# Cracks in the coalition? Leaked memo reveals Downing Street misgivings of US tactics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711 "2004-05-23T23:59:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/1 "2004-05-23T23:59:32Z")
[From here](http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=587672004) > [@](#): > > THE FIRST cracks in Britain’s coalition with the United States over the occupation of Iraq were exposed last night by a leaked government memo which revealed deep misgivings about America’s “heavy-handed” tactics in the war-torn country. > > The damning document, produced by a team working for Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, disclosed private reservations within Tony Blair’s administration about Washington’s approach to the post-war occupation. > > \ > > The revelations shatter the government’s long-held insistence that there are no differences between Downing Street and the White House over Iraq. > > The six-page memo suggests that the US tactics have particularly damaged support among ordinary Iraqis and stirred up much of the unrest which has exploded into violence in recent months. > > And, in a startling admission, it also declares that the “scandal” over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners in Coalition-run jails has damaged the “moral authority” of Britain and the US as they struggle to justify their decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial regime. > > “We should not underestimate the present difficulties,” the document states, in a section headed ‘Problems’. “Heavy-handed US military tactics in Fallujah and Najaf some weeks ago have fuelled both Sunni and Shi’ite opposition to the Coalition and lost us much public support inside Iraq.” So how long will it be before the UK begins to distance itself from the train wreck in Iraq? How long will it be before Blair finally tires of getting screwed by Bush? Is it possible that Blair might eventually cut his losses and withdraw his troops and support from the “Coalition of the willing,” leaving Bush and the US to pull their own bus out of the ditch they drove it into? Or will Blair simply brush off this memo, spew a few platitudes with that trembling, oh so heartfelt manner that he has, and continue to play the loyal lapdog? The opinions of UK Dopers are especially welcome here. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/2 "2004-05-24T00:07:23Z")
I don’t know when of if this event breathless awaited will happen. My only question is: Do you REALLY want this to happen, DtC? Is your hatred of Bush so much that you’d await in joyful hope for the disintigration of the relationship between Great Britian and the US over Iraq? It will be a sad day if the US alienates the British to the point they also withdraw from Iraq…a sad day for the US, a sad day for the British, and a sad day for whats left of Iraq. Unless of course you think it will be a good thing for the US to stand alone in Iraq… Maybe you don’t intend to sound gleeful (or hopeful) about this, or maybe I’m misreading your take on it…but there is nothing at all to be happy about if this happens. Flame on…I’m sure I have it coming. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/3 "2004-05-24T00:45:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t know when of if this event breathless awaited will happen. My only question is: Do you REALLY want this to happen, DtC? Is your hatred of Bush so much that you’d await in joyful hope for the disintigration of the relationship between Great Britian and the US over Iraq? It will be a sad day if the US alienates the British to the point they also withdraw from Iraq…a sad day for the US, a sad day for the British, and a sad day for whats left of Iraq. Unless of course you think it will be a good thing for the US to stand alone in Iraq… > > Maybe you don’t intend to sound gleeful (or hopeful) about this, or maybe I’m misreading your take on it…but there is nothing at all to be happy about if this happens. > > Flame on…I’m sure I have it coming. > > -XT I think that Blair was wrong to ever join the “coalition” or offer any support to the US for this war in the first place. Just because we are in the wrong does not mean that the UK has any obligation to be wrong with us, nor should I lament the emergence of a conscience or common sense by the UK even at this late date. I also don’t equate Downing Street’s disillusionment with Bush as a “disintegration” of US/UK relations. Bush != America. It’s Bush they they don’t like, not the US as a country. Once Bush is gone, I think relations would be just fine, but I wouldn’t blame Britain for taking a walk for awhile until the US can get rid of the chimp at the steering wheel. Lastly, if the UK is driven away from the coalition by the arrogance, incompetence and misplaced hubris of Bush and his neocons then put the blame where it goes- on the chimp. I don’t want to lose the UK as an ally (and really, I don’t think we will) but I wouldn’t blame them if they pulled out of Iraq. They’ve been dicked around and shed enough blood and lost enough money as it is. They have nothing to gain by staying and only more lives, money and moral credibility to lose. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/4 "2004-05-24T00:47:36Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t know when of if this event breathless awaited will happen. My only question is: Do you REALLY want this to happen, DtC? Is your hatred of Bush so much that you’d await in joyful hope for the disintigration of the relationship between Great Britian and the US over Iraq? It will be a sad day if the US alienates the British to the point they also withdraw from Iraq…a sad day for the US, a sad day for the British, and a sad day for whats left of Iraq. Unless of course you think it will be a good thing for the US to stand alone in Iraq… > > Maybe you don’t intend to sound gleeful (or hopeful) about this, or maybe I’m misreading your take on it…but there is nothing at all to be happy about if this happens. > > Flame on…I’m sure I have it coming. > > -XT I don’t think Diogenes needs to hope for anything nor does anyone else. GW’s well demonstrated incompetence to run things, as exemplified by his oil business ventures, will insure that the administration will continue to fuck up while the Candide at its head goes happily on raising money for his reelection. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/5 "2004-05-24T01:17:17Z")
