British see Army bruised by Iraq

When 18,000 British troops took control of southern Iraq after the 2003 invasion, they did so with a formidable reputation enhanced by successful recent interventions in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan.

Four years later, as the Army marks the beginning of the end of British involvement in Iraq by withdrawing from Basra to a final staging post at the airport, it is a very different institution. Serving and former officers say the campaign has:

•stretched the Army close to the breaking point, particularly because of its large commitment in Afghanistan;

•sowed mistrust of government because of the dubious casus belli;

•strained the covenant between state and military, under which soldiers expect to be properly looked after in return for active service;

•raised real questions as to whether the British Army can, with current levels of investment and manpower, take on the kind of foreign policy roles that government has ascribed to it.

"These are unique times for the British Army – we have not had this level of operational tempo and casualties since the 1950s," says one Army officer familiar with the situation. "Yes, there is overstretch. Yes, we can manage it. But the longer it goes on, the greater the likelihood that we reach breaking point."

"It's getting towards crisis-management," adds the officer, who spoke frankly but on condition of anonymity. "How much longer it is going to be manageable like this is difficult to say."

The officer was echoing sentiments repeatedly expressed by his Army chief, Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, who warned recently that Britain needed a durable Army and not one "that expended itself in the middle of the current decade."

Survey: Public says Britain is losing

Britain's four-year effort in shoring up security in four southern Iraqi provinces has come at a steep price. Thus far, 168 troops have been killed, at a pro rata tempo matching the US death toll.

Equally uncomfortable is the domestic perception that the occupation has done more harm than good – that the deaths have essentially been in vain.

A BBC survey published Monday found that two-thirds of the public think British troops are losing the war in Iraq, while 42 percent felt the remaining 5,500 troops at Basra airport should be withdrawn as soon as possible. Only 20 percent thought they were making the security situation in southern Iraq better.

Officers say there is a feeling among frontline troops that the public at home has forgotten about them, their sacrifice, and the war. Lance Cpl. Leigh Pool told the Independent: "What makes me a bit angry is there have been soldiers dying out here and people, and there is so little notice taken back at home. It seems people have forgotten about the Iraq war."

Rose Gentle, whose son Gordon was killed in Iraq in 2004, says: "People haven't forgotten the Army. They are proud of their Army. But they think they should never have been sent to this war."

Where Iraq differs from other dangerous Army campaigns in recent years, including the Falklands, Northern Ireland, and Afghanistan, is that a sizable preponderance of officers are thought to feel the same way.

"Like most of the rest of the country, we feel we were lied to," says the Army officer, adding that this has strained the symbiotic relationship between state and military. That relationship has been further undermined by a strong feeling in the Army that soldiers are not being cared for properly. A so-called "covenant" holds that soldiers put their lives at risk and in return expect to benefit from decent housing, proper medical treatment, support for their families, and other preferential terms.

"The covenant is under terrible strain," says Maj. Charles Heyman, a former Army officer and now editor of Armed Forces of the UK, an annual. Pay is uncompetitive; some housing stock is in parlous condition. But even worse, he says, is the treatment of the wounded.

Page: 1 | 2