How Basra Slipped Out of Control: by Gareth Porter

POSTED BY: Howard
UPDATED: Thursday, October 27, 2005 15:21
VIEWED: 10359
PAGE 1 of 6

How Basra Slipped Out of Control: Portent in the Shiite South?
by Gareth Porter
October 22, 2005

To understand just how tenuous the U.S. position in Iraq is at the moment, we have only to look at the way Basra, Iraq's second largest city, in the solidly Shiite South slipped out of the control of occupation forces last month.

The basic facts of the anti-British uprising in Basra have been well documented. On September 19 Iraqi police arrested two British military intelligence agents disguised as Arabs. The British command went to the police station where they were being detained to demand their return. Rebuffed by the police there, it took the law into its own hands, using armored vehicles to break down the wall of an Iraqi government police compound in order to free the two prisoners.

In response to the call of the Mahdi Army of radical Shiite cleric Moqtadr al-Sadr, hundreds of people gathered at the police station to protest that turned into a six-hour battle with the British troops. The crowd kicked and punched the British and threw stones, metal bars, Molotov cocktails and burning tires at their armored troop carriers, setting two of them on fire. The British say they killed four people and injured 44. An Iraqi judge who was there says nine Iraqis were killed, and 14 injured.

A crucial factor in Basra's sudden political transformation is that the local security forces and Shiite political leadership in Basra turned against the British and sided with the Mahdi Army. Through the six hours of violence, not a single Iraqi policeman came to the aid of the beleaguered British forces. Two days later, hundreds of policemen marched through downtown Basra waving pistols and AK-47s and shouting "no to occupation."

After meeting with the protestors, the 41 members of the provincial council voted unanimously to cut off all cooperation with British forces because of the "irresponsible aggression on a government facility." The council demanded an apology and full compensation for families of those killed and wounded by the British. And it is still demanding that the two spies be turned over to Iraqi authorities.

Shiite responsiveness to al-Sadr's appeals to oppose British actions symbolizing the loss of Iraqi independence should have come as no surprise. For a year and a half, it has been clear that Moqtada al-Sadr has enjoyed widespread support among Shiites because of his anti-occupation stance. Sadr's popularity had skyrocketed in April 2004, when the Mahdi Army challenged foreign occupation troops in eight different Shiite cities, including Basra. According to an article by counterinsurgency specialists Jeffrey White and Ryan Philips in Jane's Intelligence Review, polling by an Iraqi research organization showed that only one percent of those surveyed had supported him in December 2003, but 68 percent supported him when his forces were fighting U.S. troops in April 2004.

The stunning transformation of Basra from a secure rear area for U.S. and British troops into a center of anti-occupation agitation reveals the utter weakness of the Shiite political base on which the United States must now rely to sustain its occupation of the country.

After the election in January, according to senior police officials in Baghdad, the police force in the city was under the control of militant Shiite Badr Organization, which is aligned with the government of Prime Minister Jafari. But the loyalty of many militiamen in Basra to the Badr Organization proved in the end to be very weak. By the time of the protests, the Mahdi Army was clearly predominant within the police force.

The strategic significance of events in Basra becomes clearer if it compared with a parallel event in the Vietnam War. In 1966 an anti-government and anti-U.S. Buddhist "Struggle Movement" loosely aligned with the Communist forces carried out an uprising and seized power in Hue, the ancient capital and center of Buddhist agitation. The U.S. command responded by airlifting South Vietnamese government battalions into Hue to reass

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm still largely unclear as to why the two men were detained.
This BBC article mentions shots were exchanged between police and the soldiers, when they failed to yield to a checkpoint.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4260894.stm

I am, however, unclear as to why.
Why did the soldiers fail to yield at the checkpoint (if your undercover it doesn't seem the brightest thing to start drawing attention to yourself)?
Why were shots exchanged (similar situations have occurred before, and they did not involve gun battles)?
Why were the troops not released when it became clear they were on an intelligence mission (or at least what was said to British Military officials when the release was requested)?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The BBC whitwashed this incident.
Other journalists on the ground brought
the real story to such broadcasts as
DEMOCRACY NOW. The British agents were
dressed like Arabs. The Iraqi police
found equipment and explosives in their
car identical to that of any terrorist
operation. The British SAS or whatever
they were clearly were up to no-good
and part of a mission to do harm. The
local police were totally in their right
to arrest them.

