The biter bit

It is rather illustrative that certain journalists – no strangers to dishing it out when the mood takes them – seem highly sensitive to criticism of their own work.

One such is The Sun's defence editor, Tom Newton Dunn. On 5 March he wrote a tolerably good piece on the mortar and rocket attacks on British bases in Iraq, spoilt in my view by his comment that "Most of the firing is from gardens or trucks in built-up areas so troops can't fire back."

This was, I suggested, Dunn repeating the Army's defeatist mantra. There was no sense, I wrote, that there were other countermeasures available or that the lack of resources represented serial incompetence on the part of successive governments, and their military advisors.

These criticisms, Mr Dunn thought, were "naïve", to which he added a further comment, declaring, "It's a little sad that you prefer your own opinions of what's happening in Basra now, rather than the actual facts gathered by someone who's actually been there."

So, Mr Dunn has been to Basra, but I then pointed out the The Sunday Telegraph story yesterday. That reported that a battery of 105mm light guns had been sent to Basra, indicating that the troops could indeed fire back, and were doing so – albeit that my point remained that there were alternatives to counter-battery fire.

Dunn's response was interesting. He did not disagree at all with the fact that the MoD's procurement record in recent years had been terrible – not that I had actually raised this with him - but he did not see why this necessarily meant he was falling for Army propaganda. "What a stupid and insulting hypothesis," he declared.

As to the issue itself – I had my "facts and figures about IDF (indirect fire) in Basra and military tactics used to counteract it so arse over tit" that he "really wouldn't know where to start," in correcting it. He continued:

By your very excitable zeal, I fear it wouldn't be really be worth me giving you a considered response either, as I seriously doubt you'd really listen to a word I say. I'm happy to leave you with the fiction that it is you after all who knows better, since luckily I'm sure almost nobody reads your blog anyway.

Ignoring the jibe, I pointed out some of the alternative measures that could be C-RAM, UAV surveillance and the use of quick reaction heli-borne assault teams, also observing that I felt it was the reluctance of the Army to use this kit was "defeatist". Again, the reply was interesting, starting with this:

How do you know that C-RAM isn't already in operation in Basra? Or UAVs and helicopter overwatch equipped with Broadsword are too? Might it be possible that we might know that, but just didn't report it to maintain operational security? Might you also consider that we knew about the 105s too, but didn't report that too for the same reasons - unlike the inaccurate and irresponsible Sunday Tel?

One warms to the comments about the Sunday Telegraph I have no doubt that, when C-RAM is finally installed in Basra Air Station, we will be told about it, and we already know that the UK operates two Predator UAVs in Iraq, and has Predator Bs on order. However, references to UAV/helicopter "overwatch" and "Broadsword" would hardly breach operational security – and the Services have been quite open about their equipment capabilities - although they would need some explaining.

What we are actually talking about (and one wonders whether Dunn actually fully understands this) are two linked systems, the first being the L-3 Wescam MX-15 electro-optical turret . This was fitted to six Nimrod MR2s (including the machine that crashed last year), to some of the Merlin helicopter fleet and to the Iraqi Air Force Sama 2000 fleet. It will also be fitted to the Future Lynx helicopter, which means, in effect, that the £360,000 Sama 2000 will be performing the same role as the £14 million Lynx.

The second part of the system is the "Broadsword" element, which is simply the capability to transmit real-time video imagery from the MX-15 to ground stations and commanders – a capability that already exists with equipment like UAVs.

As regards the surveillance capability, the manufacturers give a good indication of the performance, as indeed does the Royal Navy. Referring to recent trials of the MX-15 on the Merlin, it tells us:

In favourable conditions the MX-15 routinely enables the rear crew operator to identify surface vessels to type/class at ranges in excess of 40 nautical miles. On one occasion a small fishing vessel was identified at a range of over 70 nautical miles.

Interestingly, on the Daily Mail website is the news of another successful raid by British troops. They seized a substantial cache of bomb-making equipment and weapons after searching a house in the Al Hyyaniyah district "following information about a number of people suspected of involvement in attacks against coalition and Iraqi forces".