More on this from the [Independent](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=523993): > [@](#): > > **’Spray and slay’: are American troops out of control in Iraq?** > > “The British military tends to have far more open dealings with the local population than the Americans,” said Christopher Bellamy, professor of military science at Cranfield University. “While the British rely more on local intelligence to warn them of trouble in advance, US forces have a ‘stand-off’ posture, which means trouble tends to erupt without warning. As a result they need to deliver enormous amounts of firepower to overcome it.” > > Eleanor Goldsworthy, UK forces specialist at the Royal United Services Institute, said the approach taken by British forces in Iraq was: “If we behave, we earn their goodwill.” The American attitude, by contrast, was: “If they behave, they earn our goodwill.” And if they don’t, others might add, US forces will punish them - the policy that appeared to be adopted when the Marines moved on Fallujah last month in the wake of the deaths of four American private security men. > > The insistence of the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, on a “war lite” policy, said Professor Bellamy, meant that “American forces have to make up in firepower what they lack in manpower”. Because US soldiers specialised early in their careers, and received less overall training than their British counterparts, the majority were not effective combat troops, and had to be protected by those with the appropriate training. > > “The philosophy is almost that of the wagon train, and tends to lead to the ‘spray and slay’ behaviour we have seen,” said the analyst. > > “It is hard to over-estimate the lack of awareness of most American soldiers in Iraq,” said a military source. “Many, perhaps most, have never been abroad before. They see their mission as giving democracy to the Iraqis and enforcing stability, and find it very difficult to understand why the Iraqis aren’t grateful. They have no idea that they are seen as arrogant and aggressive.” > > In the view of British forces, the source added, such attitudes had led to a succession of “fundamental mistakes”, and had made senior officers extremely hostile to being put under American command. This is one of the options reported to be under consideration by Downing Street this weekend as the deployment of more British forces is weighed. > > The US wants Britain to take over from the departed Spanish contingent in the Shia holy cities of Najaf and Karbala, where American firepower is being deployed against militias loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric declared an outlaw by Washington. > > “Seeking to adopt normal low-profile British tactics in the wake of American aggressiveness would be difficult enough,” said the military source, “but to have to go in under US operational command would be a disaster.” ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/6 "2004-05-24T03:43:01Z")
**UK insists it will boycott trial if Saddam faces death penalty** [Another issue](http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=524014)straining US/UK relations: > [@](#): > > Britain’s near-total support for the United States’ policy in Iraq is about to break down over the question of whether Saddam Hussein and other senior members of the Baath party should face execution. > > The Government’s legal advisers are also grappling with the intractable legal dilemma of what to do with former high-ranking officials now held in British-run jails. > > This is one of many unresolved problems about the handover to an Iraqi administration which is causing friction between London and Washington. In private, Foreign Office officials have been driven to despair by the failure of the Americans to plan for the 30 June handover. > > Government policy and the European Convention on Human Rights lay down that the British cannot hand the prisoners over if there is any risk of them being executed. The death penalty has been suspended in Iraq, on British insistence, but is expected to be reintroduced. > > The problem is so sensitive that the Foreign Office is refusing to say which former Baath leaders are now in British-run jails, or what they are accused of. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/7 "2004-05-24T16:30:09Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Do you REALLY want this to happen, DtC? Is your hatred of Bush so much that you’d await in joyful hope for the disintigration of the relationship between Great Britian and the US over Iraq? I rarely agree with **DtC** on political issues, but I think you’re reading \*\*WAY \*\* too much into his OP. I didn’t see any hint that he was joyfully looking for a break-up between the US and the UK. Having said that, Bush got us into this war pretty much on our own. If the Brits cut and run, it shouldn’t be too big a surprise. And only a narrow minded fool (no reference to **XT** here) would consider that to be the end of the US/UK alliance. Hell, we still cooperate with France where it matters and where we can both agree on policy, so I think the US/UK relationship will survive even that big a bump in the road. Iraq was huge gamble for Bush (and his cabinet members). And even though the UK is our largest ally in this adventure by far, they still represent a small minority of the military force in that country. They succeed or fail almost entirely on the performance of the US. To the extent that we muck things up, I wouldn’t blame them one bit for getting the hell out of there. I pitty the Iraqi people, as they are the ones who will suffer the most. But in the end, the UK must make their own decision about what is in the best interest of their country. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/8 "2004-05-24T16:49:52Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I rarely agree with DtC on political issues, but I think you’re reading WAY too much into his OP. I didn’t see any hint that he was joyfully looking for a break-up between the US and the UK. > [@David Simmons](#): > > I don’t think Diogenes needs to hope for anything nor does anyone else. GW’s well demonstrated incompetence to run things, as exemplified by his oil business ventures, will insure that the administration will continue to fuck up while the Candide at its head goes happily on raising money for his reelection. Seems I owe DtC an appology. I certainly seem to be way off base in my reading of the OP…and on re-reading it again I have to admit I was wrong. > [@DtC](#): > > I also don’t equate Downing Street’s disillusionment with Bush as a “disintegration” of US/UK relations. Bush != America. It’s Bush they they don’t like, not the US as a country. Once Bush is gone, I think relations would be just fine, but I wouldn’t blame Britain for taking a walk for awhile until the US can get rid of the chimp at the steering wheel. I don’t equate the two either. However, I think it would be fairly tragic for both the US and Iraq to have the British pull out (I conceed that it might be a GOOD thing for the British though). However, I also think they have to do what they think is best for them. My point in my first post is this isn’t an event to be savored or to be happy about. However, I don’t think you WERE saying that now, so I was wrong in my tone. > [@John Mace](#): > > Having said that, Bush got us into this war pretty much on our own. If the Brits cut and run, it shouldn’t be too big a surprise. And only a narrow minded fool (no reference to XT here) would consider that to be the end of the US/UK alliance. Hell, we still cooperate with France where it matters and where we can both agree on policy, so I think the US/UK relationship will survive even that big a bump in the road. Well, I certainly CAN be a narrow minded fool at times, John (though I realize you made a point of saying that wasn’t refered towards me). However, no…I don’t think that the British pulling out would have any long term effects on our relationship with GB. Its simply too close of a relationship for that to happen. The biggest effect would be that the US would probably stand alone in Iraq. I don’t think that would be a good thing for either the US OR for Iraq, and I think that the probability of some kind of stable Iraq emerging from the chaos would sink even further than it already is if the British pulled out. Its not the number of troops that matters…the British bring a lot more than that to the table. If they pull out, so will whoever is left at that point of the coalition. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Frankenstein\_Monster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ccd318/32.png) [@Frankenstein\_Monster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frankenstein_Monster)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/9 "2004-05-24T17:12:50Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Maybe you don’t intend to sound gleeful (or hopeful) about this, or maybe I’m misreading your take on it…but there is nothing at all to be happy about if this happens. _I_ would be very happy to see a U.K pullback from the coalition. Not because I want to see a disintigration of the relationship between Great Britain and the US, but because the U.S. foreign policy that has led to the current situation can’t be discredited enough. This must be a lesson remembered for a long time. For all time. I think the relationship would be patched up in no time once a better foreign policy were enacted. However, I think the _likelihood_ of a U.K. pullback is very remote at this time. Just my guess, but these stories have been circulating for quite some time now, without any visible effect yet. (too lazy for cite…) ---
**Author:** ![Stanislaus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stanislaus/32/3391_2.png) [@Stanislaus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stanislaus)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/10 "2004-05-24T17:17:42Z")
I think that the chances of Blair publicly distancing himself/the UK (and to him, that does appear to be a distinction without a difference) from Bush before the US election are slim to none. Blair has more or less nailed his colours to the mast on the whole Iraq issue, in the face of, e.g., Britain’s largest ever public protest, near-rebellion from his own party and steadily falling personal popularity rates. We have local and European elections coming up in the next three weeks, and it’s seen as a safe bet that Labour will be punished hard over the Iraq issue (which of course has nothing to do with either European or local elections) not least by the Muslim vote, which I believe tends to favour Labour otherwise. Despite all of this, Blair remains steadfast in his “shoulder to shoulder” stance with Bush. He’s publicly stated that he has “no reverse gear” - albeit about a referendum on the European constution. He has since caved in on that issue, but the basic point is that he will go to great lengths to avoid admitting that his policies might be wrong. In this case, riding out to November makes sense, because he might get lucky and see Kerry elected, in which case he can a) expect a policy change on Iraq, b) certainly win a further grace period while he waits for one and c) claim that the slate is wiped clean. The contrast between the public’s attitude to Blair’s policies and his bullish response is so great that rumours have been flying wildly around concerning an internal putsch, with some more fanciful commentators openly wondering if Blair will be around by Labour’s autumn conference, and others more phlegmatically predicting a January exit (e.g. post Iraqi elections). I’m not convinced how likely this is, but it’s certainly true that Blair is not the shining electoral asset he was a few years ago. In any case, the best chance for a UK government statement distancing us from the US is Blair being replaced as leader. Who by remains a somewhat open question, although Chancellor Gordon Brown is the firm favourite (and indeed there are rumours of a long-standing deal between Blair and Brown to this effect). Brown has, in my view, been astonishingly careful to keep his views on Iraq to himself, so it’s difficult to predict what line he’ll take. Having written that eminently challengable screed, I’m afraid I have to dash, but I’ll be back tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cracks-in-the-coalition-leaked-memo-reveals-downing-street-misgivings-of-us-tactics/246711/11 "2004-05-24T17:29:02Z")
I can’t see this happening while Blair is in charge. He’s in too deep to pull back with any shred of authority left. So far British casualties are tolerable and there aren’t too many overt grumblers. Privately many in the Labour Party always were extremely unhappy about taking part in Dubya’s War, but while a quick cheap victory beckoned they were prepared to keep quiet. Privately, many in the British military are scathing about the inadequacies of the U.S. military in Iraq. One who recently returned said to me last weekend, “A huge, horrible mess. They’ve got absolutely no idea what they’re doing.”