These military criminals were then held
by the local Shia authorities. But then
the British military used a tank to demolish
the building in which they were being held.
This is how we freed these characters. There
was no negotiation no due process of law just
illegal brute force used by the British army.

What this incident proves is that...
THERE IS NO IRAQI SOVEREIGNTY !!
All the lies of Bush and Blair exposed!!

Why do you think that as intelligence agents
they had a moral right to be freed? Because
CITIZEN all your life you have been conditioned
with the Disneyesque fantasy that "our side"
has benevolence in its heart and intent. Like
the brainwashing that enters peoples heads when
they watch a racist-imperialist TV show like
"24". People are so conditioned into the
illusion of "our benevolence" that they do not
even think of perceiving the world from
the rest of humanity's vantage point.

Go to DEMOCRACY NOW and listen to (or purchase
a CDR or DVDR of) of their Thursday 20th Oct
edition featuring Robert Fisk among others.

main home page http://www.democracynow.org/

October 20th show:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/20/1411211

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard:
The British agents were
dressed like Arabs. The Iraqi police
found equipment and explosives in their
car identical to that of any terrorist
operation. The British SAS or whatever
they were clearly were up to no-good
and part of a mission to do harm. The
local police were totally in their right
to arrest them.

---

You make an awfully huge leap here with this suggestion that the British were up to no good. In fact, you fall victim to the same fallacy that you accuse Citizen of (ie, that we are so evil that there is no way that they could have been doing anything positive). You don't have enough data to make any claim that they were "up to no good." What if they had been trying to infiltrate an insurgent cell, and were in possession of vital knowledge that necessitated their breakout? I have no idea, neither do you from the miniscule facts presented in the case. It's entirely possible they were planting evidence, acting as terrorists, whatever; but it's a claim no one can make because there aren't enough actual facts besides what gear they had on them and that the Brits thought they were vital enough to try to rescue.

Quote:

---

Why do you think that as intelligence agents
they had a moral right to be freed?

---

I dunno, maybe because they may have been unjustly detained? Why are you assuming they were participating in a criminal action?

Quote:

---

Because
CITIZEN all your life you have been conditioned
with the Disneyesque fantasy that "our side"
has benevolence in its heart and intent. Like
the brainwashing that enters peoples heads when
they watch a racist-imperialist TV show like
"24". People are so conditioned into the
illusion of "our benevolence" that they do not
even think of perceiving the world from
the rest of humanity's vantage point.

---

I think 50-something million Americans (and growing, based on W's poll numbers) would disagree with your idea that we are all brainwashed and don't realize how other people see us. If I had to travel anywhere in the world right now, I'm going the Bill Maher rouote - "I'm Swiss." But I think that over-analyzing something can be almost as bad as not paying attention at all. We call those kinds of folks the Tinfoil Hat Brigade. Not everything is a global conspiracy, because you can't have it both ways. W is either inept or he's a total genius. Can't be both (my money's on inept).

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I did NOT accuse CITIZEN of being evil.
Naive yes but that is far from being evil.

But being naive can cause one to lend one's
support to those who are evil and misleading
in their promises to the people. Be it a Kerry,
Bush, Clinton, Blair etc.

Further more as a British guy I was talking
about a criminal incident for which the British
army is responsible.

I have read extensive independent accounts
on the incident. Those agents were up to
at the least criminal intent and at worst
planning an act of terrorist murder by which
to frame others.

Bush jnr is a puppet, Rumsfeld, Cheney and
Rice are the source of the policies.

While the population is fed vast amounts of
lies and disinformation by the mass media in
both news and entertainment form.

As for Americans travelling abroad. More than
90% of ALL US citizens NEVER obtain a passport
in their lifetime.

I know that it seems that Americans are
everywhere. When you or I travel we always
bump into Americans abroad. BUT with a
population of 280 million it can feel that way
if only 6% of Americans are abroad at any one
time. And that includes US troops!!

In reality it is likely to be a lot less.
Closer to 2% or 3% of Americans outside the
country at any point in their lifetime.