This follows two others executed recently here and here. When we learnt of the first of the two, we wrote that it was a "significant action",

…not least because it suggests that the British Army is not entirely without friends in the area. While, on this blog, we have tended to emphasise the hardware aspect of fighting an insurgency, the acquisition of local intelligence is just as important as having well-equipped troops. However, it could just be that the "local intelligence" came from "UAVs and helicopter overwatch equipped with Broadsword".

Nevertheless, as is typical of so many people who are far too grand to read the blog, which "almost nobody reads … anyway", we also get this from Dunn:

Can you also accept that you cannot shell built up areas such as houses and back gardens because of the likelihood of collateral damage? And if the 105s are already being used (which they are), it is only on open areas such as parks? This is what I mean by facts Richard - and I'm afraid you've just proved again that you don't know them. The way to prevent IDF is not by technology alone (a lot of which UK forces actually already have) but predominantly by intelligence-led strike operations and arrests. To say this is not at all defeatist - and it is that utterly flawed presumption that is offensive. Recognise this please.

Had Dunn written about how to deal with indirect fire in his original article, I might have written a different piece, but he did not. And anyone who has followed this blog will certainly not come away with the view that I have at any time suggested we shell built-up areas such as houses and gardens and we readily acknowledge the way to prevent indirect fire is "not by technology alone"

However, to assert that the problem will be overcome "predominantly by intelligence-led strike operations and arrests" is simply to express an opinion, notwithstanding that the intelligence may be obtained through the use of technology. However, the experience of others is different and this account of successful counter-mortar operations in the Sunni Triangle, by an American author, is well worth the study.

What Dunn could be doing, of course, is asking why the government is not doing more, why more technology is not being used and why it has not been employed earlier. He could also ask why we are spending so much on things like Future Lynx when we could field a similar capability, much quicker, at a fraction of the price. But, it seems it is much easier to rant at anyone who might question his one and only story on the issue.

COMMENT THREAD

On the road to disaster

The Times must be congratulated for its report today on the two attacks on the British Army in Basra yesterday, one on an Army convoy and the other on the Basra Palace base (pictured).

By contrast, the Telegraph devoted the bulk of its time and space to picking at the wound of the US A-10 "friendly fire" incident and, a long "soft focus" piece on the death of Second Lt Jonathan Bracho-Cooke, the last but one soldier to die in Iraq. It gave short shrift to the attack on the Land Rover, not even bothering to report the second of the attacks.

Meanwhile, Richard Beeston and Michael Evans, defence editor of The Times, were exploring the possible effects of the attacks on the hopes of bringing home thousands of troops within the next few months.

In their story, however, they also reveal that the two attacks yesterday not only left one soldier dead but ten wounded. In the attack on Basra Palace, seven troops were injured, two "very seriously", according to an official spokesman, as well as an Iraqi employee.

The Basra base, says the paper, "comes under almost daily attack, and commanders had been expecting a missile or rocket to be fired by the end of the week." The journalists add that the base is protected heavily by concrete blast walls and sandbags, adding: "It is rare for so many troops to be hurt by a single explosion."

Rare, it might be, but not that rare. Readers will recall our report on 19 January when six British soldiers had been wounded in a series of attacks against Basra Palace camp. That time the camp had come under fire three times during the night from a mixture of mortars, rockets and small arms. One soldier was said to have been seriously injured and the five others received lesser injuries.

This was subsequently raised in Parliament by Ann Winterton and again by Gerald Howarth, both of them reflecting the increasing awareness and concern that attacks on British bases are getting more frequent and more accurate. And it is these attacks which lead Beeston and Evans to conclude that the situation is so volatile that the expected troop withdrawal could be prejudiced.

