Dueling reports from The Times and The Guardian disagree on whether the British struck a deal with the Mahdi Army that prevented them from assisting in the Iraqi Army's offensive in Basra earlier this year. The Times:
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. Hundreds of militiamen were killed or arrested in the fighting. About 60 Iraqis were killed or injured.There are a couple of reasons to be immediately suspicious of this account; in claiming that the Mahdi Army is "Iranian-backed" it fails to note that the Iraqi Army is also Iranian-backed. Also, I have to wonder how "hundreds of militiamen" were killed, but only 60 Iraqis; is The Times suggesting that the dead militiamen were foreign fighters, or are those killed by the Iraqi government by definition not Iraqi? Anyway, here's The Guardian:
British defence officials today denied reports that a secret deal between Britain and the Shia militia the Mahdi army prevented UK forces from taking part in a major offensive in Basra earlier this year. Officials in the Ministry of Defence today confirmed the existence of an "accommodation" between British forces and leaders of Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, first reported in the Guardian last year.This isn't the strongest denial I've ever seen. British forces may not have been asked because knowledge of the accommodation was common, and while it's true that American forces worked with the Iraqi Army, it was the Iraqis, rather than the Americans, who provided the spearhead of the operation. Further assistance was provided by Americans after the operation bogged down.However, referring to a report in the Times, they dismissed as "absolute nonsense" any link between the deal and the fact that British troops did not take part in the early stages of the Charge of the Knights offensive in March. An official said: "The reason [why UK forces were not deployed initially on the ground] was, we were simply not asked. The reason we were not asked was because [the Iraqi prime minister] Nouri al-Maliki's own credibility was on the line. "The only reason the Americans were involved was because they were with the Iraqi units."
Not, in any case, a glorious day for the British Army. Via SWJ.
--Robert Farley