Most Americans have no personal experience of
being off-the-Americas mothership. While those
who travel as part of the military are very
much insulated.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard:
I did NOT accuse CITIZEN of being evil.
Naive yes but that is far from being evil.

---

Actually, that was bad phrasing on my part; I meant you see the Brit and American gov'ts as evil, not Citizen.

Quote:

---

But being naive can cause one to lend one's
support to those who are evil and misleading
in their promises to the people. Be it a Kerry,
Bush, Clinton, Blair etc.

Further more as a British guy I was talking
about a criminal incident for which the British
army is responsible.

I have read extensive independent accounts
on the incident. Those agents were up to
at the least criminal intent and at worst
planning an act of terrorist murder by which
to frame others.

---

How do you KNOW that, Howard? I've read several reports of the incident as well, and the basics are that they got caught with materials they shouldn't have had (according to their detainers) and the British thought they were important enough people to stage a rescue. What, if any, facts do you have that suggest criminal intent or a plan to commit an act of murder? They weren't caught planting anything, they weren't caught selling anything, they were caught WITH something, which the British thought was important enough to justify a rescue. Why automatically assume the worst? You don't have enough facts.

Quote:

---

Bush jnr is a puppet, Rumsfeld, Cheney and
Rice are the source of the policies.

While the population is fed vast amounts of
lies and disinformation by the mass media in
both news and entertainment form.

---

Yes, Fox News and its viewers. I know. Doesn't change the fact that you are jumping to conclusions.

Quote:

---

As for Americans travelling abroad. More than
90% of ALL US citizens NEVER obtain a passport
in their lifetime.

---

My larger point was that not all Americans think we're loved abroad, in fact, the majority of us don't. You're generalizing in a very bad way about Americans here. In the same breath you've now said we're all aggressive, ignorant, manipulated brutes succeptible to the whims of the Bush clan. That's just Neocons. The rest of us are pretty smart folks, we just aren't in power right now. Doesn't mean we don't keep up with the news or know how to think critically.

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I haver suggested one source I could easily
gather others. But between articles on Z-NET
and Counterpunch in the USA and coverage on
Channel 4 News in the UK along with guest
journalists and witnesses on Democracy Now
I have heard and read plenty that is
contrary to your suggestion.

You claim "its just the Neo-Cons" !!

So is not the Neo-Liberals as well????

What about Clinton, Kerry and Clinton like
their positions are the slightest different
in their core substance? Mrs Clinton refuses
to support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq
and John Kerry not only voted for the war it
was his policy platform to send an additional
100,000 troops to Iraq.

Then there is Clinton in office. Let us run
down his crimes:

1. Single most genocidal Economic Sanctions
in history. Maintained and worsened upon
the Iraq people by Clinton. Death toll was
1:2 million. 600,000 Iraqi infants perished
due to Clinton's sanctions and bombing
campaign. The US Air Force and the Royal
Air Force bombed Iraq at least once every
3 days throughout the entire decade of the
1990's.

2. By 1997 Iraq had complied on WMD under the
UNSCOM program. Clinton and Blair could not
stand this fact so they lied claiming that
Iraq had not complied. Clinton launched
cruise missiles upon Baghdad. He also was
responsible for telling Richard Butler at
the UN to pull the weapon's inspectors out
of Iraq. Over the next few years the media
kept saying Iraq had thrown them out. When
in fact Clinton/Blair/Butler removed them.

3. Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on
the only medicine factory in Sudan. He made
the knowing false claim that it had chemical
weapons link. There was no inspection even
though the goverment of Sudan offered both
the chance to send UN inspectors in to the
privately owned factory and a dossier on
Bin Laden who had spent time in Sudan.
Clinton refused the intelligence dossier on
Bin Laden (the deal was don't bomb us and
we'll give you the dope on Laden) he made
no attempt to have inspectors check the
factory out. Instead he blew up the one
factory that made essential drugs for people
in a poor war torn third world country.
The German Ambassador told a distinguished
Harvard foreign policy journal that as a
result of the medicine supply being blown up
tens of thousands of people mostly children
died in the months that followed. So not
only did Clinton kill far more Sudanese than
the number of people who were to die on 9/11
he declined an intelligence dossier that
may have prevented 9/11.

