anti-military.) Over and over again I’ve heard the refrain by people of this inclination, that journalists don’t give a damn about those of us in uniform and would sell us out for a second if it meant a good story.

Most of these people seem to watch Fox News as well. This is a tad ironic, since Fox News carries far and away the least coverage of, you know, war. (They did, however, lead all news stations in coverage of some 18 year-old blonde girl who went missing in Aruba, and Anna Nicole Smith reports.) (No, I am not kidding.)

It frustrates me to no end to listen to this claptrap, because the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. Most journalists, and most journalism outlets, actually go pretty far out of their way to make sure that they do not endanger troops, nor spill any beans which might impede upcoming operations.

But now I do have an example of a "journalist" blowing a secret and endangering lives. This gadfly has global reach and an instant audience in the millions, and his move makes that yahoo Geraldo Rivera (who once sketched a map of US troop dispositions and planned operations in the dirt, live on Fox News channel) look like a discrete professional. The culprit: Matt Drudge.

No, it wasn’t American soldiers he put in danger. Those put at risk by Drudge’s stupidity and inability to balance newsworthiness with security were British soldiers, particularly those around Prince Harry, who Drudge revealed was in combat in Afghanistan.

You know that your name is mud when you cannot keep a secret that even the notorious blabbermouths of Fleet Street managed to silence among themselves. Yes, there were two teeny-tiny reports earlier. Both occurred in women’s fashion/gossip magazines: one in Australia months ago, and one in Germany which speculated that he might be in Iraq. Neither was authoritative. Neither was taken seriously. Both were actually quite vague. Then Matt “I can’t keep my big mouth shut” Drudge stepped up to the plate with an “Exclusive,” revealing at the top of his lungs that Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, was doing his duty and fighting in Afghanistan. And apparently, he doesn’t care that he blew it for one of our best and oldest allies.

For crying out loud, even the notorious tabloids of Britain managed to keep their mouths shut, though they knew about it the whole danged time. But blabbermouth Drudge has no qualms when he thinks he's got an exclusive, it's all about the hitcount (21st century version of ratings). Nice job Drudge. Way to go. Damage our alliance. Give the US another black-eye over in the UK. Put one of our ally’s most valued soldiers (and those around him) in danger, and call it a day, eh?

With “Support the Troops” idiots like this around, who needs enemies?

Since Drudge is a conservative--and quite the egg enthusiast--I highly doubt whether actually doing anything to support the troops in the war on terror means anything to him. It's about revenue, and those ads keep him flush.

Brown Announces Further Drawdown of British Forces

Gordon Brown made his first major foreign policy speech to Parliament today, and while he had everyones attention, he basically told George Bush to "bugger off."

As if we needed more evidence that aWol Bush is indeed the worst president ever, he has managed to alienate Britain, our closest historic ally.

About a week ago, Gordon Brown announced that he would be cutting the British presence in Iraq to 5000. The White House responded predictably - that is to say - petulantly. A Bush aid announced that Britain was no longer Bush's greatest ally, and then slandered the British forces. “Operationally, British forces have performed poorly in Basra,” said the official. “Maybe it’s best that they leave. Now we will have a clear field in southern Iraq.”

"Well, fine then." Was apparently what Gordon Brown had to say about that.

Today, Gordon Brown announced that the British presence will be cut further, to a total troop strength of 2500 by spring. Those 2500 will be serving in a support role.

Later on, after Brown's appearance before Parliament, one of his top aids told a reporter that he would not be surprised if all british forces are out of Iraq before the end of 2008.

The White House response to being told to get buggered was more measured today than it was last week. "This is consistent with previously announced plans by the British to reduce their troop presence in southern Iraq as the Iraqi security forces are able to take lead responsibility in the southern provinces," Said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council. What accounts for the more reticent response today is anyones guess.