Roger Beeston, in a separate article then offers a chilling account of the reality of patrolling the streets of Basra. He starts his piece, writing:

The young British soldier never saw where the shot came from. One moment he was patrolling the streets of a seemingly quiet residential neighbourhood in Basra, shaking hands with children and greeting old ladies. Locals even came up to assure his patrol that they supported the British presence and wanted them to stay. Minutes later the soldier, from The Rifles Regiment, was fighting for his life. A bullet had pierced his body armour and entered his chest…

When the troops arrived (in 2003), Beeston recalls, they could drive in relative safety through the streets in Land Rovers. Much of their work was on reconstruction and soldiers could be seen on their days off sunbathing or fishing the waters of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that runs past the two main British bases.

Now, Beeston's soldier informant had seen comrades shot, blown up by roadside bombs or forced to fight their way out of complex ambushes that can rage for two to three hours. Life, writes Beeston, has become so precarious for the British that all movement of personnel is conducted by helicopter and at night. The main palace complex, which houses soldiers and government officials, is permanently under siege from rockets and mortars. He continues:

Every building is protected by sandbags or blast-proof concrete walls. Helmets and body armour are compulsory. Diplomats are not allowed to leave the compound. Soldiers rarely venture beyond the perimeter in anything less conspicuous than a large armoured force, usually only deployed in battle. "Calling this a peacekeeping operation is ridiculous," said one officer. "This is war."

Even mundane missions are difficult, dangerous and costly. The patrol we joined, which led to the soldier being shot by a sniper, was providing protection for a small police training unit checking on an Iraqi police station. At the cost of one near fatality and the resources of dozens of troops and two helicopters, a local police commander received money to buy mattresses for his officers.

We are told by Beeston that British commanders and officials insist (on the record) that the job is worthwhile and that progress is being made in training the Iraqi security forces. This was endorsed by one of the more fatuous Telegraph reports and we get a diet of scarcely credible propaganda from the MoD, trying to reinforce that message.

But Beeston's picture of a garrison under siege only confirms the separate intelligence we have distilled from multiple sources over a considerable period (see, for instance, here, here and here).

Worryingly, we are told that the question of withdrawal timetables is the most hotly debated subject in Basra. Several soldiers in Iraq, Beeston writes, "questioned openly whether there was any point in being here at all … Most of the violence is directed at the British. If they were to withdraw, some argue, attacks would drop off immediately."

These soldiers have a point. Without an ongoing commitment to stay until stable government is installed, and without the resources and equipment to do a proper job, it is difficult to see what is being achieved by keeping the troops in Iraq, other than to give the increasingly bold insurgents some target practice.

But, without a British presence, it is almost certain that the Iranian-backed Militias would try to seize Basra and the valuable oil resources in the province. Most likely, they would succeed, thus undermining the whole of the Iraqi economy and destroying any chance the country might have of staging a sustained economic recovery.

What, therefore, seems unsustainable is the current policy of half-in, half out… maintaining a military presence but not giving the troops the tools to do an effective job. To continue in that vein, it seems to me, puts us on the road to disaster.

COMMENT THREAD

A glimmer of hope

The picture shows tent fabric after being exposed to a mortar bomb explosion in Basra. The damage doesn't look much but each hole has been made by a red-hot jagged fragment of steel, big enough to do serious harm to anyone the other side. And, in Iraq, tent fabric is all that stands between many of our soldiers and death or injury, soldiers who are exposed to a barrage of rocket and mortar fire every single day.

The nature of the damage is more obvious here, on the steel cover of an air-conditioning unit which has been "splashed" by mortar fragments. The photograph was taken on a British base last year. So common is this type of damage that soldiers scarcely take any notice of it, although the bombs remain just as deadly, their frequency is increasing and the accuracy of the insurgents is improving.

As of now, virtually every building on some of the bases is pock-marked with mortar damage. Steel and concrete however, are more forgiving than flesh - both deaths and injuries are mounting and, at the present rate it is only a matter of time before there is a major incident.

Yesterday was a light day with the Shatt Al-Arab Hotel exposed early in the morning to an attack by five mortar bombs, while the Basra Palace was attacked by six Katyusha rockets.

Fortunately, there were no injuries, but that was not the case last Thursday when six British soldiers were wounded in a series of attacks against Basra Palace camp. We asked, "Now will they do something?" after the camp had come under fire the three times from a mixture of mortars, rockets and small arms. One soldier was said to have been seriously injured and five others received lesser injuries.

Yesterday though was also the MP's turn to ask questions. Ann Winterton, Conservative MP for Congleton, was able to challenge the Secretary of State for Defence, Des Browne. Having already asked him last December if he would consider providing the anti-mortar equipment, C-RAM, she asked him whether:

In the light of the tragic incident at Basra palace camp last Thursday in which six soldiers were injured, one seriously, will the Secretary of State reconsider evaluation of the C-RAM anti-mortar system and counter battery radar, in order to give our bases in Iraq considerably better protection and a retaliatory response, given that existing, so-called "layered" protection methods are clearly not working?

Browne, who had been batting away questions from a variety of Conservative MPs, was surprisingly emollient. "I give the hon. Lady my reassurance," he said, "that we keep everything under review." He then added:

I know that the commanding officer in Basra keeps the issue of force protection constantly under review, and I will specifically ask him to advise me again on the capability that she asks about. However, I do not want to leave the House with the impression that there is no capability to counteract the indirect fire threat. There is indeed a very specific capability…

He would, he said, ensure that he was given a view on that in the light of the event that she mentioned, and would write to her.

Someone who did not fare as well was shadow defence secretary Liam Fox who, as we feared, relied on the substance of yesterday's Sunday Telegraph story for his attack, where Sean Rayment alleged that troops in Afghanistan had been denied essential equipment on cost grounds.

Such equipment as is required – beyond that normally acquired through the standard procurement process – is obtained though a procedure called the Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR). With that in mind, Liam Fox asked:

Can the Secretary of State tell us how many urgent operational requirements have been made of the Ministry of Defence in the past year from Afghanistan, and how many have been turned down?

Here, Browne was adamant. "All urgent operational requirements that have been approved by the chain of command have been acceded to," he said:

That is entirely as it should be, and the process of urgent operational requirements has been approved and commented upon favourably by independent investigations on a number of occasions. Contrary to media speculation over the weekend, no such requirements have been turned down on financial grounds. Indeed, over the past couple of years more than half a billion pounds have been invested in urgent operational requirements in relation to supporting our troops in both theatres. It is part of the nature of urgent operational requirements that they continually come forward and are approved.

One thing the Fox did do, though was refer to the Apache "rescue" and (rightly) point out that the Army needed a smaller helicopter. Browne's answer was odd. An alternative helicopter was available, he said, and could have been made available, but a tactical decision was made by the commandos to deploy the Apache in this particular way. This simply does not compute and, I suspect, we will be returning to this issue.

As to helicopters in general though, Browne referred to Brigadier Jerry Thomas, the commander of British Forces in Afghanistan who had stated: "I have not asked for additional helicopters and the supply system is working well, with no soldiers or marines running out of supplies." After a brief homily about the difficulty in buying these machines, he then delivered the coup de grâce, staring down Fox with the words:

Let me also say to him that there is no truth in the suggestion that urgent operational requirements in relation to night-vision goggles were turned down for financial reasons, as was reported in the press.

Although the helicopter question was good, Fox is going to need to know more about why the top brass are so reluctant to demand more machines before he is able to dent Browne. And dent Browne, he was unable to do. Relying on flawed information, he left himself wide open to attack, with no comeback. As expected, Browne exploited the opening and the game was over.

However, at least, through Ann Winterton, Browne is looking seriously at force protection. He now knows his card is marked in that, if there is a disaster in the future, he can be held directly and personally responsible. In that, there is a glimmer of hope that we might save some lives. It is only a glimmer, mind you. And imagine how quickly action would be taken if the Houses of Parliament were being mortared each day and the MPs had to sleep in unprotected tents in Palace Yard.

COMMENT THREAD