4. COLOMBIA: During the 1990'S in the brutal
civil war in this Latin American nation
over 70% of the unarmed civilians killed
were murdered by the side that the Clinton
administration was arming and financing.
Every year of the Clinton admin the arms
and money for the Colombian army and in turn
death squads increased.

5. During the 1990's the Turkish state and
Turkish army destroyed hundreds of Kurdish
villages. Ethnic cleansing a million plus
people from their homes and murdered more
than 30,000 Kurdish men, women and children.
Throughout this crime that was bigger than
anything that went down in Kosovo the arms
and intelligence assist flowed from both
Washington and London to Ankara. Clinton
never froze or reduced arms, money or CIA
help to Turkey no matter how many Kurds
were being slaughtered. How interesting
it is that an Iraqi Kurd killed by Saddam
is evidence of evil but a Turkish Kurd
killed by us is considered to be mere
"realistic foreign policy". The Kurdish
people are merely unfortunate to have their

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howard:
I have heard and read plenty that is
contrary to your suggestion.

---

Then back it up. All you've managed to post so far is some circumstantial evidence against the British soldiers. Not one hard, damning fact. You want to claim that they had 'murderous intent.' Well, I'm all for that pesky 'innocent till proven guilty' thing, and you have yet to make a case. I could just as easily argue that they had insider knowledge about the insurgency that the Iraqis didn't want to get out, and I would use the same facts you have laid out. If there's more to the story than just a couple guys got caught and their own countrymen wanted them back, show me. The burden of proof is on you. You can't hide from me with "I've got all the facts right here where only I can see them. If you have more details, show them to us.

Quote:

---

You claim "its just the Neo-Cons" !!

So is not the Neo-Liberals as well????

---

Not as it relates to this current mess and discussion, no, it isn't.

Quote:

---

Mrs Clinton refuses
to support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq
and John Kerry not only voted for the war it
was his policy platform to send an additional
100,000 troops to Iraq.

---

If you are using these arguments for any purpose, then you don't have half the grasp on geopolitics you seem to think you do. I was 100% against the war, from day 1, and so were a lot of other folks. And yet even I don't believe in an immediate pullout. You cannot just instantly withdraw from an occupied nation, especially one on the brink of civil war. If we pull out now, without a stabilized Iraq and with no trained Iraqi military, we're inviting a disaster of epic proportions. It's already a terrorist training ground and on its way to becoming a hardline Islamic state, with fewer rights for its citizens than it had before we went in. There is NO way we can have an immediate pullout, no matter how badly the anti-war crowd wants it. We are in, in effect, royally boned, with no end in sight. Explain to me how you think that if we just leave tomorrow, Iraq is going to magically fix itself into a land of unicorns and honey.

And you keep misinterpreting Kerry's position; you've done it in several posts now. He supported the authorization of force if all diplomatic options failed, but Bush went to war on Iraq early, so Kerry voted against the war when it came through the 2nd time. When he voted for the troop increase was after Bush went in with a numerically inferior force, and he realized that more troops would be needed on the ground to stabilize the country. Who, assuming our troops teleport out tomorrow, do you think is going to come in and help the Iraqis and bring order to the country? My guess is the Iranians, and you can be damned sure that I think that's a bad thing. I know you would like to see Israel and the US obliterated in nuclear flames, but frankly, I have to live here, and it's hard to teach English to 9th graders while your skin is burning off.

We should have never gone in, but once we did, we have to operate on the 'you break it, you bought it' policy. Immediate withdrawal is a pipe dream, and you can thank the neocons for that.

Quote:

---

Then there is Clinton in office. Let us run
down his crimes:

---

Clinton is not in office. You're far too left-wing to use the "B-b-b-but Clinton" argument, and it doesn't hold water with me. Get this through your head, Clinton is not President, nor is he Prime Minister of England.

But, while we're at it,

Quote:

---

1. Single most genocidal Economic Sanctions
in history. Maintained and worsened upon
the Iraq people by Clinton.

---

What made it all Clinton's fault? They were UN backed. Either the UN has power or it doesn't. You can't say how important the UN is on one hand and how unimportant it is on the other.

Quote:

---

2. . Clinton and Blair could not
stand this fact so they lied claiming that
Iraq had not complied... When

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME